I am writing to comment on the recent notice to make amendments to the regulations relating to the 2025 elections.
Although I have sympathy with the underlying concerns that have given rise to the agreement of the Assembly to these changes, I do have some serious concerns.
The Special Resolution Vote (SRV) to enable progression to our royal college is due to take place in Q1 of 2025 and I understand that any timing overlap with the usual timetable for board elections may compete for resource and visibility. However, it is not clear to me why board elections need to be cancelled (as per the wording of the official notice) and not simply delayed, separating them from the SRV. Indeed, if the SRV is lost it is imperative in my view, in the light of the resignations that would be expected and called upon, that board elections could be arranged as quickly as possible thereafter. I see no provision for this.
Also, the main reason provided to members for cancelling the board elections is that the organisation would “wish to be able to make it clear to members what type of organisation they would be standing for election to”. This should be made crystal clear to members when seeking their positive response in the SRV, and as such would be available in Q1, well ahead of slightly delayed board elections. In summary, I consider it unnecessary and undesirable to cancel the 2025 board elections when a delay would be a more pragmatic and proportionate decision, and importantly more acceptable to members.
With regard to the extension of the terms for the officers and chairs/vice-chairs, I feel that this is little more than a contrived convenience. The given rationale that the Privy Council and the Charity Commission may in some way view any interim change in Assembly membership so adversely as to present a “risk to delivery and added complexity to manage” is so insignificant as to make it meaningless. Those bodies are surely used to such changes being made routinely and in line with the regulations and governance procedures of organisations. In fact, I would suggest that rather than giving them cause for concern, they would respect this.
The ongoing needs of the RPS, and the skills and experiences of its chairs and officers, are infinitely more important than some assumed risk of possible complexity. The optics of any agreement to extend the terms of present incumbents are highly damaging and present another glaring example of the surreptitiousness that members deplore.
I would therefore urge the Assembly to revisit this decision in particular if it wishes to retain the goodwill of members in the run up to the SRV. Otherwise it could well be widely considered that the organisation is once again acting to ensure that it is in a form it wants rather than what the membership needs. And that could have very unfortunate consequences.
Steve Churton FRPharmS
Past president RPSGB and former RPS English Pharmacy Board member
Response from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society:
We understand there may be concerns about our proposal to defer RPS board elections for up to 12 months and want to assure members that it is our firm intention and wish to hold the elections as soon as possible.
The decision made by Assembly was to propose deferring the elections for up to 12 months — but only until a time it makes logistical sense for an organisation that is about to undergo a period of vital but significant change. It was also important to ensure that the timing of the elections did not clash with the proposed Special Resolution Vote (SRV) planned for Q1 2025.
The Assembly wanted to enable members putting themselves forward for election to have a clear understanding of the settled governance structure that they are standing for and because of the SRV and proposed changes to our governance, this may differ significantly from the current governance structure.
As usual with any proposed change to regulations we gazetted these on the RPS website and in The Pharmaceutical Journal, we then promoted these links on social media and in the member e-newsletter, inviting comments (to CEO@rpharms.com). The Assembly will consider all member comments received and make a final decision in early 2025.
2 comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you RPS for the official response. The gazetted official notice states clearly that the agreement of Assembly was to CANCEL the 2025 board election, not to “defer for up to 12 months” (which, as I have indicated in my letter, would have been a more acceptable proposal”.
It is also notable that no response is given to the matter of extending the terms of officers and chairs/vice-chairs, which is central to my letter and should give members significant cause for concern. It is neither necessary or desirable that members are denied the opportunity to reconsider those in positions of leadership as the Society enters a significant and complex period of change as it seeks to establish itself as our Royal College of Pharmacy.
I agree with Mr Churton. It is noteworthy that membership of the Society is falling since it became optional and in my view those who participate in the Society's activities should be encourages to do so, rather than discouraged.