Lay members whose term of office ends in May are to be considered for reappointment to the Council
The names of the seven lay members of the Council whose terms of office end in May are to be submitted to the Appointments Commission for consideration for reappointment for a further three-year term.
The seven members concerned are Seema Agha, Phillida Entwistle, John
Hanlon, Sylvia Hikins, Ray Jobling, Bob Michell and Marcia Saunders.
All have confirmed their willingness to be reappointed.
At the April
Council meeting, the Council heard that the Society was
in an unprecedented situation as it moved towards the the situation where
there would be a regulator and a professional body, and it needed to
ensure that the skill mix within the Council was appropriate for addressing
the challenges.
The Council was asked, therefore, to agree on one of
two options:
(1) whether the names of the seven members should be submitted
to the Appointments Commission for consideration for reappointment
(and that a skills audit be undertaken following the completion of
the Council
election)
or (2) whether the lay member positions that fell vacant
in 2008 should go to open competition so as to secure particular
expertise at the highest level.
PHILLIDA ENTWISTLE reminded the Council that through the election
process it would lose at least five, maybe nine, members. The possibility
of
losing over half the Council at any one time [were the Society
to lose seven experienced lay members as well] is a risk. She added
that Government
timetables were unreliable and that recruitment could take four
to
six months. What would result would be an undefined period of instability
when what was needed most of all was cohesion within the Council
Another point was that choosing option 2 would affect the creation
of effective
Council committees next year. She suggested that reappointment
should proceed for a period covering at least the period of life
of the
organisation.
Declaring an interest, John Hanlon, Marcia Saunders, Ray Jobling
and Sylvia Hikins left the chamber.
The CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND REGISTRAR pointed out to the Council
that there was no suggestion that lay members were being sacked
or dismissed.
There was also no suggestion that the contribution, abilities
and experience
of those lay members was of any less value now than it had been
hitherto, and that was a very high value. The question was not
about their
performance; it was about skill needs and looking forward.
BOB MICHELL said that it was clear that the Chief Executive and
Registrar did not intend anybody to feel that they were being
dismissed. But
he explained that that was what he had thought a letter on the
matter sent
to lay Council members had meant to him. He, too, left the chamber.
STEPHEN DENYER said that the lay members the Council currently
had were deeply embedded in the process of change that the Society
was
undergoing
and that embeddedness meant a great deal to him. He said that
there would be real risk if the Council sought to create an entirely
new cohort of
seven lay members. In his mind, skills that had been identified
as being required on the Council were far outweighed by the importance
of embeddedness,
pace and understanding. He urged the adoption of option 1.
The VICE-PRESIDENT said that if open competition was right for
elected Council members it should be appropriate for lay members
too. He
believed in open competition right across the board.
JOHN GENTLE said that arguments about potential disruption and
instability that had been mentioned could be considered to be
arguments that
were just as good for cancelling the Council election. He pointed
out that
the Council might have three new Officers next year. That, to
his mind, would cause far greater disruption than replacing the
lay
members, valued as they were.
The PRESIDENT said that nobody was being sacked and nobody was
being asked to leave. A term was coming to an end and it was
an opportunity
to make sure that the future Council had as many skills as necessary
to guide the profession through a difficult change.
The vote for option 1 was carried by 15 votes to five. There
were four abstentions. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal