Council to review its handling of branch resolutions
The Council is to review the process for producing its response to resolutions of the branch representatives’ meeting in the light of comments made at the August
Council meeting.
The Council also agreed not to adopt a draft response to the 2004 BRM
resolutions. Instead, it would be revised and circulated to Council members
for comment before being signed off by the officers for circulation to
branch secretaries and publication in The Pharmaceutical Journal.
Commenting on the draft response to the 2004 resolutions, Gerald Alexander
said that the Practice Committee had been asked to discuss the response
to some of the motions but had had insufficient time.
Nicola Gray said that the way the Council responded to the branch resolutions
and the tone it took were important. The response should bring out how
many of the resolutions the Council agreed with. There was a lot going
on, and it was an opportunity for the Council to tell the branches what
it was doing and how it shared their concerns.
Sultan Dajani said that he echoed Dr Gray’s comments. In addition,
it might be useful, where possible, to introduce timescales for acting
on some of the resolutions. Furthermore, the answers to some of the resolutions
could have been helped by involving other organisations such as the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee and the National Pharmaceutical Association.
The Society had a responsibility to give an accurate view of what the
profession as a whole was doing.
Noel Wicks said that branch secretaries, and members generally, felt
that the BRM resolutions were not always taken forward as much as they
would have liked, or that progress was not reported appropriately. There
was still room to improve. He was not saying that there was anything
in particular wrong with the draft response, but the Council always had
to look for improvements. Agreed timescales had been suggested. Perhaps
progress reports could go on the website. It was time for the Council
to look at the issue.
Patricia Hoare said that the Council had a duty to answer the resolutions,
but some of the draft responses were woolly and did not address what
the branches were after.
The President said that perhaps some responses needed to be beefed up
a little, and he asked Council members to submit their comments to the
office.
Mrs Hoare said that the document was the Council’s response and
not just the office’s response. If it was going out in her name,
she would like issues to be discussed by the Council.
Graham Phillips suggested that there should be reasonable discussion
within the committees and the draft response could then be brought back
to the Council for consideration. He was not happy about the response
going out in his name without proper, full discussion and without a proper,
transparent process.
Asked when the responses needed to go out to the branches, Beverley Parkin,
director of public affairs and communications, said that the document
needed to be ready for the meeting of branch secretaries on 13 October,
and should be sent out well before that date.
The Secretary and Registrar suggested that if Council members had specific
issues that they wanted included, they should submit them by Friday 6
August. They could be reviewed with the paper and the officers would
agree their circulation.
Mr Phillips said that some Council members had detailed concerns. It
was not enough to feed comments into the office. The matter required
proper discussion by the Council. A number of the responses had been
tabled midway through the Practice Committee meeting and appeared to
have been presented only as matters of report. That was a great concern.
He would like to see a proper process. He would rather get it right late
than get it wrong now.
The Secretary and Registrar said that current practice is for branch
resolutions to be taken to the appropriate committee for consideration
and for formulation of a response. The Council could not embark immediately
on a new process. It should try to finalise the item and look separately
at the process for future years.
Linda Stone said that she understood the sensibilities of Mr Phillips
and some other members of Council. The way through was to let Council
members feed comments into the office so that a revised document could
be circulated for Council members’ comments before being signed
off by the officers. That process had been used successfully over the
years when there had been time constraints.
The President said that that was a helpful suggestion. The chairman of
the Practice Committee had clearly had a timing problem and perhaps he
could be included with the Officers in finalising the comments.
The Council agreed to that proposal.
Mr Dajani said that he had raised the issue previously. Although the
document went out in the name of the Council, some Council members did
not have adequate time to consider it. He would like to see the process
for responding to branch resolutions on the next agenda.
The President assured him that the process would be looked at.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal