PJ Online | PJ Letters: Modernisation

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

	The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 270 No 7254 p858-859 21 June 2003	This page Reprint Photocopy
		PDF* 85K

Letters

  Modernisation
  The Profession
  The Charter
  Drug tariff
  BNF
  Rural alliance

Letters to the Editor

* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

Modernisation

Must ensure democratic tools continue to exist

An opportunity to move forward

Must ensure democratic tools continue to exist

From Mr I. M. W. Caldwell, FRPharmS

As one speaker at the annual general meeting almost got round to telling us, the draft Charter is possibly the most undemocratic document ever penned in this country. In any organisation, be it AstraZeneca or the local golf club, the members have the right to attend an AGM and to receive, endorse or reject the actions of the ruling body. We, the members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, enjoy that right at present — it disappears in the draft Charter. Certainly there is provision for general meetings but no requirement for stated frequency.

Much more serious is the complete disappearance of the right of members to call special general meetings and the consequent disenfranchisement of the members since these are the vehicles by which the members can call into question a contentious decision of Council or can drive forward specific professional developments. The SGM is replaced by a "special resolution" of Council, which has to be submitted to general meetings of the Society and which, to be effective, must be endorsed by two-thirds of the members present rather than the 75 per cent approval required by the current regulations for changes to the existing Charter. SGMs have been a sparingly used right in the past, albeit that the numerical hurdle of signatories required to call such a meeting may currently be set too low, but that is no reason to abolish them.

The current Charter enshrines the posts of president, vice-president and treasurer, and there is no apparent reason why these positions are not defined within the draft Charter. Given the proposed composition of a future Council it is essential to state that these officers shall not only continue to exist but that they shall only be held by pharmacists.

Much has been made of the concept that a new Charter is an enabling document, however this draft ignores the essential fact that democracy and improved organisation can and should exist side by side. The removal of existing rights is not an attractive prospect. It is up to coming generations of members to consider their professional requirements and their duties, and for them to use the mechanisms for change built into a new Charter in order to adapt to the needs of their time. It is up to the current generation to make certain that the democratic tools continue to exist to enable their successors to progress and evolve.

Ian Caldwell
Larkhall, Lanarkshire

Ann Lewis, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

There is no intention to discontinue annual general meetings of the Society, or to remove the power to hold special general meetings at the instigation of the Council or that of a group of members.

In principle, a Charter should not be used to address points that could be covered in regulations or byelaws. Article 5 of the draft Charter provides for general meetings to be held. The detailed provisions for AGMs and SGMs would be set out in the Society's regulations. It is worth pointing out that, although the current Charter specifies that AGMs shall be held, it does not include the power of members to require that an SGM be convened: this appears in the regulations made under the Charter.

The "Special Resolution" referred to in the draft Charter is a separate provision, setting out the procedure to be followed in specific circumstances. Again, this would not preclude provision being made for an SGM to be called by a group of members.

Similarly, the draft new Charter provides power for the Council to appoint Officers of the Society. It would seem unwise to restrict this power to specific posts. For example, it has been suggested that it might be helpful for the Society to have two vice-presidents, to assist with the presidential workload. Currently, it would not be possible to introduce such a change without changing the Charter.

An opportunity to move forward

From Mr A. R. Cox, MRPharmS

In May 2001 the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's annual general meeting was told that the Society's modernisation process would address regulatory reform and introduce sweeping changes to its existing regulatory structure. After two years the Society has seen its plans overwhelmingly rejected by the membership and its credibility must be at an all time low with key stakeholders, including both the Government and its own members.

The Society's communication with the membership has been extremely poor, but this has not resulted in the membership misunderstanding their plans. In fact, the modernisation plans have become more unpopular, rather than less, as the membership has learned more. The focus on becoming a pure regulator (even in the modern sense of regulation) is not welcomed by the membership, which wishes to retain a representative membership function.

Concerns about the modernisation process were even made in the Council Chamber in June 2002 (PJ, 29 June 2002, pp927–30) when Andrew Burr complained that "it was totally unacceptable for Council members to have no opportunity for input into the steering group's discussion papers" and that the way "the steering group was operating was not necessarily in the profession's long-term interests." Other Council members, such as Linda Stone, Gordon Appelbe and Hassan Argomandkhah supported this view. Even a Privy Council appointee, Michael Schofield agreed saying "the membership were being led towards a particular conclusion".

No wonder this was a view commonly held by those at the SGM.

The preference for opaque consultation exercises, rather than using the democratic processes of the Society, shows that those pushing the current modernisation agenda realise they have no popular support.

So what should we do now as a profession? One point we can all take comfort in is that the SGM showed that the membership do want reform of our Society and have a clear understanding of the issues involved. All are agreed that changes are required to the regulatory aspects of our Society. This is something on which to build.

If the Society is to regain trust from the membership and rescue some credibility from other stakeholders, it must act decisively. There is an opportunity to move forward with the agreement of the majority of the profession, using the two-board model the SGM endorsed. A failure to engage seriously with members' concerns and wishes at this point will serve no-one, least of all the public.

Anthony Cox
Birmingham

ANN LEWIS, Secretary and Registrar, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, writes:

It was announced at the Society's annual general meeting in May 2002 (not 2001) that the Council had decided that the Society should retain both its regulatory and professional roles within a reformed structure. This option was supported by 70 per cent of pharmacists responding to the consultation on the Society's future remit.

At that same meeting, the Council stated that the Society's professional development role encompassed activities such as the Society's local network, aspects of research, support for clinical governance and guidance on good clinical practice, public health and developing the profession's role for the future. The Council also recognised the importance of the Society's representative role, promoting the profession's contribution to health care to government and other health policy decision-makers.

At no stage has the Council suggested that the Society should give up, or even reduce, its commitment to professional leadership, development and advocacy. On the contrary, the Council reaffirmed only this month (PJ, 14 June, p841) that the Society should be the integrated professional and regulatory body for pharmacy and that it should be equally effective in both aspects. This is what the Council is working to achieve.

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (The Profession)