Appointments to English national board will not precede board elections
A suggestion that the two members of the English pharmacy board appointed by the Council should be chosen before the first election of board members has been narrowly rejected by the Council.
At the special September
Council meeting, the Society’s head of
corporate governance, Christine Gray, reminded the Council that, under
the draft regulations governing the national pharmacy boards, the English
board would include one pharmacist member of Council with a registered
address in England and one lay member of Council resident in England — both
appointed by the Council. The Council member elected to the Council to
represent the constituency of England, the Isle of Man and the Channel
Islands, Jonathan Buisson, would automatically be a member and the remaining
12 members would be elected. Since the process of electing board members
could not begin before the Privy Council had approved the regulations,
it might be sensible for the Council to make its two appointments at
its October meeting, before the closing date for nominations for election.
This would avoid the possibility of a pharmacist Council member being
both appointed and elected to the board.
Graham Phillips suggested that it would be more logical for the Council
to wait until the election process had bottomed out before deciding whom
to appoint.
Jonathan Buisson, opposing Mr Phillips’s suggestion, said that
the board should be up and running to its full capacity as soon as possible.
The Council had already seen far too many delaying tactics.
Stephen Denyer said that the Council might wish to appoint someone to
the board to fulfil a particular type of role which the Council believed
that person would do well. If everyone was subjected to election first
and the person that Council may have wished to put forward secured the
lowest number of votes, that would not negate the worth of Council decision
but it would certainly undermine the authority and potential for that
person to contribute properly. For that reason it would be an uncomfortable
arrangement.
John Gentle said that he rejected that suggestion for exactly the same
reason. If a Council member put himself or herself forward for appointment
but was not selected, that would become common knowledge and people might
be deterred from voting for someone who was seen as having already been
rejected by the Council.
Martin Astbury said that he favoured delaying the appointments until
after the election of board members. If a Council member who had sought
election to the board received a low vote, the Council would be able
to take that fact into account when deciding who was the right person
to fill the gap.
The President then put to a vote the proposal that the appointments should
be made in October. There were 10 votes in favour and 10 against.
The President declared that the proposal had failed. The appointments
would be made at the March 2007 Council meeting or possibly at a formal
session during a Council strategy day in February 2007.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal