No return to STV elections
The Council has decided to retain the current “first past the post” system of election to the Council rather than return to the single transferable vote system (which would be expected to provide a more balanced Council in terms of sectoral representation).
The August Council
meeting considered a suggestion from the Corporate
Governance Steering Group that, if there were to be no places on the
new Council for sectoral interests (see facing
page), the Council may
wish to go back to using the single transferable vote (STV) system for
elections, since it was a more inclusive system for smaller groups within
the profession.
Patricia Hoare said that she would vote against reinstating the STV system.
The first-past-the-post system had been used for only two years and had
not been sufficiently tested.
Gerald Alexander said that first-past-the-post was the status quo. The
system should not be changed again without consulting the membership.
Sultan Dajani said that, according to the paper before the Council, STV
assisted ethnic minorities and specific pharmaceutical disciplines. There
was no evidence for that. In the absence of rational, unbiased and more
evidence-based paperwork in support of the STV system, he would support
the status quo.
The Secretary and Registrar said that the evidence presented in the paper
was provided by an external consultant who is an expert in the field.
She had read in more than one place that the single transferable vote
method was the fairest. In fact, there had been a query from the Privy
Council when the Society changed back to the first-past-the-post system.
The Treasurer said that he would vote in favour of the first-past-the-post
system. It had not been given an adequate trial.
Linda Stone said that over the years she had been elected to the Council
under both systems. The evidence base for the single transferable vote
system was considerable. It was considered far more equitable for professions,
and it was used by most, if not all, of the other health professions
in electing their councils. It was considered the method of choice, even
for the new regulators. The Society was now out of sync again. She supported
a return to STV. It was much fairer. With the “X” system,
if one uses all seven votes, then the final vote may count against one’s
first choice candidate. The STV system removes that problem. If one’s
first choice is not elected, the vote passes to the next choice. No vote
is wasted and no vote counts against another.
Gill Hawksworth said that it was her duty as an Officer to repeat what
the Secretary and Registrar had said about the Privy Council being concerned
when the Society changed the system. She also wished to reinforce what
Mrs Stone had said, that the Society was the only health care profession
not using STV. Although she had supported the first-past-the-post system,
she was now persuaded to change her mind and support STV.
Graham Phillips expressed surprise that the Council was even having its
discussion, given the decision it had made in October 2002 after years
of branch representatives’ motions supporting a move back to the “X” system.
Nicola Gray said that one reason why she had supported the first-past-the-post
system was that she thought that more members would vote. That had not
happened. For all the reasons given by Mrs Stone and others round the
table, she would now support a return to STV.
On a show of hands, the Council agreed to retain the first-past-the-post
system. There were 13 votes in favour (the Vice-President, the Treasurer,
Gerald Alexander, Martin Astbury, Shiv Bagga, Sultan Dajani, Davan Eustace,
Maurice Hickey, Patricia Hoare, Clive Jackson, Graham Phillips, Douglas
Simpson and Noel Wicks), six votes against (Phillida Entwistle, Alison
Ewing, Christine Glover, Nicola Gray, Gill Hawksworth and Linda Stone)
and one abstention (Bob Michell).
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal