Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Your RPS

Call to rethink sector-specific seats on RPS boards following lack of candidates

RPS treasurer Sultan Dajani suggests some sector-specific places could be scrapped after shortage of candidates.

Society treasurer Sultan Dajani (pictured) describes the absence of elections for the Scottish and Welsh boards this year as “sad” and questions whether certain sector-specific places on the boards in England and Wales should be abandoned

Source: Nadia Atturi / Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Dajani: sector-specific seats on boards should be reviewed

A senior Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) figure has called for a rethink of how the organisation elects its boards after a shortage of nominations this year resulted in casual vacancies and uncontested elections in two of the three GB nations.

Society treasurer Sultan Dajani, re-elected to the English board in this year’s contest, describes the absence of elections for the Scottish and Welsh boards this year as “sad” and questions whether certain sector-specific places on the boards in England and Wales should be abandoned.

His comments came after seven out of ten successful candidates across the three boards were appointed without a contest after a low number of nominations.

The Society uses sector-specific representation on its boards in England and Wales: candidates run for places representing community practice, primary care, hospital and industry, as well as “any sector”. This system is not used in Scotland.

In this year’s election in England, only one candidate was put forward for the hospital place and there were no nominations for the industry seat, which will remain vacant. Had the sectoral system not been in place, there would have been sufficient nominations to fill all available seats.

In Scotland, the four nominated candidates were appointed to the four available seats on the board, while in Wales there were only two nominations for four places. In both cases there was therefore no election.

Dajani told The Pharmaceutical Journal that this year’s outcome cast doubt on the use of sectoral places on the boards, which should be reviewed and some possibly dropped. “It’s sad that Scotland and Wales didn’t have an election this year. [In England] there was no nomination for an industry place, and hospital yet again was uncontested,” he says.

“It calls into question the sectoral places in England — we don’t need it by the looks of it. As the treasurer, it’s one thing that I’ll be looking for the Society to do [review this].”

Voter turnout at the election in England rose slightly compared with 2014 but remained relatively low at 11.7%.

David Branford lost his seat by just 16 votes after five years on the board. He polled 346 more votes than Catherine Armstrong who was elected in the primary care category. But Branford was not granted a place on the board because he declared as an “any sector” candidate, and came a close second in this category to Claire Anderson.

Mair Davies, chair of the Welsh Pharmacy Board, says: “The Welsh Pharmacy Board are committed to the sectoral places system for national board elections as we feel this is still the best system for Wales. We do, however, welcome discussion and debate on this topic.”

An RPS spokesperson said that governance arrangements at the Society were under review and this may include the election process.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2015.20068667

Readers' comments (1)

  • I have always assumed that the decision to reserve places for members from the major areas of practice was made to ensure that those so elected brought to the Board's discussions specialist knowledge of their area of practice to help thereby strengthen decisions made by the Board while working alongside their fellow members in the best interests of the profession. However I have not seen this viewpoint clearly stated within the notices regarding elections and the use of the terms 'representatives' and 'any sector' may well cloud the issue.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

  • Popular Medicines

    Popular Medicines

    An illustrated history of some of the most popular branded medicines. Includes colourful historical adverts and details of the medicine's formula and intended purpose.

    £22.00Buy now

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
PJJ Static MPU
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.