The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7280 p839-840
20/27 December 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 75K

  Modernisation
  MHRA leaflet
  Aqueous cream
  CPD
  Ramipril
  Community pharmacy
  Fellowships
  Top-up fees
  Product names

Letters to the Editor

Modernisation

How ironic!

From Mr A. R. Cox, MRPharmS

I cannot be alone in noting the irony of receiving a letter from the President, informing me about the submission of a new Charter, enclosed within a Electoral Reform Services envelope. At the last special general meeting a motion calling for a referendum on any proposed new Charter was carried unanimously, yet this was ignored by the Council. Next time the Society calls upon the Electoral Reform Services, let us hope that it is because it is required for its usual activity of counting votes.

Anthony Cox
Honorary Auditor
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Lambeth chequers championship

From Mr H. Argomandkhah, MRPharmS

May I start by congratulating you upon your comprehensive coverage of the debate at the last meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council (PJ, 13 December, p819–25). However, unless you were aware of this trick (I used to call it the Lambeth chequers), you would not have identified it for what it was. Allow me to explain. I was present for part of the Council meeting (Tuesday afternoon), observing from the back while holding a box of over 1,000 members’ signatures supporting a referendum on the final Charter document.

The rules of “Lambeth chequers” are as follows:

1. Identify the awkward subject you wish ratified.

2. Get everyone together (Monday’s strategy day) with an external expert (Robert Bulling).

3. Get a general consensus (19 out of 24) over a new form of words (“to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and the interests of pharmacists in the exercise of their profession”).

4. Spread the rumour before the meeting that you have thrashed out a solution to the main difficulty.

5. Ten minutes before the start of the meeting produce a totally unacceptable form of words that was not discussed or agreed when the consensus was reached (“to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness and interests of the profession of pharmacy and to support pharmacists in the exercise of their profession”).

6. Try to sell it by explaining that the expert was not there when the consensus was reached, and hope you can get away with it.

7. If someone spots that, actually, he was (Mr Alexander and Mr Wicks), explain that he had not been at the close of the meeting, and upon reflecting on the earlier form of words (3), he no longer thinks that they are suitable. Hence the officers’ proposed new wording (5).

8. Resist any sensible proposal for lack of time to reflect on the new form of words, remembering that it had taken an entire day to reach consensus on the form you do not want.

9. If resistance becomes unruly, put this item on hold and get the Council to agree the rest of the document word by word and postpone the decision on the new form of words until last.

10. Once all the other items are agreed, have a tea break.

11. During the tea break get a seemingly neutral member (Clive Jackson) to produce another new form of words similar to yours (“to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the effectiveness of the profession of pharmacy and to support the professional interests of pharmacists”).

12. Inform the Council members that, while they were enjoying their tea break, the expert (Robert Bulling) was contacted and he not only liked but approved the latest new form of words (11).

13. Restart the debate on the final form of words (11) knowing that you are pressed for time and must make a decision.

14. Totally resist any motion to refer back, and stick to your guns to get a decision.

15. Allow the opposition to go in first, followed by a line up of all your supporters to the latest new form of words.

16. Put the motion to vote.

17. You have won (17 to 7).

18. Tidy up all the loose ends and collect other winning votes (16 to 6), (16 to 5) and (16 to 5) (PJ, 13 December, p822).

Congratulations, you are now the new “Lambeth chequers” master. If the issues here were not so important to the future of our professional body you could almost laugh at the entire episode.

By petitioning the Privy Council without the full approval of the membership, the Council is acting outside the current Charter, which governs its current existence, and as such is acting ultra vires. If the Council is then pursued in a court of law, it will not and should not enjoy the protection of the current Charter and individual members of Council may be personally responsible. Unfortunately, although this point was mentioned by Sultan Dajani, his advice fell on deaf ears.

The saddest part of this whole episode is that the Council would have moved forward with wide support had it stuck to the first form of words (3) and not engaged in the “all manner of tricks” described. I will leave others to judge what this says for governance at Lambeth.

The Society may have ignored the membership for one last time, but the Save Our Society campaigners may also have a few “tricks” up their sleeves.

Hassan Argomandkhah
Liverpool

Stripping away the wrapping

From Mr D. Simpson, FRPharmS

Whichever way you want to wrap it (PJ, 13 December, p800), there is a strong element in the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society that wants to be rid of the Charter object of promoting the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy. This despite the fact that the Code of Conduct for Council members requires them to fulfill the Charter objects, and also the fact that members, at the special general meeting in June (PJ, 7 June, p807), voted overwhelmingly for the object to be retained. The Council members who back the Save Our Society campaign believe that the attenuated wording that the Council eventually came up with — “support the professional interests of pharmacists” — was unacceptable and voted against it. In doing so, incidentally, they complied with the Code of Conduct.

Douglas Simpson
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Is this the year of arrogance?

From Mr L. David, MRPharmS

Is this the year of arrogance? First, the Government is trying to decide the make-up of our Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council. Secondly, the Council is attempting to deny us freedom of speech and democracy: the former regarding advice given if we do not continue with continuing professional development, and the latter regarding the Charter.

May I suggest that members supply the Council with a version of the Sword of Damocles. I suggest that all members send in to the Registrar an undated letter of resignation from the Society. This will give the Council sufficient clout to tell the Government that we are a professional body who should be properly recognised and not interfered with. In addition, it should remind the Council that it should respect and follow the wishes of the members and not be autocratic.

Leo David
Hounslow, Middlesex

Negates the image of a modern profession

From Mr A. Watson, MRPharmS

Up in our little remote corner, there is a weekly paper (the Ross-shire Journal), which features a couple of columns entitled 88 and 44 years ago. Usually in this section, there is a report on some fête, prize-giving or sale of work, etc, where some local minor member of the ruling class had “graciously consented” to open the event. How we laugh at this sycophantic style of reporting and recognise that in those days how the local peasantry was expected to jump smartly into the gutter when one of the local toffs appeared, at the same time of course smartly removing one’s bunnet!

We rejoice that such “cap in hand” presentation is no longer relevant in today’s brave new world — sadly not quite the case apparently. I am no longer involved in the practice of pharmacy and therefore have little interest in the merits or otherwise of this new Charter. What does disappoint me, however, is to see such archaic, stylised language in the petition. It may be the recognised way of presenting such a document but it rather negates the image of a modern profession in the 21st century.

Tony Watson
Fearn, Ross-shire

Qualified for the World Inane Metaphor Cup

From Mr P. B. Lowe, MRPharmS

I know we are all tremendously excited by the President’s prediction in her letter to all members that a new Charter will make the Royal Pharmaceutical Society a “world-class profession”. No breath can now be unbated until we achieve our inevitable (and belated) victory over Germany on penalties. And Jonny Wilkinson will be forgotten as euphoric crowds cheer the Council heading for Buck House on an open-topped bus. Next year, who can stop us? We have qualified for the finals of the World Inane Metaphor Cup.

Peter Lowe
Newcastle Upon Tyne

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (MHRA leaflet)