The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7397 p474
22 April 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· Council election (3)
· Section 60 Order (2)
· The profession
· Confidentiality
· Oxygen service
· Antibiotics
· Remote supervision
· CVD (2)
· Packaging

Letters to the Editor

Council election

Candidates will be main losers as result of error

From Mr M. L. Palmer, MRPharmS

The following came to mind when I received the replacement salmon-coloured ballot paper and later read (PJ, 8 April, p407) of the administrative error that rendered the original Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council election papers invalid:

· Who made this error (the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, I assume, since the distributor, Electoral Reform Services, would send out the papers according to its instructions)?

· Who is paying for the mistake (I hope that the cost will not be passed on to members as higher retention fees in 2007)?

· How does the Council and the Secretary and Registrar expect an increase in voting turnout when such basic administrative “hiccups” occur (the voting turnover in previous elections barely reached 25 per cent at the best of times)?

I suspect that some early voters who have to vote again may not bother and some potential voters may view this muddle as another reason not to bother.

The main losers in this mess, of course, will be the candidates themselves. Not only may their voting totals be affected but their perception of how headquarters operates will be changed for the worse (assuming that they viewed Lambeth in high regard in the first place). From outside the profession, it might appear that such an important annual event is prone to basic administrative errors. It is fortunate that Lambeth is not organising national elections, else the United Nations might declare the whole process unsafe.

Martin Leslie Palmer
Bristol

SOP needed to avoid future mistakes

From Mr M. J. Brown, MRPharmS

I voted promptly after reading Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council election candidates’ details and discarded all after posting my voting paper. Now I find that, due to inept procedures, my paper is void and a rerun is scheduled within the same time frame.

I protest. After telephoning the correct number to request a replacement brochure of candidates’ details, there was no reply, no recorded message and no answering service. I tried the website and a message read “page not available”. May I suggest that the election is truly rerun as it should be, complete with full information, and that those responsible should be required to follow a standard operating procedure. I think they need one.

Michael Brown
Doncaster

System of voting needs review

From Mr M. E. James, FRPharmS

I suggest that one of the reasons for the dearth of hospital pharmacists standing for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council over the past couple of years is the electoral system itself. The system of “first past the post”, especially in multiple-seat elections like the Society’s, makes it extremely difficult for candidates from minority groups to be elected, unless their supporters deliberately curtail their franchise and use only one vote.

When we had the system of the “single transferable vote”, a wide range of Council Members were elected, from all sectors of the profession. It is noteworthy that since we have reverted to the simplistic FPTP system, almost no one from outside the community sector has been successful.

I recall that the Privy Council suggested returning to the STV system for our elections under the new dispensation, but the Council, elected by the FPTP system, turned it down. Is it not time to reconsider this decision?

Miall James
Colchester, Essex

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Section 60 Order)