The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7404 p691
10 June 2006

Society summary

Human error led to invalidation of election papers

The need to invalidate the ballot papers issued in the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's 2006 Council election and send out a fresh set was the result of human error in the Society's information technology department, an investigation has determined. Steps have been taken to minimise the risk of error in future elections.

Presenting the investigation report at a special Council meeting before the Society’s annual general meeting on 24 May, the Secretary and Registrar, Ann Lewis, said that the error in sending ballot papers to registered pharmacy technicians as well as to pharmacists was unfortunate and was regretted. It had been detected early and action taken within hours to address the situation. The ballot papers were declared void and new papers issued. The Pharmaceutical Journal and Chemist & Druggist had given support in making sure that members were aware of the new ballot paper.

An investigation had begun immediately to identify the cause of the error and minimise the risk of reoccurrence. The error was found to have occurred in the extraction of the address data from the register by the IT department. The circumstances and the systems were reviewed and additional checks had now been put into the process.

The Secretary and Registrar said that it was important to note that each year in the three-year election cycle was different. This year the election was purely for pharmacists, next year there would be one election for pharmacists and one for a pharmacy technician, and on the third year there would be a general election of pharmacists, an election of pharmacists to fill the three national places and the election of one technician. The process had to take account of that.

In discussion with Electoral Reform Services, which manages the election process, the Society had also taken account of the out-turn of the election. The number of ballot papers received was slightly fewer than in 2005 but the decline was less than might have been expected given the trend over recent years.

“So,” said the Secretary and Registrar, “the conclusion which must be made is that the papers were invalidated and that the original issue was caused by human error. We have reviewed the systems and improved the systems to ensure that such an error does not happen in the future. We have learnt a great deal from the process, as one does from these occasions. The staff who were involved were most concerned about it, and adequate action has been taken in reviewing the operating procedures and processes. The remedial action seems to have been effective, and the additional publicity certainly ensured that during the voting period the membership were fully alerted to the circumstances.”

Jonathan Buisson suggested that the error should have been avoided. It was obvious that there would be different election cycles and there should have been a procedure in place to trap such an error. The report showed that the re-run of the election had cost £22,500, which was an expensive way to buy extra publicity for the election.

The Secretary and Registrar said that she would not like anyone to think that consideration had not been given to the process in the first place. It was a complex process involving several stages. What had now been done was to introduce extra checks at each stage.

The President, Hemant Patel, said that he would like to thank the staff who pulled out all the stops to make sure that the election process continued in the normal manner as much as possible. “Yes,” he said. “errors were made, but I would like to think that the culture and practice of this organisation is such that we are recognised as a learning organisation that learns lessons from mistakes, because I do not know any individual or organisation that does not make mistakes. We have made mistakes, we have learnt the lessons, and I can assure you, on behalf of all those people who were involved in the election process, they will be very sensitive to the issue in the future.”

Lorna Jacobs added that in a learning organisation it was important to learn from mistakes and not overdo the breast-beating.

The President added that in a learning organisation the review is not confined just to the election process. “Wherever there are systems we need to review them to make sure that there is no public humiliation like that again.”