Governance and the RCVS. No see, no hear, no give a **** what the membership think.

 


In April the results of the RCVS Council were announced. Three candidates were elected, Zara Kennedy, Sinéad Bennett and David Barrett. All of the candidates made it clear in their manifestoes that they were completely opposed to an appointed Council. Looking at the manifestoes of all 14 candidates, it appears that most were opposed to an appointments system, some vehemently.

Scroll forward six weeks to the 10th of June and the first day of the RCVS consultation on Governance. What do we find ? An acceptance of the membership's near total rejection of an appointed Council ? Far from it. Instead we have page upon page of biased 'recommendations' and a tone deaf video by Sue Patterson here which is billed as 'An Introduction to our Good Governance Consultation.' In reality it's a one-sided propaganda piece in which we're told that we must move to an appointed system because it is the norm. An example of the norm she used was the GMC - the General Medical Council. 

That will be the same GMC that last year was the subject of a British Medical Association no confidence motion calling for the leadership, ‘to be dismissed’ and replaced by a team that, ‘commands the confidence and support of the medical profession’.

The same GMC that has been imposing fitness to practise sanctions ‘on vulnerable doctors in order to send a message to the wider medical profession.’ 28 doctors have died from suicide or suspected suicide during GMC fitness to practise investigations. 

The same GMC that was labelled as 'Dysfunctional' and 'Not Fit for Purpose' in the British Medical Journal last year after unfairly penalising an innocent doctor (there are also allegations of coming down unfairly on practitioners from ethnic minorities - so much for the RCVS' committment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). 

So it looks as if the 'norm' our clueless College is suggesting we emulate is 'Dysfunctional' and 'not fit for purpose.' (sound familiar ?)

Like most RCVS membership surveys this will be a sham. They ask, they ignore, they do exactly what they want, irrespective of the outcome. Nevertheless don't make it too easy for them. Participate !  


Popular posts from this blog

How Does Second Victim Syndrome Affect (veterinary) Surgeons?

Image
  This is reprinted from a human medical publication.  IMHO it is just as applicable to vets. It's a longish read but well worth it. How Does Second Victim Syndrome Affect Surgeons? Joël Pitre, Dr | 04 April 20 24 Second victim syndrome  (SVS) refers to the trauma experienced by a healthcare provider following a  medical complication or error . It is estimated that nearly 50% of healthcare providers will face this syndrome at least once in their career. Moreover, as much as 20% of hospitalized patients may experience a complication. Some specialties are particularly exposed to SVS, including surgery, obstetrics and gynecology. Most published research does not focus on surgical specialties, even though surgeons face stressful situations and technical challenges daily, making them particularly susceptible to SVS. Strength and emotional control are part of the typical surgeon stereotype. Consequently, the occurrence of a surgical complication is most often approached only from a techn
Read more

The Famous Five.

Image
'RCVS council elections could be scrapped in a governance shake-up that may help to secure long-sought reform of veterinary sector legislation.' So says the Vet Times. Voting is old hat apparently. According to the RCVS and their supporters  the way forward is by scrapping the final, threadbare vestiges of democratic accountability and handing everything over to appointees. Sounds legit. The appointments process, like everything the  RCVS  does, will be totally transparent of course ... totally ... and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.  The College doesn't like sharing information so we are unlikely to know which of those paragons of democracy are trying to disenfranchise us (update*) . However reading between the lines I think we can safely number the following fab five on the side of the angels.  Stephen May; S aid he was worried about the risk of a lack of accountability. Olivia Cook;  Warned that it could also reinforce perceptions of a college  ivory t
Read more

So where are they putting the Throne Room ?

Image
  College spends £20 million on extravagant new HQ - see here Who cares if the practicing profession is on its knees, be of good cheer, the RCVS has just purchased its new HQ in fashionable Clerkenwell, home to global mega-brands such as  Fred Perry , Unilever , Microsoft  and Linkedin.  A snip at £20 million   it boasts 20,000 square feet of ‘media style offices’ and is well suited to ‘remote and hybrid working.’ Which begs the question, if the future emphasis will be on remote and hybrid working, why did we not buy the same space for a third of the price in Leeds or Manchester ?  It would be nice to know what arguments were advanced and by whom to justify this grotesque indulgence  (Pay up suckers) Perhaps the ‘stylish glass box penthouse with sensational views across Central London,’  (see background photo), or the 'Fashionable residential schemes, boutique hotels and high-class restaurants with an unparalleled choice of cuisines,' had something to do with it.  Unfortunate
Read more