Sector leaders have warned that the RPS is “acting in a way that damages the pharmacist interest” ahead of its upcoming vote on becoming a royal college.
The controversial proposal, which members will be able to vote on from March 13 until March 24, could see the body register as a new charity – The Royal College of Pharmacy.
Ahead of the vote, the PDA last week (March 7) urged the RPS to “abandon its hastily convened ballot” and for pharmacists to vote ‘no’ if it is not called off.
Read more: RPS: Renew now or miss out on royal college vote
The PDA added that it polled 2,155 pharmacists, “a mixture of both RPS and non-RPS members”, on the proposals between February 18 and 26.
The survey found that less than a third (28%) of respondents “are positive in their support of the RPS becoming a Royal College of Pharmacy”.
Read more: RPS board member resigns over royal college strategy
It added that the results also “demonstrate that the levels of awareness on this important issue are nowhere near adequate to justify the holding of the ballot at this time” – with some 67% of polled pharmacists feeling not very well, or not at all, informed about the proposals.
The PDA stressed that the “principal objective” of the new charity “would be to act in the public interest – the previous objective to safeguard, maintain the honour and promote the interests of pharmacists would be lost”.
Resignation calls
The following day, past RPS president and current English board member Martin Astbury published an open letter slamming the proposals on social media platform X.
“As a board member, I feel I have been pressured into compliance with these changes but I feel duty-bound to raise concerns,” the letter said.
“The society was established in the 1840s to represent pharmacists’ interests but instead it is now in my opinion acting in a way that damages the pharmacist interest – and if we don’t act then very soon, it may do so irreparably,” Astbury added.
Read more: RPS announces bid to become ‘Royal College of Pharmacy’
“The current proposal to convert the RPS into a charity, the Royal College of Pharmacy is likely, in my view, to have unintended disastrous consequences,” he said.
“If you vote YES, the future RPS (Royal College) will be regulated by the Charity Commission and many of the non-elected appointed trustees will be non-pharmacists,” he added.
“If my VOTE NO campaign fails, I will resign - but if the NO votes prevail, I believe the senior leadership of the RPS should do the honourable thing and they should go,” Astbury said.
Read more: ‘Very positive’ turnout: Fewer than 2,000 votes for RPS leadership
“Please don’t wait until after the vote to resign”, ex-RPS board member and past president Steve Churton commented on social media.
In November, Churton resigned from the RPS England board over how the body was working towards becoming a royal college, despite being in support of the move.
“You cannot possibly, with a scintilla of credibility, disassociate yourself from your collective responsibility to the RPS as an elected member of its English pharmacy board,” he added.
Read more: RPS planning to vote on ‘Royal College’ status in March
Previous National Pharmacy Association (NPA) chief executive Michael Holden joined his calls, tweeting that “integrity and values should mean that a board member who does not support corporate decisions and governance should resign immediately”.
“The time to say no or challenge is around a board table then accept the corporate decision or resign,” he added.
Responding to the comments, Astbury today told C+D that “the RPS quite appropriately allows board members to register their dissent from an agreed position and their right to talk against it”.
Read more: RPS obscures declining membership numbers in latest annual report
“In my long time serving the RPS I can only recall registering dissent a few times,” he said.
“In my opinion [the vote] should only be taken forward following wide consultation and development with RPS members and with firm confidence that the vote will succeed…If the yes vote does not prevail then I believe my raising my concerns will have been vindicated,” he added.
C+D approached the RPS for comment.
“Historic opportunity”
Meanwhile, the UK Pharmacy Professional Leadership Advisory Board (UKPPLAB) last week (March 6) came out in support of the proposals.
It said that the “historic opportunity” has “the potential to catalyse, deepen and focus collaboration across pharmacy professional leadership bodies and specialist professional groups”.
Read more: ‘Appallingly hand-picked cronies’: New leadership commission comes under fire
“Greater unity would ultimately deliver the stronger professional leadership voice…that we believe is needed,” it added.
In April, Astbury deemed that the board “appallingly consists of several hand-picked appointed cronies” and was “in no way…representative”.
