The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7319 p497-498
2 October 2004

Society summary

Three-year terms of office agreed for members of reformed Council

The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has agreed that the period of office for members of the future reformed Council should be three years, and not four years as previously decided (PJ, 14 December 2002, p864). Election or appointment would be on a rolling basis, with about a third of the elected members and about a third of the lay members retiring each year. The previous agreement had been for four-year terms of office with half the members retiring every two years.

The Council’s decision is incorporated in draft regulations setting out the proposed election process, which were agreed by the Council at its September Council meeting (see also PJ, 25 September, pp445–448) and are set out for consultation in an Official Notice in this issue of The Journal (p499).

The Council’s decision to retain a three-year election cycle was made as part of a review of various aspects of election to the reformed Council, during which the Council was asked to reaffirm some of the decisions made at its December 2002 meeting and to approve some new recommendations.

When the Council was asked to reaffirm its decision on introducing a four-year term of office, several Council members expressed the view that a three-year term of office with elections every year would give the membership a better chance to express their views on the Council’s performance. Others believed that a four-year term gave new members more time to get into the swing, while holding elections every two years would more or less halve the election costs.

The Council then voted to reject the four-year term of office and to approve a three-year term with about one third of the Council retiring each year. The precise mechanisms would be left to the Officers to decide.

When the Council moved on to discuss limits to the number of consecutive years served as a Council member, several Council members suggested that there should be no fixed limit and the electorate should decide whether someone was good enough to remain on the Council. But it was also pointed out that the Council had to bear in mind the Nolan principles of good governance, which insisted on new blood being brought into committees. The Council went on to agree that the maximum period of continuous service would remain at the previously agreed 12 years (now four terms of three years rather than three of four years).

It was also agreed that current Council members elected or appointed to the new Council would be able to serve only one further consecutive term if they have already served continuously for nine (previously eight) or more years. Anyone who has served the maximum term on the new Council will be ineligible for re-election or reappointment until three (previously four) years after leaving office.

The Council went on to reaffirm several other decisions and to endorse a recommendation that those nominating candidates for election must have some personal knowledge of the prospective nominee and be reasonably satisfied that he or she is suited to serve on the Council.

When the discussion moved on to the topic of canvassing, the Council reaffirmed that the current restrictions on canvassing would not apply to elections to the reformed Council. It also agreed to add “in consultation with the candidate” to its previous decision that the Society should be able to issue a clarifying statement in cases where a candidate’s policy statement appears to go beyond the Council’s functions, powers and duties.

The Council then turned to consider a new recommendation that there should be no restrictions on campaign expenditure or sponsorship other than those implicit within the Code of Ethics. The recommendation was accepted, although some Council members expressed concerns that there were powerful bodies and agencies within pharmacy, or connected with it, that might wish to sponsor candidates. In addition, sponsored candidates might see themselves as representing some particular interest on the Council, which could distort Council business.

The Council went on to reject a recommendation that candidates should give an undertaking that they are not “engaged in litigation against the Society, the Council or any member thereof, or any officer or employee of the Society in their capacity as such”. The Council was advised that this recommendation had been made because anyone involved in such litigation while serving on the Council would be on the governing body of the organisation they were suing — a fundamental conflict of interest that would seem to prevent a Council member from discharging his duty in a proper manner. The Council was reminded that the code of conduct for Council members required Council members to resign if they became engaged in litigation against the Society. During debate, several Council members expressed reservations about the recommendation. It was pointed out that litigation was not an unlawful or reprehensible activity, and a litigant elected to the Council could exclude himself from relevant parts of discussion.

The Council next decided to overturn its December 2002 decision that election candidates would be not able to stand both for a “national constituency” and for a general place. The Council was reminded that, to meet a Government requirement, one pharmacist place and one lay place on the Council would be reserved for each of three national constituencies — one for England, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, one for Scotland and one for Wales. Candidates will now be able to stand both for the national place for which they satisfy the residency requirement and for a non-reserved place. Should such a candidate be successful in the national category, his or her votes in the election to fill the unreserved places will be void.

Finally, the Council agreed to accept a recommendation that an exception should be made to Provision 11 of the code of conduct for Council members to allow Council members who are seeking re-election to express personal views that conflict with Council policy without first having to explain the Council policy and the reasoning behind it. The exception will apply only to the candidate’s election statement and candidates will still have to comply with the requirement that Council members must avoid any action that would undermine confidence in the competence of the Council and its members or in the Council’s decision-making process.

Having concluded its debate, the Council went on to approve, subject to amendments arising from the debate, a document setting out draft regulations for elections to the Council. The proposed regulations are set out for consultation in an Official Notice (see p499).

The Council also approved supporting documentation for the election process, including nomination forms, declaration forms, guidance on the Council election procedures and guidance on Council members’ responsibilities, functions and conduct.

The Council went on to approve draft regulations applying to appointed Council members, which are also published for consultation as an Official Notice (see p501). These draft regulations set out limits on residency and on length of service similar to those for elected members.

During its debates the Council noted that the Privy Council had been approached about the possibility of a staged transition to the new Council composition to ensure some continuity of membership. However, it appeared that the Government would only accept the “big bang” approach, with all the Council places being filled at once.

In discussion on how to decide which of the 17 pharmacists initially elected to the Council should retire after only one or two years, Council members favoured a system by which those towards the top of the poll would remain on the Council for three years, those towards the bottom would retire after one year and those in the middle would retire after two years.