The Council

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7410 p106
22 July 2006

This article
Reprint Photocopy

PDF 70K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Professional regulation
· Code of Ethics (2)
· The profession (4)
· Community pharmacy (2)
· Multiples
· Accuracy checking
· CPPE (3)
· Medicines use review
· Emergency supplies (2)
· Controlled Drugs
· NHS
· Nutrition
· Fellowship
· The Council
· Retention fees
· Section 60 Order

Letters to the Editor

The Council

Secrecy at odds with promised greater transparency

From Mr A. J. Burr, MRPharmS

Members of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society were promised greater transparency with regard to the workings of the Council, yet the secrecy that surrounds the internal audit report into Council expenses demonstrates there is still a long way to go. I have had few complete answers to my 15 questions posed at the annual general meeting. We know that an internal audit report of Council expenses was undertaken and that “some” discrepancies were identified. The Officers refused to disclose the exact number of discrepancies, preferring to stick to the word “some”. The choice of language was interesting given that to the membership a “few” might imply one or two, whereas “some” might possibly equate to, perhaps, 10. So imagine my surprise when I was told the actual figure was around 400. Clearly confirmation from the Officers was necessary because if correct, the word “some” was somewhat misleading.

We have been told that there have been some issues raised which have been addressed immediately and that discrepancies are believed to have arisen as a result of the introduction of a significant number of new members to the Council and their lack of familiarity with the Society’s policies in certain areas. The President has personally written to each member of Council reminding them of the Society’s existing expense policy.

So, as I asked at the AGM, what is the exact number and nature of the discrepancies identified in the internal audit report? The membership sought greater transparency and we certainly deserve better. I cannot believe that we mere members will have to resort to the rights in the Freedom of Information Act to get the answers an AGM deserves to be told.

Andrew J. Burr
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

BERNARD KELLY, director of resources, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

At the time this matter was raised at the annual general meeting, it was stated that the internal audit report on Council members’ expenses had yet to be finished.

Once finalised it would be considered by the Audit Committee which, in the normal manner, would reports its findings to the Council. The report will be considered at the next Audit Committee meeting on 27 July.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Fellowship)
Next Topic (Retention fees)