RCVS Council Meeting June 2012
As always these represent my impression of the meeting and are not intended as an unbiased ‘minute’.
I always associate that June meeting of Council with being hot and sticky and this one was no different – I do wonder if the RCVS Staff have a secret plan to overheat the Council chamber in the vain hope that its members will generate less hot air of their own. If so it is a notably unsuccessful tactic. The weather outside was dull and rainy yet inside swimming costumes would have been more appropriate garb for the serried ranks of Councillors than academic gowns. Two members Mrs Hill and Prof Reid were in Australia on College business, where they are no doubt enjoying the relative cool! Perhaps we need to set up a committee to look into the temperature inside Belgravia House.
The other notable feature of this meeting was how few members attended. There were 12 apologies for absence – I think evenly distributed between elected and appointed members. I cannot recall such an empty chamber and permitted myself to think that it might result in the speedier transaction of our business. That was not to be the case – even the normally efficient chairmanship of Dr Davies failed to keep the meeting flowing. However I must say that it was a generally good humoured Council – even when points were being hotly disputed.
The June Council is the last one presided over by the incumbent President before handing over the ‘reins of power’ (such as they are) to the incoming Chief. Dr Davies has been one of the best ‘chairs’ the Council has had in the short time I’ve been a member and has certainly had to deal with a very difficult year – including as it did the resignation of the former Registrar. By tradition newly elected members attend the meeting as observers and are invited to the preceding Council supper. This year the electorate have delivered two new faces – Amanda Boag and Chris Barker plus one old campaigner Prof Steve May. In fact of the three only Chris Barker turned up so we’ll have to wait until RCVS day to meet our other new Colleagues. It is also the last time that retiring members sit. On this occasion Chris Chesney was thanked for his many years of work on the Disciplinary Committee and received a scroll and a rather nice glass bowl, Chris made an emotional thank you speech recalling how privileged he felt to have served the profession for the last 16 years. Everyone will be sad to see him go – it is rare for a member to be so universally popular. Charles Gruchy whose sterling work on the Disciplinary Committee brought him no thanks from the voters received a scroll and Bertie Ellis who is the Council’s equivalent of one the premier league’s ‘yoyo clubs’ had also failed to win re-election and was thanked by the President (I think he’s already had several scrolls and glass bowls) although Bertie was not actually present in person (who can blame him).
After the frenetic atmosphere of the last three meetings the agenda looked surprisingly light and uncontroversial – but there was one great excitement – the identity of the new CEO and secretary to the Council. This is to be Mr Nick Stace who is currently CEO at CHOICE in Australia, formerly he was director of strategic communications for Gordon Brown (which seems to be the only black mark in what is otherwise a most impressive CV). More seriously Mr Stace’s knowledge of and contacts in the heart of government should prove very useful to the RCVS. More details can be found on the RCVS web site. The College has now begun its quest to find a new Registrar and Head of Legal services.
The President had received a letter from HM The Queen on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee – this was read to Council with suitable solemnity.
Sandy Trees was congratulated on his elevation to the peerage amid applause from all present.
For decision
Retention fees
The Treasurer was attending a family wedding and could not be with us so Mrs Molyneux stood in the firing line on this.
Very wisely (in my view) the P & RC recommended a freeze in the annual retention fee for the second year running. Since 2008 retention fee have been increased by 7.8% compared to RPI increases of 16.7 % so there has been a significant reduction in real terms of the cost of RCVS membership. This has been brought about very largely by increased overall membership.
I questioned the 3% credit card charge. 4,000 payments are made every year by credit card. It seems to me the 3% is a rather high fee to be paying and in my view the advantage to the College in reduced administration and prompt payment of members using credit cards should out weight the charge. I was assured that the fee was about to be reduced and that the Officers would ‘look into it’.
Other RCVS fees are to be increased by 4% so the PSS fee will go up from £491 - £511, the PSS budget provides a paltry £20K for promotion of the scheme.
There was some good news on the RVPP the fee will be reduced to £34 / year from 2013. As good as that news might be it brought Mr Elliot to his feet - he has adopted the RVPP fee as his personal mission in life and is very much like a terrier with a bone when it comes to delving into the true costs of the scheme. In a whirlwind of data he pointed out that 1.7 staff equivalents look after a Register that has only 220 new entries per year and 36 deletions – that is about one entry per day. He wondered which of the 1.7 staff made the daily change to the Register. From the total cost of £122 K and after deducting the overheads he had estimated that the staff involved are paid £55 K per annum when the average vet is paid £35K. The head of department replied that the costs covered meetings with the VMD and staff costs were total costs inclusive of NI etc one had to be careful not to compare apples and pears. She pointed out that there was more to the maintenance of the Register (such as a monthly report to the VMD) than simply the new entries. A motion proposed by Mark Elliot and seconded by Bob Partridge to refer the matter back to P&RC failed to pass 8 FOR with 13 AGAINST.
Specialisation
Following extensive consultation (to which there had been over 500 pages of responses) the WP recommended a number of changes to the current system. It should be emphasised that the RCVS does not seek to limit in anyway the ability of a VS to refer a case to whoever he / she feels appropriate. The RCVS does however believe that vets must make it clear to clients what level of referral they are being offered. The gist of the proposals are as follows:-
- Continuation of a RCVS register of ‘specialists’.
- Only members on the specialist list can use the term ‘specialist’.
- Creation of a new middle layer of ‘Advanced Practitioners’.
- ‘Advanced Practitioners’ to be in only very broad designations e.g. ‘Equine Practice’.
- Specialists to become Honorary Fellows of the College after 10 years on the specialist register.
Catherine Goldie asked how the specialist register would be maintained – would it rely on continued contributions to the literature or on practical day to day work. The President assured her that a balanced approach would be taken.
Beverley Cottrell asked why specialists needed to wait 10 years before becoming ‘honorary Fellows. She felt that if they were good enough to become RCVS specialists and had done the work to attain that status then they should get a full Fellowship from day one.
Cert AVP
A proposal to simplify the ‘A’ module and reduce it to 10 credits was approved without comment – a long overdue reform to my mind.
Bye laws to accommodate the Legislative Reform Order
In fact this paper simply outlined what the new bye laws would hope to achieve rather than presenting the final text for approval. This was largely a technical matter however we must be careful not to underestimate the impact that the LRO will have.
Enforcement of the Code of conduct for Council members
Legal advice had confirmed that Council has no authority to suspend or remove Council members (I could not help but wonder why we needed to take legal advice to find that out). It was proposed that members who breach the ‘Code’ should be suspended from committees. Whilst I agree that some mechanism is necessary I have grave concerns that members shouldn’t be silenced or muzzled just because they have unpopular opinions. In my opinion the correct people to ‘discipline’ elected members are those who elect them – not the Council. I received some support from Bob Partridge (and indeed the President) on this point however we all voted in favour of the new system.
Lay Observer appointment
Council approved Sarah Pond as the new PIC lay observer – I noted from her CV that she is a fan of ‘Zumba’ – so PIC meetings might have a different format in the future.
Reports
Advisory Committee
Clare Tapsfield-Wright presented the report which provoked no comment.
There was nothing (unusually) of great interest in the advisory committee’s report. Much time had been spent discussing the issue of disability disqualification from studying as a veterinary student. The RCVS day one competencies preclude anyone in a wheel chair from being considered for a place at vet school.
A few minor changes to the Equine PPE certificate were approved.
Planning and Resources
Dr Viner the treasurer was absent due to a family wedding overseas and Mrs Molyneux (very bravely) stepped into the firing line in her role as JVP.
Of late this committee’s work has been the source of most controversy at Council. Today was no different. I raised the issue of the integrity of the election process. Unfortunately 289 duplicate papers had been issued and although we are confident that the result is valid it seemed to me that the numbered ballot paper should be cross referenced to the registration number of the MRCVS it was issued to (with the necessary provision that no one should be able to access that data – except if required by an independent auditor). This is essentially what happens in general elections. I also asked how printing the ballot number and the ‘security number’ on the same bit of paper represented any ‘security’ at all? How is it different to having one number?? I’m not sure anyone knew the answer to that. The Acting Registrar revealed that there is an appeal mechanism against the election result available to candidates that kicks in for one month after the AGM.
Mark Elliot questioned the cost of the college’s new ‘App’ for the web site which had been estimated at £20K. The President assured us that it would cost nowhere near £20K - apparently vet students can write them these days.
Mr Partridge was back up on his feet with a detailed question concerning changes in the draft accounts after they had been approved by Council in March. He wanted to be sure that the President had approved all the changes. He noted that admin staff salaries were shown as having risen by £106K – which he described as mind boggling. An additional £27.3K had been spent on postage and DC costs were up by £120K. The President said he was confident that the figures were correct and fully justified – it was explained that the total of the variances were just over 1% of the budget.
Education and Specialisation Committee
Prof Reid was away on College business in Sydney (one has to sympathise with his onerous duties) visiting the Vet School there. Thus Vice Chairman Chris Tufnell presented the report – most of it had already been discussed under matters for decision. He too thanked Chris Chesney for his 16 years of service on the committee.
The Preliminary Investigation Committee
There are two (lengthy) hearings listed for the DC and five cases pending listing. Some of these cases involve multiple charges.
Highlighted two areas: the first being euthanasia of stray animals. The committee reported a case where a stray rabbit had been euthanized on welfare grounds only for the owner to turn up shortly afterwards. It transpired that the rabbit had a long standing health issue. The Committee recognised that veterinary surgeons have to act as agents of necessity but reminded members that a reasonable time period should where possible be allowed for owners to come forward in. Bob Partridge and Dr Johnson expressed concern that the wording of this report might give the (false) impression that the RCVS was advocating keeping animals suffering for longer than was necessary whilst waiting for owners to come forward. Whilst this was not the intention the Chairman of the PIC Mrs Nute agreed that the matter should be referred to the Advisory Committee with a view to developing some general advice.
The second area was continuity of care of inpatients. The committee reminded members yet again that it is their responsibility to ensure safe transfer of animals between practices not the owners. Animals should only be transferred for welfare reasons (or at least not in circumstances where welfare could be adversely affected) and not for the convenience of practices.
The committee also reported the results of the College’s investigations into the panorama programme – ‘ It shouldn’t happen at the vets’.
Lay Observers’ Report
This was generally very supportive of the College’s disciplinary processes. The observers highlighted concern regarding OOH cover reflected in the complaints seen by the PIC. They mentioned in particular:-
- Requests for home visits tuned down by lay staff without the vet being told.
- Practice policies that appeared to prevent home visits unless another vet could come in to cover inpatients.
- Lack of robust standby arrangements by some OOH providers to enable attendance away from the surgery.
- Poorly trained staff telling the public that home visits are not available.
Charles Gruchy in a final contribution to Council put in a plea that the RCVS speeds up the investigation of complaints particularly the time taken by the College to write to respondents. He pointed out that the RCVS gives 14 days for people to respond to it whilst often seeming to take longer itself. He reported that being investigated caused respondent vets immense stress and as a DC member he was all too aware of the pressure disciplinary proceedings put on members.
Disciplinary Committee
As usual the Committee had heard a number of cases in brief:-
Mr Sherry – practising whilst off the register. The Committee found him guilty of disgraceful conduct but due to exceptional mitigating circumstances resolved the case with a warning.
Mr Smith on conviction in the Magistrates Court for illegally docking a Rottweiler Puppy’s tail and altering the certificate retrospectively. The charges were dismissed. The committee found that although Mr Smith had acted illegally he had done so under a genuine misunderstanding about whether ‘security’ dogs were classified as ‘law enforcement’ dogs (they are not). As the legislation was fairly new at the time of the offence (2008) and even DEFRA officials may have been uncertain as to the meaning of the exemption for law enforcement dogs the committee was not satisfied that Mr Smith’s conduct rendered him unfit to practise.
Mr Nazimek – this case emanated from the Panorama programme. The respondent was said to have charged for using a blood pressure monitor when a witness stated that no such equipment was used. The respondent’s defence was that he had not made the relevant entries on the computer himself. The Committee accepted him as a credible witness and could not be sure that he had made the relevant charges, therefore they dismissed the case.
Mr Auerbach. This lengthy case resulted from a complaint by the Joint Measurement Board. It arose from irregularities found in a number of equine height measurements taken by Mr Auerbach. The committee found that it could NOT be sure that Mr Auerbach had known that the measurements were inaccurate accepting evidence that there are a number of ways of making a horse smaller (for measurement purposes) than it actually is. The charges were dismissed.
Mr Nemeth applied (again) for restoration to the Register. The Committee refused the application (again).
Mr J. Main applied for restoration to the register. The committee were impressed by the application which was granted.
Prof Lees urged members to read the full reports on all these cases on the RCVS web site. This is important as without looking at the full report it can be difficult to understand the decisions that the DC has made.
AOB
I raised the issue of ownership of the College property and reserves. Did they belong to the RCVS as a charter body or were they part of the ’statutory’ function of the College. At the last meeting the Officers had undertaken to ‘look into’ it. The acting registrar Mr Hockey confirmed that legal advice was being taken and initial indications were that the Charter / VSA left these issues fairly open to interpretation.
The President extended the thanks of Council to Gordon Hockey who has done excellent work as acting Registrar – this was warmly applauded by all.
Committee
Confidential Discussion
Council considered a paper by TFX Consulting on the iMIS system recently installed. It agreed that the report should be published in full.
Mr Nick Stace was appointed as Secretary and CEO (full details can be found on the RCVS web site).
Nominations for the various committees were approved.
I wasn’t able to stay for lunch having to make a speedy return to Uttoxeter in time for the 5.55 pm race for which I was veterinary officer. Despite missing my train, getting stuck in a traffic jam, and torrential rain I got there with 30 minutes spare. Fortunately the racing was not very taxing and my presence almost doubled the attendance on a miserable evening. I wonder how many council members spent a day at the RCVS plus another day’s work in the evening!
---
MRCVSonline would like to thank Richard Stephenson for providing his report for publication.
Birmingham Dogs Home has issued an urgent winter appeal as it faces more challenges over the Christmas period.
