| · Workforce
· The Society (2)
· Statutory Committee (3)
· Council election
· Overseas pharmacists
· The profession (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Council election
I am dismayed by these flawed regulations
From Mr P. J. Curphey, FRPharmS
It was astute (as usual) of Bill
Brookes to spot the shenanigans going
on concerning the Council election regulations (PJ, 19 February, p206).
There can be little doubt that the current Council (including its President)
has little understanding (and obviously no recollection of the debate over
these regulations during 2002–03).
The rule concerning “having served three consecutive terms” and
then requiring a break for three years was absolutely and definitely intended
to ensure that the new Council once constituted changed from the traditional
way of serving on the old Council.
However, to avoid embarrassment, the turkeys did not vote for Christmas,
and built in were some special exemptions for themselves at the first election.
(The reasoning was supposed to be about continuity.) Unfortunately, they
left in the general rule about three terms of service (relating to the
new Council) and then made it retrospective. This left us with rules in
conflict with themselves as they refer to the old and new Councils.
As Mr Brookes pointed out, the President, to most observers, disgracefully
suggested that it was of little importance since so few people were affected.
In the Brave New World, starting with a clean sheet we could have expected
that every pharmacist on the Register would be able to stand for election,
regardless of their likelihood of success.
At the time of the initial discussions, many of us were clear that we preferred
no restrictions on age or length of service on the newly elected body.
I believe it realistic that appointees to public office should have restrictions
placed on them but I have always believed that it is up to the electorate
to decide who it prefers for office and presumably weighs up age, experience,
wisdom and popularity over current issues to come to a decision. That is
democracy. Some like it, some do not, but normally we abide by it.
At the time of setting the original regulations (the special exemptions
for serving members were added much later) those of us who had concerns
were specifically pacified that, while setting rules for the new Council,
they themselves might wish to modify them to suit their own circumstances.
At no stage were these rules set or intended to govern the first election
or to exclude anyone from standing. Those elephant traps were added later.
To me this was a clear indication of a cobbling process not fully thought
through.
Why am I so hot under the collar? It is because the extraordinary discrimination
rule applies only to those who left the Council in 2003 or 2004 (what about
2005 under old rules?) and that includes me.
It also applies to Marshall Davies and Gordon Appelbe, both of whom have
retired. The Society also, incredibly, believes that the rule applies to
Andrew Burr. I can see no way that serving on the Council for two and a
half terms can be interpreted as having “served three consecutive
terms” — successful three times in elections three years apart
maybe. But “served”? Never.
So the situation is that four pharmacists out of around 40,000 who live
in the defined area cannot stand. Some will be hysterically pleased about
the list of names; others will be more charitable and think of the principle.
All ought to be concerned for fairness and propriety.
The Privy Council has been informed of my concerns — and I have the
support of four other recent past presidents — over the intentions
of the old Council, the recollections of the original discussions, and
the level of understanding of the current Council about the failure of
natural justice (often now called human rights) in confirming their decision.
We should be mindful that those who stand at the elections on platforms
of defending the membership and sticking up for the rights of individuals
are the same people who see life this way.
The response from the Privy Council was predictable and dismisses any suggestion
of discrimination.
I do not have the resources of some and cannot employ a human rights lawyer.
The nomination date (so thrust upon us while these flawed regulations were
still being consulted upon) looms (and will have passed by the time my
comments are published) but I am, frankly, dismayed and disgusted by the
action of my professional body. Putting the issue into the public domain
may make me feel better, but I doubt it.
Peter Curphey
Ballaugh Glen,
Isle of Man |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal