Council to have no role in selecting academic member of new Council
The Council, at the September
Council meeting, accepted an amendment to its preferred draft new Charter that leaves the Council with no role in the selection of a pharmacist to fill the place on the new Council reserved for a representative of British schools of pharmacy.
The President said that, in Article 8, which set out the constitution
of the new Council, the Privy Council’s advisers suggested that
Article 8(2) should read “one registered pharmacist appointed by
the universities in Great Britain awarding degrees accredited by the
Society for the purposes of registration as a pharmacist”. The
advisers had deleted the words, “in accordance with regulations
made by the Council”. The view of the Privy Council advisers was
that the appointment was in the gift of the universities and the Society
therefore did not have a role in how that person was selected.
The Secretary and Registrar said that in other bodies such appointments
were made by the Secretary of State or by the universities.
The President said that it may well be that the universities would create
an election, but it was not in the gift of the Society to decide how
they arranged their affairs. It would be up to the Privy Council to suggest
how they do it.
Douglas Simpson pointed out that one of the document before the Council
said that the academic pharmacist would be appointed by the heads of
schools of pharmacy. Was that incorrect?
The President said that the suggestion was probably jumping the gun,
but he thought the process would be similar to that.
Bob Michell asked whether, because they are not bound by the Society’s
regulations, the universities could, for example, appoint the same person
for three periods of five years.
The Secretary and Registrar said that she was fairly confident that the
method the universities used would be in discussion with the Privy Council’s
advisers. So it was be likely to be consistent with other appointments.
Professor Michell said that it would be desirable, if acceptable to the
universities, that the terms and length of office matched those of all
other members of Council, which were to be harmonised.
Maurice Hickey said that he was unhappy about the deletion of “in
accordance with the regulations” when there were draft regulations
that specified the terms for other Council members. He also had a problem
with the word “appointed”, because it did not fit in with
the whole business of governance or corporate governance, transparency
and openness. The university heads could appoint someone on a “Buggins’ turn” basis
rather than on ability. It should be specified as an open and transparent
election.
The President said that the Council could make that point. It would be
in the gift of the Privy Council and the universities, but he was confident
that they would exercise good governance.
Gerald Alexander said that he was surprised that the Department of Health
would be happy to see an antidemocratic method of appointment to this
Council. He would vote against the change, because he absolutely abhorred
appointees on bodies.
The President said that he assumed the process would be a democratic
one, but it was a valid comment the Council would be able to make.
Linda Stone said that she almost could not believe what she was hearing.
It was not in the Council’s gift to change it. Comment was fine,
but all the Council could do with the draft was accept or reject it.
It came down to whether the Council wanted a new Charter or not. The
advice was consistent with what was available for other similar bodies.
And to suggest that the heads of schools would resort to a “Buggins’ turn” method
was an insult to them.
Mr Simpson said that he was disappointed that substantial changes were
being made to a Charter that had been approved by the Council and voted
upon by the membership. The Charter was in the gift of the Crown, but
Council members could still make their views known. The addition of a
universities appointee in effect reduced the proportion of the Council
elected by the membership from about 58 per cent to 56 per cent. So nearly
44 percent of the Council was unelected, which weakened the Society’s
position as a professional association.
When discussing the matter previously,Mr Simpson said, the Council had
been given an assurance that this particular person would be elected
by a democratic process. He was disappointed that that reassurance was
now wasted.
The Secretary and Registrar said that Council members’ comments
would be relayed.
The President said that he was sure it would be a democratic process
in the end, but it will be for the universities to decide.
Michael Schofield said that the Council had come up with two sensible
points: that it would expect the terms of office to be the same as for
other Council members and that it expected the universities to appoint
their Council member after an electoral process. Those comments should
be made to the Privy Council and he would be surprised if they were not
taken seriously and acted upon.
The Vice-President said that he shared Professor Schofield’s views.
He urged the Council to accept the change and make the comments.
The President: Let me take a vote now of those in favour, bearing in
mind that we are going to make the points that have been made and encapsulated
by Professor Schofield in our comments back.
A vote on accepting the change was then taken, and was carried.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal