Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:34:52 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]For the benefit of those who weren't privy to that conversation, can you elaborate? Central point of contact is clear enough, but what do you mean by a 'contact advocate' and what is a 'Communications Performance Protocol'?. What was the 'etc.'[/quote]

Contact advocate. Someone who ensures acknowledgement and timely response from the appropriate personin its simplest terms

Communications performance protocol - a kind of service level agreement

etc. A cultural change which places retention fee payers at some level of priority in matters which lie outside the Statutory functions i.e. acknowledges stakeholder status and all that now means .

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Would this not be a good way a) to ensure that the issues that are important to the largest number of members of the profession ARE addressed, and b) to whittle out time wasters, troublemakers etc.[/quote]

This is too simplistic. It's plausible, but insufficient. RMB might be a distraction, but by the same token, if you only operated on responses to large numbers, Mr Barker would not have been heard at EFRACOM.

There is an interesting parallel in the news today. Ryanair's anti Thompson campaign has been banned following a mere 15 complaints

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17274930

Volume doesn't necessarily equate to merit.

JGW

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Anthony Todd — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 16:12:09 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]What do you believe the reason the report on the overspend is being kept from members if it's not for the legal reasons RCVS has claimed?[/quote]

Wouldn't simple "redaction" cover it, as defined:

In business and law, a document can have certain parts "redacted", meaning sensitive names and details were removed for various reasons. For example, a federal court orders that the names of signatories of a state petition be redacted to protect them from death threats from militant activists.

Could have made every member happy, mind you, death threats in our case, might be going a bit far as does the use of redaction these days.......

I don't think we want blame established, just the reasons for blame to prevent it happening again.

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:57:51 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Jonathan How much experience have you actually got of being part of a prosecution team in a criminal trial?

Wynne

[/quote]

Why? At present he's jumping on the responses he can make a point off of, and ignoring the ones he can't. Fairly common internet tactic.

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:59:40 GMT

Jonathan How much experience have you actually got of being part of a prosecution team in a criminal trial?

Wynne

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:38:10 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Yes, but RCVS are showing no inkling of recognising this as a flaw and err, doing something about it. There's nothing in their reforms which allows for representation of those who pay and I subscribe to the old-fashioned notion of "No taxation without representation".[/quote]

I'm certainly not going to argue this point. I would only say that if it IS the case, then the fault surely lies not with the RCVS Comms Dept, but with those who instruct the Comms Dept. The Comms Dept can't just wake up one morning and unilaterally decide to implement some new listening policy. That has to come from above.

[quote user="J G Wray"] [quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Lizzie herself has alluded to the fact that traditional methods of communication lend themselves more to disseminating information than listening, which is true[/quote]

No, she goes further

To use her own words

"..Some of these characteristics [of RCVS], for example, formal, educated, authoritative and sensitive, may be
difficult to achieve while adhering to social media norms.."[/quote]

Yes, but all you have done here is emphasise my point, which is the difficulty for a big organisation to listen. i.e. Lizzie is right, social media is not the answer to everything.

[quote user="J G Wray"] [quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] Exactly what systems do YOU think the RCVS should put in place in order to be able to listen to you?[/quote]

Oh, the ones I started by discussing politely with people like Ms Lockett, when the RCVS changed its tune about what it wanted in a new VSA. Central point of contact, contact advocate, communications performance protocol, space on Committee agendas, etc.[/quote]

For the benefit of those who weren't privy to that conversation, can you elaborate? Central point of contact is clear enough, but what do you mean by a 'contact advocate' and what is a 'Communications Performance Protocol'?. What was the 'etc.'? This is the constructive 50% which has hitherto been missing from this thread!

Space on Committee agendas comes into my next point. How do you propose that is allocated fairly, and not just to those with the loudest mouths. I can see the committee being forever taken up debating RMB if there weren't safeguards in place.

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] Veterinary Surgeons able to submit their own 'petition' to Belgravia House, which the RCVS is then bound to consider if it achieves over a certain number of signatures.[/quote]

Oh no they're not. Representatives of large numbers of vets like BVA don't influence RCVS. EFRACOM told RCVS to listen to the profession and in the barking report the Registrar produced post EFRACOM there wasn't even any reference to seeking out a popular mandate or mollify BVA. There is a cultural problem here.[/quote]

You misunderstood my point, which was that if this system were implemented, the RCVS would have to agree to be bound to consider 'petitions' with over a certain number of signatures from veterinary surgeons. I did not mean that they are bound to do so now.

Would this not be a good way a) to ensure that the issues that are important to the largest number of members of the profession ARE addressed, and b) to whittle out time wasters, troublemakers etc.

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Niall Taylor — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:12:02 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] Do you really believe this guff?

JGW[/quote]

What do you believe the reason the report on the overspend is being kept from members if it's not for the legal reasons RCVS has claimed?

Niall

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:55:56 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]The difference between the overspend and EFRACOM is I'm deliberately holding fire in case a prosecution is pending[/quote]

Do you really believe this guff?

JGW

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:20:30 GMT

Jonathan During EFRACOM I certainly did I don't know if councillors appreciated my comments-because essentially what I said was that increasing both appointed and lay influence was stupid-and thankfully DEFRA had more sense than Royal College . Those that I contacted all replied,and were all polite-though the replies were along the line of "We think it's a good idea-because all the other professions are doing it " My reply to that was "silly lemmings " I've since (reluctantly ) come round to the opinion that more appointed and lay membership of DC may be a good idea-not because I think there's anything inherently wrong with the current system,but for PR reasons Having said that-if disciplinary,which is the main interface between RCVS and the public is removed,then I totally fail to see a single valid reason for either lay or appointed membership of RCVS as it will remain I think I gave councilcandidates a harder time on that issue than anyone else did in the last 2 elections

Regarding overspend-not unless you count what I said in the last regionalmeeting The difference between the overspend and EFRACOM is I'm deliberately holding fire in case a prosecution is pending

Wynne

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:05:45 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I suspect there may be some truth in your central thesis that the RCVS has hitherto concentrated more on telling than listening. But isn't that a challenge facing all big organisations? [/quote]

Yes, but RCVS are showing no inkling of recognising this as a flaw and err, doing something about it. There's nothing in their reforms which allows for representation of those who pay and I subscribe to the old-fashioned notion of "No taxation without representation". This is in tune with Defra, given their review of Ofwat, by the way. I would like to see RCVS continue. I see that as conditional on taking the profession with it. Decembers vote at BVA Council was emphatic interms of articulating the mistrust surrounding these reforms and Ms Lockett's social media inititative is counter-productive interms of increasing transparency and accountability -she will be managing the message going out.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Lizzie herself has alluded to the fact that traditional methods of communication lend themselves more to disseminating information than listening, which is true[/quote]

No, she goes further

To use her own words

"..Some of these characteristics [of RCVS], for example, formal, educated, authoritative and sensitive, may be
difficult to achieve while adhering to social media norms.."

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] Exactly what systems do YOU think the RCVS should put in place in order to be able to listen to you?[/quote]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] Veterinary Surgeons able to submit their own 'petition' to Belgravia House, which the RCVS is then bound to consider if it achieves over a certain number of signatures.[/quote]

JGW

PS Elected Councillors do not represent retention fee payers.

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:38:09 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]I've written in the past to generic contact addresses or to the chair or the registrar and haven't always received a response - I'm never sure if it's just inefficiency or I've written to the wrong person or my correspondence has simply disappeared into cyberspace. I can't remember ever having received a reply to the effect that my message has been received and will be dealt with shortly.[/quote]

Quite - and you're paying for that.

JGW

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:37:02 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Those councillors and officers I've approached directly don't always agree with me,but they do reply, and they are polite[/quote]

Did you try this during the EFRACOM fall out and overspend sutff?

JGW

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Niall Taylor — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 14:16:14 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I thought this was the reason for having communications controlled or managed through a single channel???[/quote]

It would be handy to have one route in to RCVS. It's not everyone who knows who to contact about what so one portal with an agreement to certain terms - response times etc would be a big step forward for accountability.

I've written in the past to generic contact addresses or to the chair or the registrar and haven't always received a response - I'm never sure if it's just inefficiency or I've written to the wrong person or my correspondence has simply disappeared into cyberspace. I can't remember ever having received a reply to the effect that my message has been received and will be dealt with shortly.

There are certainly improvements which could be made in this aspect.

Lizzie - please come back, your presence and the presence of other RCVS bods on this forum is both welcome and needed!

Niall

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Anthony Todd — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:23:40 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Those councillors and officers I've approached directly don't always agree with me,but they do reply, and they are polite[/quote]

I thought this was the reason for having communications controlled or managed through a single channel???

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:09:42 GMT

Those councillors and officers I've approached directly don't always agree with me,but they do reply, and they are polite

Why don't you Jonathan try that route ?

Wynne

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Bob Russell — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:08:49 GMT

The RCVS news certainly could do with a bit of improvement. The recent editions have been very good at patting itself on the back and letting us how how wonderful the RCVS is but very light on things that really matter to most vets. Lots of smiling faces and shaking of hands none of which deal with the problems and concerns of many practicing vets!

I give it a quick scan and it goes into the recycling bin.

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:01:21 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Dr Hedberg,

Your question is flawed. There is no substance to a premise that RCVS are reasonable and responsive and would therefore be reasonable and responsive to objections to policy - which we pay for. They were found out at EFRACOM and now by McKelvey.

Being firm and determined is another man's rude.

By the way, to summarise Ms Lockett's piece. She wishes to see focused and channelled marketing of the RCVS through social media to concentrate and emphasise the value of "the message" and at the same time sees no need for focused and channeled customer service; she's content to leave that to ad hoc arrangements, dissipating the value and importance of the enquiry. The customers are the people who pay the retention fee. Customer service is much more difficult than marketing. Customer service benefits customers, marketing the organisation. Both have a price and we're paying again and again without benefit to us, with no accountability and no responsiveness in the policy. It's weird.

And we're about to be asked to vote for people who...

JGW

[/quote]Well, I'm certainly no debater, but the only time Ms Lockett ever used the word 'controlling' was when she was quoting you.

Anyway, while 'they're all doing it' is not always a sound excuse, the fact is that many veterinary organizations and educational institutions have communications departments that are responsible for message and contact, who then forward your communication to whoever is best suited to sort it. If nothing more it's a central email, with someone detailed to sort the valid inquiries and discard the nigerian banking scams. Consider them a reception desk, not a prison guard, I'd suggest.

Short version: Why shoot the messenger?

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:01:08 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Being firm and determined is another man's rude.[/quote]

Yes, I suppose that is true, which makes you a very firm and determined man.

Actually, JGW, the interesting thing is that your posts seem to be constructed out of a determination to argue for arguments sake, and to criticise.

To paraphrase your own words: 'criticism is only 50% of constructive criticism.'

For example:

[quote user="J G Wray"] [quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]We feel that social media will improve our ability to have two-way dialogue with members, VNs, the public and other stakeholders.[/quote]

Admirable, but Facebook is hardly a channel for discrete or difficult correspondence. [/quote]

Talk about stating the plainly obvious. So bloody obvious that I have to question your motive for writing it, beyond just being argumentative for the sake of it.

And this seems a particularly obtuse interpretation of what Lizzie has written:

[quote user="J G Wray"]By the way, to summarise Ms Lockett's piece. She wishes to see focused and channelled marketing of the RCVS through social media to concentrate and emphasise the value of "the message" and at the same time sees no need for focused and channeled customer service; she's content to leave that to ad hoc arrangements, dissipating the value and importance of the enquiry. The customers are the people who pay the retention fee. Customer service is much more difficult than marketing. Customer service benefits customers, marketing the organisation. Both have a price and we're paying again and again without benefit to us, with no accountability and no responsiveness in the policy. It's weird.[/quote]

The irony is, JGW, that you are every bit as guilty of putting a 'spin' on things as anyone else. Lizzie didn't say any of the above. It's your spin. It is quite unrecognisable from what Lizzie clearly meant.

I suspect there may be some truth in your central thesis that the RCVS has hitherto concentrated more on telling than listening. But isn't that a challenge facing all big organisations? Lizzie herself has alluded to the fact that traditional methods of communication lend themselves more to disseminating information than listening, which is true. The only methods of listening I can think of are surveys, meetings and the telephone. Of these, two only allow the RCVS to listen to a small number.

JGW, your 'firm and determined' remarks leave noone in any doubt as to what you think is wrong. But where is the other 50%? Exactly what systems do YOU think the RCVS should put in place in order to be able to listen to you?

My big idea for the morning. Follow HM Government's lead. Create a system a bit like the No 10 Downing Street petition webpage. Veterinary Surgeons able to submit their own 'petition' to Belgravia House, which the RCVS is then bound to consider if it achieves over a certain number of signatures.

Widgetise the voting box so that it can be embedded in third party websites, such as vetsurgeon.org and vetnurse.co.uk.

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:33:42 GMT

Dr Hedberg,

Being firm and determined is another man's rude.

And we're about to be asked to vote for people who...

JGW

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:34:55 GMT

Mr Wray, I agree that the RCVS is having problems. However, can you please remind me how being rude to Ms. Lockett will help the situation?

Kind regards,
Mark

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:12:38 GMT

You perhaps feel a social networking site like this one is ' inappropriate for sober, confidential and sensitive subjects'.

So other than saying that minutes are a matter for the committees; no, I don't wish to be sacked, but I will stand up for communications strategies I believe in; no, we only run our Survey of the Profession every four years, so have not yet repeated it recently; and, finally, that clearly there are horses for courses and we are not seriously advocating that someone with a sensitive or confidential issue communicates with us via Facebook, no more than I would recommend taking out an advert in Vet Times to do the same.... I will desist...

Lizzie

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:47:10 GMT

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]Neil works for the RAVC, so that's 'his' organisation. As that appeared in RCVS Cttee minutes, I think if it had been a reference to the RCVS it would not have been 'his organisation', but the College.[/quote]

If Comms is about clarity and this stuff is public, then presumably Comms Dept let this obscure stuff through. Mr Barker had a prob with this in his OP

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]So, if you have an education issue, that goes to Education dept, complaints to Prof Con, etc. If it helps, think of Communications as a marketing department, but 'selling' information rather than widgets. [/quote]

Ah. Oh dear.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]We could have a centralised point of contact for all members, but queries would then just be farmed out to the relevant dept, so might add a layer of complexity and time. I am not sure the College is a big enough organisation to warrant a dedicated 'customer services' dept - although I know some of ther other larger regulators have this. That would be a decision for Council.[/quote]

You're missing the point. With a centralised service and a contact advocate any input to College would be distributed correctly and monitored for timely action. The big ones are the Consultations that RCVS put out. Anyone who wishes to feed in would do so through Input Central.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]Yes, it is rather top down - that's because traditional communications channels are constructed that way. We can only use the marketing communications options at our disposal.[/quote]

The message is now mixed. What are you marketing?

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]However, social media is rapidly changing that. This dialogue is an example, I suppose.[/quote]

This dialogue is a rare thing and will change nothing, because there is no will to listen.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]As a communications professional, I would rather be accused of being 'controlling' than allowing confusing or contradictory messages to be sent out about an organisation (I know this does still happen, but we are trying)[/quote]

This is weird. It would be better if there were neither "control" nor contradictory confusing messages. An ambition to deal with RCVS outward Comms in a "controling" manner is a low ambition. It also smacks of something wholly inappropriate and contrary to transparency given recent problems of oversight at RCVS. Given your time again, how would you have "controlled" the message about that?

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]A member of our Communications Board recently highlighted the problems that can arise if a range of people are involved with corporate social media - which actually led to staff being sacked in another organisation. I don't want to put the College staff in that position.[/quote]

OK there's a couple of points here. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the message to the point of being sacked and since we're bringing in "another organisation", have you seen what Defra's man David Gray did to Ofwat? Defra is also RCVS sponsoring Ministry.

"..Gray said he had been "surprised by the claim of a lack of transparency [at Ofwat], given the huge volume of information published". He said there was "a perception that Ofwat is not asking for involvement in developing its approach, just imposing it". There was also thought to be little transparency in decision-making..." Ofwat has an immense outward output which led to the " perception that Ofwat is not asking for involvement in developing its approach, just imposing it".

That's the future with managed output from RCVS, unless you can guarantee otherwise.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"] This is not about 'gagging' Council members [/quote]

I agree so why mention it?

There is no commitment from RCVS to accept, organise and manage communication input to RCVS. There is a determination to control the output, coming immediately after a time when RCVS exploited the funding they have from the profession, and an intention to use tools which are inappropriate for sober, confidential and sensitive subjects.

JGW

PS "..Our 2010 Survey of the Profession indicated that the majority of vets and VNs were satisfied with the quality, quantity and frequency of RCVS communication, and felt that the College had dealt effectively with their most recent contact..." Have you surveyed the profession post "overspend"?

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:09:47 GMT

Neil works for the RAVC, so that's 'his' organisation. As that appeared in RCVS Cttee minutes, I think if it had been a reference to the RCVS it would not have been 'his organisation', but the College.

Generally, the Communications Dept remit does not cover individual correspondence - although we do set guidelines for the tone to be used when dealing with members or the public, for example.

So, if you have an education issue, that goes to Education dept, complaints to Prof Con, etc. If it helps, think of Communications as a marketing department, but 'selling' information rather than widgets. If you had a difficult question to ask another organisation you would not necessarily go to its marketing department, but to the Chief Exec or a complaints dept (which is Prof Con, in our case).

We could have a centralised point of contact for all members, but queries would then just be farmed out to the relevant dept, so might add a layer of complexity and time. I am not sure the College is a big enough organisation to warrant a dedicated 'customer services' dept - although I know some of ther other larger regulators have this. That would be a decision for Council.

Yes, it is rather top down - that's because traditional communications channels are constructed that way. We can only use the marketing communications options at our disposal. However, social media is rapidly changing that. This dialogue is an example, I suppose.

As a communications professional, I would rather be accused of being 'controlling' than allowing confusing or contradictory messages to be sent out about an organisation (I know this does still happen, but we are trying). A member of our Communications Board recently highlighted the problems that can arise if a range of people are involved with corporate social media - which actually led to staff being sacked in another organisation. I don't want to put the College staff in that position. Having a small list of properly briefed spokespeople is one of the rules of thumb of a good communications programme.

If Council members want to have their own Twitter accounts (and many do), that's their choice. This is not about 'gagging' Council members but ensuring that, within the staff, there is a protocol for communication via all of our channels.

Lizzie

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:58:30 GMT

I would say the obvious formal channel would be a letter to the secretary (previously post combined with Registrar ) After all it's the obvious formal means of communication with most organisations Alternatively, try private e-mails,letters to RCVS councilllors or officers

Wynne

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

J G Wray — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:42:20 GMT

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]

I tried to post this once already and it didn't work, so, in the hope that you don't get it twice, I just wanted to reassure people that we are not changing the way we respond to FOI requests.

We respond to all requests, and do not charge - although we could, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. Nor do we post a charge of £500 to the accounts.

[/quote]

Ahem,

"..Neil Smith reported that, in terms of FOIA requests, his organisation allocated five staff days at a
cost of £500.00 to answer such requests, but if requests exceeded this, then a response was not
sent. ..."

Whose organisation?

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]With regard to coms channels for members, we have RCVS News, RCVS e-News, The Practice Standard, the annual report, the website, activities via the press (including, of course, vetsurgeon and vetnurse!) and several meetings/Congresses a year.[/quote]

Top-down, RCVS-out.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]We feel that social media will improve our ability to have two-way dialogue with members, VNs, the public and other stakeholders.[/quote]

Admirable, but Facebook is hardly a channel for discrete or difficult correspondence.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"] There is (understandably) some nervousness about who communicates what - and we need to learn from the mistakes of other organisations. So, in the short-term at least, social media communication will continue to be handled via the Communications Dept, calling on the expertise of Council members and other staff when drafting information.[/quote]

Plausible but controlling.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]Communications with individuals would be the responsibility of the individual to whom a request has been made (which may be to the Coms team, or other departments).[/quote]

Ad hoc then.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]I remember a time, many years ago, when Mr Wray telephoned us specifically to say how good he thought our new newsletter was, and what an improvement it was on the previous iteration. [/quote]

Yup. It set a standard.

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]Feedback – positive or negative – is always welcome, as long as it’s constructive.[/quote]

[sigh] When are you going to set up a formal channel to a retention fee payer advocate at RCVS to take on comms?

JGW

Re: Financial manipulation at the RCVS to support Charter functions

Lizzie Lockett — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:34:37 GMT

I tried to post this once already and it didn't work, so, in the hope that you don't get it twice, I just wanted to reassure people that we are not changing the way we respond to FOI requests.

We respond to all requests, and do not charge - although we could, under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. Nor do we post a charge of £500 to the accounts.

I am not sure where this information about a change in policy has come from. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Since I first tried to post this, Mr Wray's latest post has come in, so I will respond to that, too.

Our 2010 Survey of the Profession indicated that the majority of vets and VNs were satisfied with the quality, quantity and frequency of RCVS communication, and felt that the College had dealt effectively with their most recent contact.

There is always more we can do, though.

With regard to coms channels for members, we have RCVS News, RCVS e-News, The Practice Standard, the annual report, the website, activities via the press (including, of course, vetsurgeon and vetnurse!) and several meetings/Congresses a year.

More recently, we have added a Twitter account, and hope to add to our social media channels if Council approves the draft strategy tomorrow.

We feel that social media will improve our ability to have two-way dialogue with members, VNs, the public and other stakeholders. There is (understandably) some nervousness about who communicates what - and we need to learn from the mistakes of other organisations. So, in the short-term at least, social media communication will continue to be handled via the Communications Dept, calling on the expertise of Council members and other staff when drafting information.

The Communications Dept handles 'mass' communications, in the main. Communications with individuals would be the responsibility of the individual to whom a request has been made (which may be to the Coms team, or other departments).

I remember a time, many years ago, when Mr Wray telephoned us specifically to say how good he thought our new newsletter was, and what an improvement it was on the previous iteration. That was a happy day...

Feedback – positive or negative – is always welcome, as long as it’s constructive.

Best wishes

Lizzie