AGM narrowly carries motion against proposed Charter
Mark Walker: the Council has disregarded members’ wishes |
The annual general meeting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society on 12 May carried by a narrow majority a motion seeking to petition the Queen to reject the Council’s proposed new Charter.
The meeting passed by 56 votes to 54 a motion from Mark Walker (Oxford)
seeking its approval for a petition to the Queen asking her to reject
the Council’s petition for a new Charter and any other petitions
submitted without the consent of the Society’s members.
Before inviting Mr Walker to put his motion, the President, Gill Hawksworth,
reminded the meeting that the official
closing date for counter-petitions against the Council’s petition
had passed in January. Any such counter-petition would therefore appear
to be well out of time.
She also said that, because the Council’s petition was the subject
of imminent proceedings in the High Court, it could be prejudicial for
anyone connected with those proceedings to participate in the debate.
Mr Walker stated that he was saddened that 13 elected members of Council
had forced him to put his motion before the AGM. In June 2003, a special
general meeting passed a motion following which he fully expected the
Council to gain members’ approval for its controversial change
to the Society. But in December 2003 the Council petitioned the Queen
for a new supplemental Charter without members’ approval. That
action was contrary to the guidance on the Privy Council website, which
included the words: “The petition should state the authority (eg,
resolution of a meeting of members) under which it is submitted.”
He and others exercised their democratic right and lodged a counter-petition
with the Privy Council. Then the Save Our Society group launched a High
Court action and the Privy Council suspended consideration of the Council’s
petition.
He was saddened that the Council had disregarded members’ wishes
and landed the profession in the courts. He understood why some members
find the court action distasteful, but what else could be done, as the
Council had completely disregarded members’ wishes?
Mr Walker then went one by one through the clauses of his proposed
counter-petition (PJ, 8 May, p592), which asked the Queen to give ordinary members their
democratic rights. It informed the Queen that members had not agreed
to the Council’s petition and asked her to reject the petition
immediately. It emphasised the key point that there should be no change
to the Charter until the members requested it.
Christina Lowe (Morgannwg), seconding the motion, said that the Charter
was not a matter for the Council; it was a matter for the members. The
Council’s proposal would weaken the Society. She did not believe
the Byelaws could mitigate all of the problems. It was important that
the members had the opportunity to give authority to the Charter.
Colin Ranshaw (Cardiff) said that the motion was misguided. On the Society’s
website was a list of Charter roadshows, branch meetings, presentations
and consultations, which demonstrated clearly that the Council was guided
by the membership. The correct processes had been followed.
Council members were not delegates. They were elected to represent members
to the best of their ability, having been apprised of all the facts and
information. That was democracy. It often required hard decisions, with
a lot of heart-searching in the process. The Council had shown strong
leadership in making its decisions, some of which he personally disagreed
with. Whether those decisions were right or wrong, only history would
judge. Progress required change and change would not always be pain free.
If the motion was passed, it would be a vote of no confidence against
Council members who had followed the democratic principle and process.
It would also be a vote of no confidence against him and other members
who had voted for those Council members to represent them. He urged members
to throw the motion out. It was time to stop the mischief and move on.
Anthony Cox (Birmingham) disagreed with Mr Ranshaw over the Council’s
consultation. A consultation was not a democratic process unless there
was a vote at the end. The point was that the rules of the Charter suggested
they should put the vote to the membership. Having had this huge consultation
that supposedly the membership agreed with, the Council should have put
the proposed Charter to the membership and let it stand or fall.
Mike Burden (Leicester) said that supporting the motion would undo a
huge amount of constructive and productive work. The Council was trying
to carry forward an agreed proposal to look for a powerful regulatory
body linked to a powerful professional body. It was at a point where
that result had almost been reached. Voting for the motion would put
pharmacy back 15 to 20 years, when nobody really took pharmacists seriously
or believed they could join in progress towards a better health professional
society.
Gavin Miller (West London), supporting the motion, said that to amend
the current Charter required a resolution with a 75 per cent majority
of Council members present and voting, and a 75 per cent majority of
members present and voting at a general meeting. Yet only 70 per cent
of Council members present and voting had agreed with the final version
of the proposed new Charter and the Council had chosen not to base its
policy on the outcome of an SGM. The Council had gone ahead with a new
Charter without the explicit approval of the members.
Jane Nicholson (Slough) said that if pharmacists did not stop arguing
among themselves, regulations would overtake them and they would have
no effective Royal Charter. They would lose their regulatory control
and see it placed under the Health Professions Council. Most other professional
bodies around the world were weak in comparison to the Society. Members
should stop contemplating their navels and move forward with a new Charter.
Vela Burden (Leicester) suggested that a special meeting of a few people
who could easily get to London was less representative of members’ views
than the consultation meetings held all around Britain, which members
could attend easily.
Martin Shakespeare (North Yorkshire) said that the issue was not about
the Charter but about governance. Changing the Charter affected the whole
Society, and it was only right that there should be a referendum. A roadshow
was not sufficient.
The President then put the motion to the meeting. After it had been carried,
she stated: “I am advised that since this meeting has no authority
under the Charter to act in this matter on behalf of the Society, no
action can be taken by the Society to process the counter-petition proposed
by Mr Walker. Members are advised that any documents submitted to the
Privy Council Office subsequent to this meeting should not purport to
be executed on behalf of the Society, but should be in the names of the
individuals submitting the document and signed by them.” She also
pointed out that such a submission would appear to be out of time.
Mr Walker said that members could sign the petition after the meeting.
It would be submitted in the coming days to the Privy Council on behalf
of the members with the authority of the meeting.
The President reminded members that motions carried at general meetings
were considered by the Council, but were not binding upon it. The motion
would be considered by the Council.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal