Motion seeking SOS information is rejected
The annual general
meeting rejected by a substantial majority a motion proposed by Christine Glover calling for more information on what she believed was an “organisation” behind the Save Our Society campaign.
Before allowing Mrs Glover to propose her motion, the President made
a statement on some of its content. He said that the motion claimed that
he had said in his resignation statement that all the stated objectives
of the Save Our Society organisation had been achieved. He said that
he knew of no such organisation, only a campaign, and that he had come
to the end of his term of office, in common with all Council members,
and had not resigned. The objectives referred to were his personal objectives
to deliver the members’ wishes from the 2003 special general meeting,
as well as to help to seek a solution to the Society’s difficulties
over its Charter. The new Royal Charter had been granted and if proposals
from the Society’s devolution review group were accepted then all
four SGM resolutions would have been implemented.
Proposing her motion, Mrs Glover said that she wanted to know what was
the agenda of the 14 SOS Council members who were elected this year.
She wanted to know who funded the “organisation” and whether
SOS Council members were going to suggest that pharmacists need not undertake
continuing professional development. Did they want the Society to give
up regulation and all that made it up — education, accreditation
and CPD? Would they vote together on every issue or would they make individual
contributions, or would they never speak, as one did this year. Was it
their ambition to split the Society?
Seconding, Andrew Burr said that two years ago pharmacy politics changed
dramatically with the introduction of block votes and party political
arguments. What was needed was more transparency.
Mike Williams pointed out that not all seats on the new Council had been
won by SOS supporters. He said that the bulk of the financial burden
of the legal action brought on behalf of SOS supporters had fallen on
the four members named in the legal action, although 1,038 other pharmacists
had contributed. The bottom line was that SOS was the coming together
of like-minded pharmacists who had the courage to stand up and say that
they disagreed with what was being done.
Gillian Hawksworth wanted to know how the new Council members would balance
serving the interests of members of the Society, its Council and the
Society as a regulator in the public arena.
Graham Phillips said that the newly elected Council members who supported
the SOS campaign had been clear about their agenda in their election
pledges. They would act within the terms of the Royal Charter. There
were no plans to split the Society, just to see it playing both its roles
equally, rather than only to regulate. The newly elected Council members
should be judged by the Charter and whether they carried out the functions
it set out.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal