Charter proposal needed members’ consent, AGM told
David Sharpe: Society’s papers were confused, obfuscatory
and confusing |
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society should have obtained the consent of the membership before submitting its proposal for a new Charter to the Privy Council, the Society’s annual general meeting on 12 May was told by a past president of the Society, David Sharpe.
Mr Sharpe was opening a discussion on: “The procedure adopted by
the Society’s Council in relation to its proposal for a new Charter
and concerns of members about the future role of the Society as the professional
representative body for pharmacists.”
Mr Sharpe said that the Council was elected to serve the members by implementing
the Charter. For an important issue such as a new Charter, the Council
had a duty to obtain the members’ informed consent. However, the
members had at no time given their consent.
Even the Council itself saw the final text of the petition only on the
day it was sent to the Privy Council, despite significant changes having
been made to the previous version. Perhaps Council members were being
led by the nose by senior staff, who could have a hidden agenda with
the Department of Health. But Council members should stand up and support
the members’ interests, not those of others. The Society had published
numerous papers, but not one had set out the issues clearly so that members
could understand the issues and form a judgement. They had been confused,
obfuscatory and confusing.
The preliminary proposals had been presented at branch meetings but reports
suggested that at many of the meetings most members had expressed dissatisfaction.
Eleven past presidents of the Society had voiced their deep misgivings
but their concerns had never
been addressed. At the special general meeting nearly a year ago, opposition
to the Council’s proposals was overwhelming. The Society has dismissed
the SGM as unrepresentative but it had not been able to point to any
more representative support.
“We, the members,” said Mr Sharpe, “have a right to
decide on changes to our own body. The procedures adopted by the Council
have
deprived us of that right. They have done so quite deliberately. Amendment
to the present Charter can only be proposed by a resolution of three-quarters
of the Council, then holding a special meeting at which three-quarters
of the members present support the proposed amendment. That is in Article
20.”
A document published by the Society in The Journal of 15 March 2003 had
claimed that a “small but vocal minority whose views do not reflect
the majority views” would dominate an SGM called under Article
20. The Council had deliberately sought to avoid this by petitioning
for a new Charter. Circumventing Article 20 might have been acceptable
if the Society had used a different means of ensuring it had members’ support.
Holding a referendum would have enabled the Society to validate its claim
to have member support. It did not do so. Even Tony Blair did a U-turn
on a referendum.
Mr Sharpe concluded: “The Council has followed procedures that
have failed to give it an informed mandate for its action. That conduct
is to be deplored. Irrespective of the merits, it is conduct of which
any decent servant of the profession should be ashamed. ... I am ashamed
of the conduct of the body on which I served for so many years and I
am ashamed of all my former colleagues who have been party to this betrayal
of their duties to those they serve.”
Jim Smith, chief pharmaceutical officer for England, said that he had
not intended to speak but needed to clear up a widespread misunderstanding
about the Government’s agenda. He said: “The Government’s
agenda is to achieve a meld of the Society serving the public interest
and persisting in its role, and strengthening its role, as an effective
professional body. The Government is not seeking to manage the Society,
to dominate it.”
People were saying the Government’s views were not clear, but they
were crystal clear. They were spelt out in the Quality Framework for
the NHS and in the NHS Plan. For pharmacy, they had been spelt out by
successive ministers, in speeches and documents. Dr Smith had set them
out in a letter to The Journal some time ago (PJ, 3 August 2002, p158).
The issues were clear. The framework was clear. Within that framework
the Society was evolving its own way of addressing these issues.
Responding to Mr Sharpe’s suggestion that the regulatory function
would overwhelm the Society, Dr Smith said that splitting off the regulatory
function would be a disaster. As well as the issues around democracy
and handling the issue, there was an important substantive issue, and
it was one that was potentially dangerous for the profession.
Dr Smith added that he was speaking both as chief pharmaceutical officer
for England and as a member of the Society of many years’ standing.
John Gentle (Shropshire) said that he supported representative democracy,
including electing a Council to act on the members’ behalf. But
when it came to changing the rules under which the Council worked — in
this case the Charter — then at that point the representative function
should cease, especially when most Council members were elected before
the issue came about. At that point, the Council should have asked the
membership. That was why there should have been a referendum. He wondered
why earlier speakers who favoured the new Charter were not screaming
for the right to vote for it in a referendum.
Mike Burden (Leicester) said that the members had elected a Council to
wrestle with difficult elements and decisions and there would be times
when the best interests were not necessarily obvious to the individual
member. To put the profession in a strong position, the Council had taken
some difficult decisions and the real danger was that its achievements
could still be undermined and unravelled. The Council had done the right
thing. A referendum would not answer the question.
Anthony Cox (Birmingham) said that a vote was needed to define whether
the membership was clearly in favour of the new Charter. Historically,
changes to the Charter had been made in the name of the Society. Why
had the petition for this new Charter gone out in the name of the Council?
Gavin Miller (London) wondered why a new Charter was needed when the
old one could have been amended. The only reason suggested so far was
that the Society was hoping to avoid the need for an SGM requiring the
support of 75 per cent of members present.
Dennis Higgins (Thames Valley branch) expressed concern that pharmacy
appeared to following nearly every other profession and placing itself
completely in the control of the Government.
Jim Bannerman (Glasgow) said that the discussion was about having trust
in those who led. No-one had offered any information as to why the Council
had acted without holding the referendum called for. The concern had
not been answered — and it was still not being answered.
Rebecca Hogarth (Moray and Banff branch) said she could not see why Council
could not put the matter to the members. What did they have to hide?
If the Charter was so great, why could there not be a referendum upon
it?
There being no more speakers, the President said that the discussion
initiated by Mr Sharpe would be reported to the Council for information.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal