|
Network News is produced by The Pharmaceutical Journal in association with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's public relations and membership unit as a service to members of the Society resident in Great Britain
|
In December 2004, the Society’s Council asked that the branches
be consulted about the future of the branch representatives’ meeting,
which the Council considers to be a unique opportunity for the branches
to raise issues of concern and to ask for specific courses of action
to address the issues involved.
Following a consultation with the branches, Anne Adams, head of professional
leadership, facilitated a session on the future of the meeting at the
2005 BRM, held in May.
Representatives thought that the meeting was valuable but not used to
best effect. They asked for help in making the meeting and its outputs
more robust and relevant. Members said that discussion on the future
of the BRM should not just centre on the format of the meeting itself
but on the preparation for it and actions resulting from it. They called
for support in developing the appropriate motions for the meeting and
debating them more skilfully, such as horizon scanning skills, political
astuteness, strategic thinking and influencing skills.
The representatives recognised that the branches often have difficulty
in formulating topical motions. They thought that this is probably because
they have to develop, gain a mandate for and submit motions so far in
advance.
A key issue was how the Council would respond to the motions that had
been carried, which in turn, no doubt, will affect their motivation to
engage in a revised and more rigorous process. At the December 2004 Council
meeting, the Council had agreed that, although the motions passed at
the BRM are not binding upon the Council, it is important that the members
know that their views and concerns as expressed through the motions have
been listened to and taken full account of. A new template for Council
responses to BRM motions has been introduced to give a clearer explanation
of the background to the response and action taken.
Representatives thought that it would help them greatly if the Society
could communicate to them what is within the Society’s power to
action and what is not. Guidance could be offered on crafting the motions
and their explanatory paragraphs, but it was important not to lose the
grassroots perspective or to allow motions to be censored.
It was thought acceptable for the Council, and perhaps the Society’s
special interest groups, to suggest topics for debate at the BRM. In
deciding topics, clarity would be needed around whether it would be appropriate
to debate motions relating to the Society’s regulatory role as
well as to its professional one. Members stressed that they wanted to
retain ownership of the meeting, which is an important vehicle for conveying
the views of the members to the Council.
Representatives thought that preparation for the BRM should be a year-round
process. It would be helpful if branches could be made aware, on an ongoing
basis, of the Council’s agenda and priorities, in a timely way.
Effective two-way communication would be essential to make an effective
change in the topics chosen by branches for submission.
Arlene Osman, secretary of the Mid-Glamorgan branch, who this year attended
the meeting for the first time, said: “I now have a greater understanding
of the process around the BRM and found all of the 18 motions of interest.
The meeting is a good forum for stimulating ideas for proposing motions
at future BRMs”.
The branches are currently being consulted further
on this process and a further session will be taken back to the branches
at the branch and
regional secretaries’ meeting in October. Any member who wishes
to add his or her views is asked to e-mail b&ra@rpsgb.org by
16 September 2005.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal