Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7401 p591
20 May 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Intervention recording
· Packaging
· National Health Service
· Remote supervision
· Council election
· Fitness to practise (3)
· Education


Letters to the Editor

Council election

Number of pharmacists voting will continue to fall

From Mr P. Mutton, MRPharmS

The percentage of the membership voting in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council elections has dropped yet again — despite a “reminder” due to the administrative problem affecting this year’s election.

Low voting numbers have nothing to do with the method of election but everything to do with the calibre and effectiveness of candidates.

I have been on the Register for nearly 30 years and have always returned my ballot paper. However, this year my return will have been counted as one of the 64 “disallowed as invalid”. I carefully read the statements of all the candidates and regretfully concluded that there was not a single candidate whose statement displayed even the remotest hint that they could offer anything to deliver my aspirations for the profession. I therefore marked my ballot paper with a statement to that effect. “Invalid” as a vote perhaps, but not invalid as an opinion, I trust.

While the President of our Society trumpets the “huge progress that the pharmacy profession has made” in his statement in the 2005 Annual Review, it is becoming increasingly clear that the progress is being made in spite of the Council and not because of it. Progress is being made because both the Government and academia recognise the sociological drivers for change and because there are sufficient numbers of clinically motivated pharmacists around to start delivering a clinically focused agenda. In this environment, the membership increasingly feels that the Council has little impact on their professional work and, therefore, ignores it.

The feeling, of course, is mutual. Whatever motivates the members of our Council, it is clearly not a wish to engage in two-way communication with the membership. Figures published in the Annual Review show that, on average, each Council member attended just over one regional or branch meeting last year. With that level of commitment to engage with the membership we can surely expect the numbers voting in Council elections to continue to fall.

Peter Mutton
Conon Bridge, Ross-shire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Remote supervision)
Next Topic (Fitness to practise)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal