Council considers broader remit for BRM
Expanding the remit of the branch representatives' meeting to include
motions from the Society's new national pharmacy boards and its membership
groups was considered at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's April
Council meeting, when the Council approved background information
for publication with the branch motions and the branches' explanatory
paragraphs (see p455 PDF (70K)).
John Gentle (Council sponsor for the branches) said that there had been
some concern about whether the BRM’s current format made best use
of members’ time and the resources invested in the meeting. The
Council had therefore agreed in 2005 to consult members on the future
of the BRM, and a number of discussions had been held. A clear wish to
make the meeting more relevant and strategic had to be balanced against
the members’ view that the format of the meeting was part of their
democratic entitlement.
Mr Gentle added that the branch secretaries had put forward the idea
that the membership groups and the national boards should be able to
put a limited number of motions to the BRM. The 2006 BRM would be asked
for its views on that suggestion.
One clear theme was that branches wanted more support for formulating
motions. A toolkit to help them identify outward looking and strategic
motions for debate was to be launched at this year’s BRM.
The President pointed out that if branches wanted the Council to take
some action, they did not have to wait to put a motion to the next BRM.
They were free to write to the President or the Secretary and Registrar.
The Council would then get to the task quicker.
The President added that equivalent meetings in other health care professions
tended to be much more strategic. He could find nothing in the BRM motions
about the Foster review, Section 60, pharmacist prescribing, the new
contract, the NHS, hospital practice or the pharmaceutical industry. “We
need to consider how to work with branches so that more strategic dialogue
takes place between the Council, the branches and our members.” There
was nothing wrong with the motions to be presented to us, because they
are based on pharmacists’ experience in their daily life, but some
long-term thinking might also be useful.
Mr Gentle suggested that the President’s idea about more strategic
motions would probably be solved if the national boards and the sectional
groups were allowed to put motions to the meeting.
Alan Kershaw said that if the dialogue happened only at branch representatives’ meetings
in adversarial debate on motions then the process was too confrontational.
The Council could be more positive and constructive in the way it worked
with the branches all year around.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal