RCVS president defends the college
RCVS president Neil Smith says the college has been open about its past mistakes and will continue on a path of openness.
The RCVS has come under fierce criticism from a number of sources in recent weeks - including from MRCVSonline - about its governance, decisions, communications and, indeed, its mistakes. RCVS President Neil Smith explains why he feels such criticism to be disproportionate and unjustified, how he considers the college to be a much more agile and responsive organisation now than when he was first elected to council 10 years ago, and how we must all play our part.
"I have seen a great deal of change at the college, having been an elected council member since 2004, with a two-year gap," he says. "Over the past few years, there have been some challenging times, but, as someone who has not been afraid to raise issues in the past, I can say the RCVS today is much more agile and responsive than it used to be.
"The appointment of a CEO, the introduction of an operational board and the delegation of powers to our standing committees have improved the decision-making process. The latter two changes will be evaluated at this June’s council meeting. Although change still takes time, especially those changes that go to external consultation, the council is starting to look more at strategic issues, whilst maintaining oversight of the operational board and committees.
"Nobody is perfect and this truism applies to organisations as much as individuals. The real test of character is how we confront our mistakes, how we deal with the fallout and what we do to rectify them. The college has been open about its past mistakes and taken action accordingly, and we will continue down this path of openness and transparency."
There still seems to be an impression among some that the college issues diktats to the profession from its ivory tower.
Neil says: "The very first item on our agenda was a discussion of RCVS Council’s 2012 decision to remove post-nominals from the register once the advanced practitioner status has bedded in. This change wasn’t dreamt up overnight; in fact the whole profession was asked to comment in November 2011, before the council made its decision in 2012. If the profession had responded to that consultation in the way it is doing now, it is likely a different recommendation would have been put to the council.
"Our request is now in council’s hands, and I will not pre-judge the outcome, but this episode demonstrates that we do listen, react and take action where appropriate.
"However, there still seems to be an impression among some that the college issues diktats to the profession from its ivory tower and is unwilling to listen to the outcry that may result. This is not true.
The RCVS Council will review its decision to remove post-nominals from the register.
"We also give the profession a say in the majority of the major decisions we make through our consultation process and we go to great efforts to encourage those who would be affected by our proposals to respond. We have regular meetings with the major veterinary associations, which are always constructive and lead to better understanding on both sides."
A consultation was recently held on proposals to introduce a new Royal Charter. Changes under the new charter would include the combination of the list and register of veterinary nurses. At the March council meeting it was revealed 37 individuals and 11 organisations responded to the consultation.
"We posted hard copies of the consultation document directly to the 1,000 plus listed veterinary nurses who would be affected by our plans to move them to the register, and invited them to respond," Neil says. "Furthermore, we promoted the consultation using every form of communication at our disposal including RCVS News, the veterinary press, e-newsletters, social media, a webinar and face-to-face meetings. I also addressed, and answered, questions at a BVA Council meeting.
"Of course, we can only put the word out there, it is up to the profession to respond if they feel strongly enough about our proposals – whether that’s for or against. We are always open to suggestions about how we can improve our consultation process but to say it is invalid is just wrong.
"For example, while the response to our Royal Charter proposals was not overwhelming, no one can claim that they were not informed about the changes being proposed. The BVA, of which a large proportion of the profession are members, took a considerable interest in the proposals (as well as being involved, with others, in their formulation)."
The initial announcement that post-nominals would be removed from the register sparked fierce criticism on Twitter, yet the silence of a large number of RCVS Council members prompted MRCVSonline to question the lack of communication between council members and the profession after they are elected.
Commenting, Neil says: "It has been reported by MRCVSonline that “some have questioned whether the college is accepting enough of those who challenge its views” and that council members are made to sign a 'vow of silence' upon election. This is just plain inaccurate. It is only through robust debate that many of our decisions are reached and our Code of Conduct for Council Members specifically states:
'Council members are expected to contribute freely to discussion and debate to enable a robust and informed decision to be made. It is accepted that there will sometimes be dissenting views but once a final decision has been made all members are expected to respect that collective decision.
'Any public dissent should be measured and due consideration given to the impact this might have on the College, its staff, Council and other Council members.'
"When the draft of this code was discussed at the then Planning and Resources Committee, I specifically argued for the removal of a reference to collective responsibility (effectively the public defence of any council decision) as this would have not only been unworkable, but fundamentally wrong.
"Anyone who has attended one of our council meetings will know that there is plenty of this open and robust debate. At meetings, council members have every right to publicly say that they disagree with a proposal and vote accordingly or suggest amendments. But we do expect council members to be considered and respectful in their criticisms – ad hominem attacks, incivility and misleading or inaccurate statements are not acceptable.
"Likewise, we both expect and welcome comment and questioning of the college and its decisions from members of the profession – whether that’s through public fora, the veterinary press, direct contact by telephone and email or other forms of communication. However the last sentence of the previous paragraph applies to the whole profession, not just council members; any veterinary surgeon should be capable of communicating in a professional and considered way.
"I am often frustrated, as are many college staff and council members, at the consistently negative portrayal of the college and its intentions from some quarters and individuals, especially where this is based on unattributed commentary and unsubstantiated innuendo. Such behaviour serves only to sow discord and distrust within the profession, which is both unconstructive and irresponsible, as well as damaging to the profession as a whole.
"So, improvements have been made, but we always welcome constructive criticism about what we can do better. If you have any suggestions please the contact the CEO, Nick Stace, at nick@rcvs.org.uk or the college on 020 7222 2001, info@rcvs.org.uk or on twitter @RCVS_UK."
Visit change.org to see the petition calling for post-graduate qualifications to remain on the register.
Birmingham Dogs Home has issued an urgent winter appeal as it faces more challenges over the Christmas period.
