The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7315 p312-315
4 September 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 92K, Acrobat Reader

· The Charter
· Charter ballot
· Volunteer agencies
· Voting
· Personal control
· Medicines and devices
· Simvastatin
· Ward technicians
· CAM
· Remuneration
· The Profession
· Education
· CRCS
· Retention fee
· Onlooker

Letters to the Editor

The Charter

How we got to the amended Charter

From Mr M. K. Astbury, MRPharmS

In May 2003 I was elected to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council as a “Joe Bloggs” pharmacist. I have always voted in a way that I believe best serves pharmacists and pharmacy. I like to talk straight and I cherish the truth — not your stereotypical politician.
I have been disappointed recently to have read about various people claiming the credit for the final draft of the Charter. It is plain and simple how we got to the position where the December 2003 draft Charter was amended to the June 2004 draft.

1. Time delay The Privy Council was prevented from approving the December 2003 Charter because of legal action. This is credited solely to the Save Our Society four (Hassan Argomandkhah, Graham Phillips, Mark Koziol and Mike Williams) who put their names on the legal documentation and subsequently have accrued enormous legal bills, which are still to be paid.
2. Change of balance on the Council If seven SOS members of the Council had not been elected what would the Charter have looked like? Full credit to the Society electorate in the May 2004 Council elections. Anything short of a landslide victory for membership-oriented Council members would have fallen on deaf ears and the December 2003 Charter would have steamed-rollered through.
3. Once forced To the credit of all the Council, once forced to look again at the Charter we came up with the best Charter available to us at this late stage. But we would never have got to this position if it were not for the two actions above.
4. Referendum In December 2003, I seconded Nick Wood’s motion calling for a referendum to approve the new Charter — it was voted down. The reason was clearly because the referendum would have come out against the Charter in that form. That was not, in my opinion, a reason for voting against a referendum. It was a reason for amending the Charter further before petitioning in December. This would have resulted in not requiring 1 and 2 above.

I am aware of the excuses of time constraints but a Charter amended only every 50 years has to be done correctly.

Finally, I am pleased that the draft Charter as amended in June 2004 has been approved by the membership via the referendum.

Martin Astbury
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Charter ballot)