The Society

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7469 p291-292
15 September 2007

This article
Reprint Photocopy

PDF 70K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

• The profession (3)
• NPC (3)
• Community pharmacy
• Prescription pricing
• Wholesaling
• Anticoagulation
• Dispensing
• The Society (3)
• Regulation
• Fees consultation (2)
• Retention fees (2)
• Listening friends
• The Journal

Letters to the Editor

The Society

Retention fees 2008

SOS position is now untenable (Mr A. J. Burr)

Why does the Society not sell the president's flat? (Mr P. A. Roberts)

Reply from Andrew Gush, Treasurer of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society

My hard-earned fees are being wasted (Ms S. E. Roberts)

SOS position is now untenable

From Mr A. J. Burr, MRPharmS

Over the past three years our professional standing has been in steady decline and we have witnessed a complete erosion of our Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Despite the warnings, members are finally seeing the consequences of the disastrous Save Our Society campaign.

Few members will forget how the SOS candidates were hailed as the new dawn on the Society’s Council. As part of their propaganda campaign, they sought to suggest that they would oppose any rise in retention fees, and yet the same individuals are responsible for proposing a 50 per cent rise.

The SOS postcard sent to members during the 2004 Council election says more about the trust we can put in some pharmacy politicians than any letter could adequately express. It would appear that the position of the SOS Council members is now simply untenable.

Andrew J. Burr
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Why does the Society not sell the president's flat?

From Mr P. A. Roberts

As a former pharmacist — who has had to retire from the Register prompted by the excessively high retention fees — I still like to keep in touch with pharmacy affairs via PJ Online.

I remember a few years ago many letters were published criticising the purchase of a flat for the use of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s president. I wonder whether this flat is still in the possession the the Society and, if so, whether there is still need for this property or whether it could be leased out in order to help the finances of the Society.

Paul Roberts
Conwy, Gwynedd

ANDREW GUSH, Treasurer of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:

The Society, like any responsible organisation, reviews the ratio of fixed and current assets as well as long- and short-term liabilities on a regular basis to ensure prudent financial management.

The president’s flat at Parliament View is, of course, a valuable capital asset of the Society. It is a fixed asset and, if sold, members would gain the benefit only once, losing its potential value over time. The reasons to sell this or our other capital assets must therefore always be both prudent and commercially well timed.

I am pleased that various members have written in to suggest cost savings and increase efficiencies across the Society. That is certainly the route we are following, alongside potentially investing to grow income. At the Resource Management Committee we will be reviewing the budget for 2008 line by line. We are determined to make sure that members’ money is used wisely.

In summary, we have to anticipate what is coming in terms of the future professional body, the new regulator and costs, such as the pension scheme deficit. We have to plan and prepare for that future in order to give the Society financial stability and viability for the next few years ahead.

These are not easy decisions — and we knew that they would be unpopular. They are, however, necessary and considered.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have taken part in the consultation so far and encourage those who have not to do so. The consultation still has a few weeks left to run, and this is the method through which members can really influence Council decision-making.

My hard-earned fees are being wasted

From Ms S. E. Roberts, MRPharmS

Following on from Ruth Shaw’s letter (PJ, 25 August, p205) regarding cost-effective communication methods for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, this week I, and presumably every other member in Wales, received the summer 2007 copy of the Welsh Pharmacy Board newsletter in an A4 envelope with a first-class, large-letter stamp on it (cost 44p).

Since the newsletter was only four pages thick, it could easily have been folded in half and sent in a standard second-class letter envelope (cost 23p).

I do not understand why anyone would think it urgent enough to necessitate a first-class stamp.

It does not seem that the Society has even started to implement any plans to reduce overheads or costs, and I resent my hard-earned fees being wasted on what are surely basic and obvious cost-saving strategies.

Siân Roberts
Cardiff

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Dispensing)
Next Topic (Regulation)