RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 10:28:42 GMT

I think there definitely was a "Yes minister " culture at RCVS, where because of the annual change of Presidency, the Registrar, and other senior employees had become over powerful My personal opinion is that the original logic of hiring a lawyer as Registrar was to act as a magistrates clerk, so he/she not being a member of Council, should sit to one side,and only speak if spoken to, or if a course of action proposed was actually illegal

Hopefullythat is now being sorted out, but although I would love to see the full report,I think there may be positive moves behind the scenes, which could be jeopardised by premature disclosure

Having said that I'm with Malcolm in hoping that when the dust has settled, we'll be told all

Wynne

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

J G Wray — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:27:45 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]Will be interesting to see how they try to spin themselves out of this mess come election time next year. How many will be braving Vetsurgeon then?[/quote]

I'm not sure that trial by vetsurgeon will be a big problem. Consider this, the message we are getting about incomplete disclosure hinges, we are told, and I don't particularly doubt it, on highlighting potential liabilities which RCVS and get this, individuals, may incur.

If you are a current Councillor or future candidate, McKelvey's investigation together with Counsel's opinion, may have crystallised a hitherto poorly understood feature of being a Councillor, that of a personal liability, a legally and financially defined and accountable responsibility which goes with the post. What sort of vouluntary post would anyone take up where there is a potentially awkward/ruinous liability, which you ain't been told about up to now and didn't appear in any job description?

Lest we forget, this will be nothing new, it is just that they've been put under the spotlight and suddenly the fine print has come into focus. Nor is the current situation anything other than of their own making. These are responsible adults driven by their own version of Goodness/Ambition to stand for College. Some, particularly those on P&RC have feet of clay, but ain't admitting to it. It may be a test to admit weakness and unsuitability for Council, but it will also be a test to examine whether their commitment extends to putting their wallet where their mouth is.

Mind you if some weren't weak then McKelvey wouldn't have happened and if sound procedure had been followed, through training, then the liability threat would be minimised.

We'll see

JGW

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

J G Wray — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:57:41 GMT

It would appear that even Council has not seen the full report. It has seen the report with some redactions.

Can anyone on RCVS explain to me why Council are willing to accept the McKelvey report with items redacted?

Only the P&RC members and, of course, McKelvey and his crew have seen the full report. This Committee is subordinate to Council.

What sort of organisation accepts incomplete disclosure from a subordinate?

In any other organisation the other members of Council would be telling the entire Committee to sling their hook.

This is bonkers. What sort of governance is this?

JGW

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

J G Wray — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:54:38 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Jonathan You sound exactly like Jane Hern-calling us retention fee payers(she made me very cross when she said that ) we're MEMBERS [/quote]

No, we are milch cows, a pecuniary resource, retention fee payers. If we were "MEMBERS" we could expect to enjoy some respect. Why bother holding on to an outdated monicker now?

JGW

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Simon Neuhoff — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:22:33 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]

Sorry to confuse you.

[quote user="J G Wray"]The two Past Pres are the only ones identified as driving change[/quote]

The universal silence from those who, when they wanted our votes were so vociferous, is unnerving.

Malcolm N

[/quote]

Will be interesting to see how they try to spin themselves out of this mess come election time next year. How many will be braving Vetsurgeon then?

Sadly though they will STILL get in due to the apathy of the profession as a whole.

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Anthony Todd — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:07:10 GMT

Yes for me, conceal identities if you like. After all we all might learn how not to do it next time so who did it doesn't matter if we are "moving forward" does it?

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Niall Taylor — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:24:49 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]How about a simple vote on vetsurgeon. I believe that we have a right to see the full report - Yes or No![/quote]

Well here's your first "yes" vote. This cover up is all the more ironic since it was RCVS who decided apropos of nothing at all that clients should have an absolute right to see their full clinical records even though there was no requirement in law - no mention of "unless it might have legal consequences" then.

I'm still not clear why there might be concerns relating to employment law - anyone care to enlighten in words of one syllable?

Niall

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Bob Russell — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:06:26 GMT

How about a simple vote on vetsurgeon. I believe that we have a right to see the full report - Yes or No!

If the RCVS have received legal advice that releasing the report in full should not be done then let us see that advice and reasoning in writing.

I don't know how many resignations there should be but my gut feeling is a few more are overdue. Surely this mess cannot be created by just two people!

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Judith Joyce — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:48:50 GMT

Sorry to confuse you.

[quote user="J G Wray"]The two Past Pres are the only ones identified as driving change[/quote]

I have not yet been provided with enough information to decide who is and who isn't driving change. The two you cite may be some of the good guys, but equally, they may not. I think it highly unlikely that they are the "only" ones but, again, I just don't (yet) know.

Six months is to some extent an arbitrary, but certainly a very generous time frame. I am sure that you, like me are aware of the irrational nonsense that is our current employment legislation, I can see a credible scenario whereby the drivers of change might be trying to achieve that change while minimising the risk of becoming acquainted with employment lawyers. By the end of six months (and probably very much sooner) everything that might be achieved/prevented there will have passed and there will be no longer, in my opinion, any justification for any secrecy whatsoever.

Those councillors who, over the years, have brought little other than pomposity and ineptitude to the table should be nervous to the extent of cramp in their sphincters. Any that don't yet appreciate the fact that, in their roles as councillors and officers, they had/have responsibilities in law would be well advised to take legal advice soonest. There appear to have been some extremely serious wrongdoings here - failures of governance and substantial financial irregularities. Whilst it currently seems unlikely that anyone will face criminal charges, the possibility must surely exist.

The universal silence from those who, when they wanted our votes were so vociferous, is unnerving.

Malcolm N

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:28:32 GMT

Jonathan You sound exactly like Jane Hern-calling us retention fee payers(she made me very cross when she said that ) we're MEMBERS

Wynne

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

J G Wray — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:33:25 GMT

Dear Mr N,

I'm confused

para 1

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]I feel that, for the moment, we must trust the judgement of those who I believe are driving the change and in so-doing, treading a very difficult path.[/quote]

para 3

[quote user="Judith Joyce"] If nothing else, these individuals are identifiable as people who should and could have acted but chose (for whatever reason) not to. That error of judgement alone taints them.[/quote]

The two Past Pres are the only ones identified as driving change. What should we do? Para 1 -Trust them or Para 3 Not trust them?

Why is six months a good time to wait? From when, for what and what if we don't get owt? This is too complicated and frankly, too generous.

Retention fee payers have paid for Copusel's opinion on McKelvey's report and therefore RCVS behaviour. That is now clearly delimited. But, there has been no consequence for the authors of the costs to the profession's College and membership. This is not some group of inexperienced teenagers who have been caught out, these are people who entreated us to take them seriously, First things first.

JGW

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Judith Joyce — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:15:49 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]the RCVS and its Council are 'moving on'[/quote]

I believe that RCVS is indeed moving on at present and though I am every bit as frustrated as Chris B and JGW about the secrecy etc, I feel that, for the moment, we must trust the judgement of those who I believe are driving the change and in so-doing, treading a very difficult path.

However, my patience is not inexhaustible and I EXPECT that sometime in the coming months (and by that I mean six months and no more) ALL (and I do mean all) will be revealed. RCVS is clearly in a terrible mess. There have been "resignations" and there should be more - it is unthinkable that everyone on council, and past presidents in particular, was involved in such a way that their conduct is above criticism. Senior College people have oft repeated the mantra of "shared responsibility" in their decision making. The second word is the important one.

I think it ridiculous that the council is even dreaming about taking advice or guidance from their past presidents, whether in the form of the Past President plus Two or any other guise. If nothing else, these individuals are identifiable as people who should and could have acted but chose (for whatever reason) not to. That error of judgement alone taints them.

Malcolm N

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

J G Wray — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:07:33 GMT

There is a mood amongst RCVS Councillors to move on. I think this is a bit previous for the following reasons

In talking to these "other councillors" has there been adequate assurance that they are not part of the problem, to put it bluntly, that they're not trying
to dodge responsibility and accountability here? What remorse have they expressed for the losses to RCVS and costs to retention fee payers in
pecuniary, management, reputational and trust terms? Beyond asking to move on, what measures to ameliorate cost, improve management, reputation and trust have your "other councillors" committed to, because for me, beyond some vague stuff about a PG I ain't 'eard nuffink.

The Councillors who are there now are the same ones who have been present throughout the LGF and IT stuff. For the future, remaining staff at RCVS and other Councillors have to work with these people who singularly failed to acknowledge any culpability, let alone take any responsibility for their shortccomings. I hope that some reflect on their cowardly behaviour. It is utterly irrelevant if they have a Good Heart or feel their job isn't yet done. Their presence will hold back the RCVS because they have been demonstrably weak and because they have taken so long to articulate anything, they will be perceived as untrustworthy and self-(pre)serving by all at RCVS. The innocent will be caught up in this as well, because they [RCVS Councillors in toto] will be viewed as a cabal by the profession. Why would others want to be tarred with the same brush? The continued presence of the culpable can only be corrosive. Faililng to see this is another poor judgement at RCVS.

RCVS does not need untrustworthy, weak and self-serving Councillors to move on. It needs these people to find overwhelming medical, family or work commitments.

This is all before any consideration of the calumny about BobP. There are some at RCVS whose moral compass is way off. RCVS really doesn't need them on board to move on. If they remain, their behaviour becomes part of the institutional history and that mean-minded, back stabbing secretive culture will become institutional behaviour. That's not moving on.

This could leave the RCVS without a Registrar, a Head of Corporate Services and some Councillors.

Well, Mr Hockey is making a good impression as Acting Reg.

Absence of Head of Corporate Services means a slow down in project work at least at RCVS which may be no bad thing.

The loss of some Councillors may reduce Committee size. So why would that necessarily be a bad thing ? In another world it would be called streamlining.

If a future or present Officer found a pressing need then RCVS would have to manage without them. I have a sneaking suspicion the sun would rise and set and RCVS, that ancient institution, would go on.

RCVS Councillors may feel that they would acquire an extra burden if Councillors faded away. This may be true, but they volunteered for their post and this nonsense is exclusively of the own making. "Build a bridge.. etc"

No, not time to move on yet. Furthermore, to use an overblown word "redemption" is not within the gift of RCVS, it is for the profession to offer, conditionally. RCVS need to retrench and work out how to get it before"moving on".

Too many words

JGW

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Anthony Todd — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:29:58 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]It seems that the only way to get sight of these reports will be to stand for Council.[/quote]

Ah, an obvious survey for Arlo [not on the public/journo site]

If Vsorgers propose a candidate how many of the 7000 odd members would vote for him or her?

My guess is not enough to get elected, sheer inertia I suppose.

Another thing which may discourage prospective candidates is the uncertainty of the amount of time needed.

Perhaps ex members of Council on this group could tell us, in hours and days, whens and wheres, time which will need to be set aside.

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Chris Barker — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:23:54 GMT

Subsequent to the publication of the Recommendations of the McKelvey Report both the Registrar and the Head of Corporate Services have resigned and have decided to seek other challenges elesewhere. There has been no suggestion through official channels that the resignations are linked in any way to censure within the redacted and unpublished Report.

However those Councillors who have spoken seem content with the 'co-incidence'. We must assume that the Report was far more critical than expected by the commissioning 'elders', and that the wording was so precise that it had to be either removed from the Report or hidden from public view to avoid a challenge by employees (or worse, ex-employees) at an Employment Tribunal. At which, to defend the RCVS from both censure and financial penalty the 'elders' would have to stand up and defend the findings of the Report and offer chapter and verse on the alleged deficiencies. This is anathema to our 'elders', especially when in cross examination their own negligence and complacency would have been exposed. So in public employees are bade farewell with lukewarm praise and MsRCVS are reassured that the RCVS and its Council are 'moving on'

Led precisely by the very people who steered us into the mire in the first place. Indeed so low is their self-confidence and fear of public exposure that the initial 'Past Presidents plus 2' report into the future governance of the RCVS was collected back in following its discussion in the private meeting of Council Members following the last RCVS Council meeting and every copy shredded .

It seems that the only way to get sight of these reports will be to stand for Council.... Any takers? And the only pressure which seems to have any effect on the recalcitrant rump of career Council members, who cannot see that they are part of the problem, has to come from within the august walls of Belgravia House. We owe a huge debt to Councillors such as Bob P who are asking the proper searching questions of both Staff and 'Elders' at the RCVS

Chris B

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Anthony Todd — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:05:20 GMT

If you don't know, won't be told or can't find out, human nature thinks the worst, especially when you are told, in no uncertain terms, that you're not going to be told......

Other organisations manage to publish the most damning of reports, by blacking out names or identifying information, all the time.

It has got to be a disgraceful coverup which debilitates the reputation of the RCVS greatly.

And. it may well be that some of the lowly, inconsequential ignorable members of the RCVS might have some sympathy and support for those involved in the disasters; most unlikely given our total general inexperience and incompetence I know, but worth a try, surely.

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

J G Wray — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:56:25 GMT

The Head of Corporate Services at RCVS, with key responsibility for the implementation of the IT system has resigned.

Hmmmmmm

JGW

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Mark Holmes — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:13:07 GMT

Those at the RCVS are still MRCVS. They are professionals and are acting in a professional capacity when working for the RCVS. It might not be a clinical matter but they are still subject to the PIC and should in theory be subject to investigation should a member put a complaint in writing. I have not followed the matter too closely but my feeling is that if you feel strongly that the RCVS council have acted dishonestly or in a way that is counter to the code of conduct there are processes in place at the RCVS that could be turned on themselves. Whether it would be done openly and honestly though ....

I also wonder what insurance they have or need to cover professional negligence in that position.

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Niall Taylor — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:53:34 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]"no taxation without representation"[/quote]

Tea, anyone?

Niall

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

J G Wray — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:25:04 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The report is supposed to be independent so why should the RCVS be open to the threat [/quote]

Dunno, but that's their problem.

We paid for this independent report that we cannot see; put' me in mind of "no taxation without representation" which I remember RCVS Council candidates trotting out to get elected - ironic innit?

JGW

Re: RCVS not publishing McKelvey

Bob Russell — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:01:28 GMT

The report is supposed to be independent so why should the RCVS be open to the threat of a tribunal as long as named, employed individuals have been disciplined in line with standard accepted practice?

Very sensitive parts may be removed as long as a full explanation for the omission is given. I think we would all accept that!

The whole matter is a complete disgrace.