Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) members have sent a legal letter to the body demanding clarity over the number of votes it needs to change its charter to register as a charity and gain royal college status.
The letter, seen by C+D, was sent earlier this month (March 7) on behalf of “a number of members of the RPS, some of whom are former GB national committee members” who have “substantive concerns” on the proposed changes to the RPS charter.
Read more: Why I’ve launched a campaign against the RPS’s planned changes
Responding to the letter and C+D questioning, the RPS last week said that its voting rules have been “misinterpreted” and that it has “welcomed questions and debate”. Read its response in full below.
Voting has been open since March 13 and closes at 5pm today (March 24) for RPS members to agree or disagree to the body’s proposal to become a charity and a royal college.
Two-thirds vote?
The letter raised questions over the voting process, saying that “nothing that we have seen within the documents circulated by the RPS to date has confirmed that [it] is following the correct procedure”.
“The members we are representing would like immediate clarification from the RPS that…all members will receive a ballot and that the resolution will only be passed if not less than two-thirds of all votes capable of being cast are in favour of the resolution,” it said.
The RPS regulations state that “any changes to the overall content of the charter…require a special resolution to be passed with the support of at least two-thirds of the members and fellows eligible to vote”.
Read more: RPS reveals England director departed at end of last year
But they also define a “special resolution” as being “confirmed by a ballot of the members eligible to vote (ie members and fellows, currently in good standing) giving a two-thirds majority of the votes cast”.
And its current charter outlines that a “special resolution” is confirmed by a ballot with “not less than a two-thirds majority of the votes of…members”.
The letter also called for the Firetail Review of the RPS to be “made available to the membership”, stressing that “without knowing what alternative options were presented, it is difficult for members to make an informed decision” in the current vote.
Read more: Royal college row: RPS hits back at critics as CPhOs say ‘vote yes’
And it reiterated concerns that “there has been no explanation as to why the reference to the profession of pharmacists is proposed to be removed” from the proposed new charter’s objectives.
“There is significant concern amongst the members of the RPS relating to their knowledge and their understanding of the proposals being presented to them and the voting process itself,” the letter said.
“It would seem entirely reasonable for the current process to be suspended until such time as the issues raised in this letter have been addressed,” it added.
“High-handed”
Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) Scotland’s head of policy Maurice Hickey - one of the letter’s signatories - told C+D that he and his colleagues decided to send a legal letter after they “got no conclusive answer other than ‘we know we are right’ from the RPS”.
Hickey, a former member of the RPSGB Council who was present when Supplemental Charter of 2004 was approved, said that “the high-handed manner” in which the RPS has proceeded “has alienated many members and created a breach of trust”.
Read more: ‘Resign immediately’: RPS royal college row heats up as vote looms
“Given its refusal to engage in a constructive dialogue with concerned members, my colleagues and I felt we have no option but to send this letter,” he added.
Although Hickey signed the letter independently and was not acting on behalf of the PDA - nor any of the other signatories - the union also spoke out about the need for clarity over the RPS voting process earlier this month (March 12), saying “these questions remain unanswered”.
RPS: Voting rules “misinterpreted”
But in a response to the legal letter on March 19, which has been published on its website “in the spirit of transparency”, the RPS’s solicitors said that members have “misinterpreted” the RPS charter’s voting rules.
It said that “of the votes cast, two-thirds must be cast in favour of the proposal for it to succeed [and] if a person does not cast a vote, then there is no vote to include when calculating whether the required threshold was met”.
The RPS also updated its FAQs following C+D questioning, saying that the charter “takes precedence over the regulations where there is any conflict in wording”.
Read more: RPS board member resigns over royal college strategy
The body last week (March 21) told C+D that it has “welcomed questions and debate from members and non-members throughout this change process including at [its] extensive roadshow and online events”.
It stressed that if the vote is successful, the “Royal College of Pharmacy will continue to be a professional leadership body and membership organisation for pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists”.
“There will be a registrant majority at every level in our governance structure including at trustee board and senate level and our national pharmacy councils, which will continue to be made up of elected members as the country boards are at present,” it said.
“No plans to suspend”
The RPS solicitors’ letter also set out that “a charity cannot have a purpose to benefit, or further the interests of, a defined group of individuals who are not themselves the objects of the charity”.
But it added that the RPS’s “role as a representative body of the pharmaceutical sector will continue as part of its furtherance of its educational and health objects”.
Read more: RPS Society or College, as health professionals let’s continue with the (collegiate!) cooperation
On the Firetail Review, it said that this was a “preliminary working document” and that after an “iterative process”, the RPS Assembly “is putting to members the single course of action that it considers is best for RPS’s future, together with its reasoning”.
“This has allowed the RPS to embark on a detailed programme of consultation and to stop the process from becoming unnecessarily complex,” it added.
And it confirmed that the RPS “has no plans to suspend the ballot”.
Read more: RPS: Renew now or miss out on royal college vote
The RPS pointed members to its “change proposals webpages”, roadshow report and November 20 2024 Assembly meeting minutes.
Earlier this month, the PDA urged the body to “abandon its hastily convened ballot” and for pharmacists to vote ‘no’ if it is not called off.
And past RPS president and current English board member Martin Astbury has launched a ‘Vote no’ campaign against the plans – leading him to face calls to “resign immediately”.
Read more: ‘Modernised corporate structure’: RPS reveals dates for ‘Royal College’ vote
But the RPS hit back at the concerns and said that it was “disappointed by the position taken by the PDA”.
And last week, the RPS revealed that its director for England James Davies left the organisation in December.
