Revised code of conduct for Council members
A revised preface to the code of conduct for members of the Society’s Council has made it clear that Council members take office from the date of publication of the election results in The
Pharmaceutical Journal in the year in which they are elected and are bound by corporate responsibility from that date.
The addition is part of a revised Section 9 of the Council Governance
Handbook, which was adopted at the August
Council meeting. Other changes
include a redrafted introductory paragraph, an amended description of
the composition of the conduct panel (which deals with complaints about
Council members) and a shorter, clearer and more robust procedure for
dealing with alleged breaches of the code.
Presenting the proposed revision to the Council, Christine Glover, chairman
of the Corporate Governance Steering Group, drew attention to item 11
of the code, which requires Council members who oppose a Council policy
to explain the policy and the reasons for the Council’s decision
before expressing their personal views. Bob Michell had suggested that
the election statement of a Council member seeking re-election should
be able to include personal views without first explaining Council policy.
It was the view of the steering group that any such exception should
be made clear in the material provided to election candidates rather
than in the code itself. [Agreed.]
Asked when a Council member leaving the Council would stop being a Council
member, the Secretary and Registrar said that that too would be on the
date of publication of the election result.
Douglas Simpson asked why a Council with a life of less than one year
needed to determine a code of conduct for the new Council, which would
want to confirm its own rules.
Mrs Glover said that the code would give the new Council something to
work on.
Douglas Simpson drew attention to a new provision in item 3, which concerns
litigation. Any member of Council who wishes to engage in litigation
against the Society should resign. He wondered whether that is common
in other codes [of other regulators].
Mr Simpson said that item 11 conflicts with the code’s preamble.
Item 11 says that a Council member who expresses personal views “must
avoid action that would undermine confidence in the competence of the
Council and its members or in the Council’s decision-making process”.
But the Council member’s argument may well be against the decision-making
process and he might want to reserve a right to speak against the way
a decision was reached. Mr Simpson fully supported the Nolan principles
being incorporated in the code but wondered whether the code goes beyond
Nolan and may inhibit Council members’ political activities.
Mr Simpson also noted a statement that: “A complaint may be made
against a former member of Council where the complaint relates to his/her
conduct while a member of Council ...” He had in mind the possibility
of a Council member who feels so strongly about a Council decision that
he resigns from the Council and says, “I am going to do everything
I can to stop you doing what you have just decided to do.” Would
that open that Council member up to disciplinary proceedings, despite
having resigned on a matter of principle? He was uneasy about that aspect
of the code.
Mrs Glover said that that was the whole point of having complaints dealt
with by an impartial conduct panel that had no axe to grind. If the argument
is unsustainable, the complaint will be dismissed.
The Secretary and Registrar said that the code was certainly based on
the Nolan principles, on codes that applied in other similar bodies and
on codes being developed in public and political bodies.
Bob Michell said that Mr Simpson had identified a big problem. One could
not expect Privy Council appointees to be bound by item 11, because they
might well wish to express reservations or discontent with the way the
Council was operating. Since the Privy Council representatives would
be a large proportion of the future Council, it would appear invidious
if they were freed from the bounds of item 11, whereas elected members
were bound.
Mrs Glover said that the next Council will have to look at the code and
decide what to accept. If it does not like item 11, it will scotch it.
As far as the Privy Council nominees are concerned, if they have an issue
they can take it back to the Privy Council. If somebody made a complaint
against them, then they will turn up before a code of conduct panel and
the panel will see that it was justified. There is no problem.
Professor Michell said that he would not have spoken if he had not thought
there was a problem. The Council members appointed by the Privy Council
are there for entirely different reasons from those elected, and they
could not reasonably be expected to conform to item 11. The three on
the current Council probably could conform, but the whole point of having
a large number of such representatives is that they could not be bound
by item 11 if they, as a minority of non-pharmacists, thoroughly disapproved
of what a large body of pharmacists was attempting to do.
The President pointed out that the code of conduct was agreed by the
Council every year. All the Council was being asked to do was to look
at a current set of amendments. The steering group would continue to
meet and would take on board the points raised. The Council would then
modify the code as required. The process allowed the Council to accept
the statement for the time being because it remained under review. [Agreed]
Mr Simpson asked for his vote against adopting the paper to be recorded.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal