We need a more useful AGM
Has the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual general meeting — in its current form — outlived its usefulness? When it can take place, what it can cover (the report of the previous year’s activities and a financial statement) and how issues can be debated are enshrined in the Byelaws (section VI). However, with new Rules and Regulations about to be open to consultation, and set to replace the Byelaws, now might be a good moment to modernise the proceedings.
For an annual general meeting of an organisation with over 45,000 members
it is not well attended. Take away members of Council and members of
Society staff who attend and it would be surprising if, over the past
five to 10 years, there had been many more than 50 members there. It
is traditionally held on the Wednesday evening before the branch representatives’ meeting
in May, starting at 7.30pm. Although this gives a chance for some members
to join the meeting after work, it is not conducive to good humour.
The formal proceedings (the presentations of the annual review and the
accounts) are dull. Last week, for example, they took nearly one and
a half hours — too long and too late in the day for people to remain
engaged. The more interesting items — adopting changes to the Code
of Ethics and discussion of one motion — did not start until after
9pm, by which time tempers were beginning to fray and irritation had
set in.
Ask rank-and-file members who have ever been to an AGM what their perception
is about the way proceedings are conducted and they will say that nowadays
they are too “managed”. Although the Officers and Council
members will say that they are being open and transparent, members believe
that they are being excluded and that the establishment has something
to hide — a perception that has gradually developed over the past
10 years.
So what could be done to improve attendance, to make members feel more
involved and to restore confidence in the proceedings?
First of all, does the annual general meeting need to take place in May
in London in the evening? Could it not take place in September at the
British Pharmaceutical Conference in the daytime? Do the annual review
and accounts really need to be covered in so much detail (particularly
since both are available in printed form and on the Society website)?
Should less time be spent on their presentation and more time spent on
answering questions from members?
Maybe such a change in emphasis would encourage more members to attend
and to hope their questions will be answered fully. Maybe more members
could then be tempted back to debate issues that are more about the practice
and profession of pharmacy, and less about personalities and politics.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal