Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:30:22 GMT

Keep an eye on the thread about groomers and dentistry

Wynne

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Rob Loxley — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:52:38 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]When they don't want to do something in Belgravia House by way of representing or promoting the veterinary profession, they tell us they can't do that because they are not allowed to (which may not be quite true.) However when it takes their fancy to do something, they find a way to justify it.[/quote]

very true

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Richard Carter — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:44:03 GMT

There is a huge difference between representing the individual vet and the profession - the RCVS is definitely there to represent the profession.

This idiotic 'regulator' business that everyone gets hung up on is only a small aspect of the total remit.

The sad thing is historically the RCVS had such a reputation for excellence that the rest of the world took its lead from what the College thought a good idea. I recall a visit by the RCVS to South Africa in the 1980's to check reciprocity of the local degree was treated as a most royal event. Unfortunately as the standards have trailed, various presidents have kept out of the lime-light and avoided any comment or stance on some of the more contentious issues (TB/FMD/ CJD/fox hunting/compulsory id chipping/standard of EU graduates etc), so the authority has dwindled away until perhaps the register is probably the only thing left.

I am actually a very big supporter of the RCVS, what it is and what it should be standing for - just feel very let down by what has happened in the recent past, the ducking and diving about the computers and money being spent without apparent accountability, the promoting of 'pet' projects that have been launched and administered in an amateurish manner (vet nurse training/ PSS), the complete lack of apology over the hash-up of the DC comments following Chikosi and so the list goes on.

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Malcolm Ness — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:17:18 GMT

The veterinary profession is self-regulating (that is enshrined in law)

We are all members (that, too is enshrined in law)

If anyone in, or around, Council thinks that its role is to reflect the views of people other than the members, then the question must be, "Whose views are being represented and by what authority?"

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:38:05 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]The BVA is supposed to be the representative body.[/quote]

Nah. BVA is a voluntary organisation (Although I used to think that virtually every vet was a member, and I still think that virtually every vet ought to be a member). Indeed it can represent the veterinary profession on many subjects in many ways, or not, as it chooses., but it can't be THE representative body.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]First the RCVS has to do one of two things. Either, as JGW says, drop all this MRCVS business, and make everyone RVSs. It's the regulator; you're 'registered', and that's it. Would seem sad to me to lose the MRCVS. RVS doesn't have quite the same ring to it. But perhaps for clarity it would be for the best. [/quote]

I'm damn sure there are people in Belgravia House who would love to do that (as long as they themselves remain in charge, of course). But tt (we) has (have) no power to do such a thing! It (we) could ask government to dissolve it (us), and leave it to government to sort something out. I don't think Belgravia House would care to try that.

There are of course different meanings to the word "represent'. RCVS is the veterinary profession so in that sense it does represent the veterinary profession. "Represent" could also mean "putting forward arguments on behalf of'" and there is nothing to stop Belgravia House doing that.

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 17:10:36 GMT

BVA does try it's best to represent the entire profession. The problem is that so few SA practitioners bother to join. The trouble is this becomes self-perpetuating. Very few SA practitioners attend regional BVA meetings, so very few get on BVA regionalcommittees, so the lecture programme isn't attractive to SA practitioners, so very few attend. I think I've fairly accurately described the problem, I'm not sure how to solve it

Wynne

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:58:49 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]RCVS does, de facto, represent the veterinary profession; the RCVS is the veterinary profession. [/quote]

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]'The role of RCVS Council and VN Council is not to represent the veterinary professions…' [/quote]

This is one that just runs and runs.

Various issues at the core of this:

The RCVS is the regulator. I think it fears that it will lose all credibility with the public if it is seen as the representative (aka champion) of those it regulates.
The BVA is supposed to be the representative body. But a) not everyone is a member, where everyone is an MRCVS, b) it seems to have earned a reputation for representing LA practice, not SA. Plus it is at the disadvantage, in terms of perception in the profession, that you are not MBVA, you are MRCVS.
Then there's the question of what constitutes 'representing'? The views of veterinary surgeons in forming regulatory policy? Representing the profession in the media? To the government? To other organisations?

And the net result of all of this seems to be that nobody knows who is representing who, to who, about what!

For me as an outsider, it seems clear:

First the RCVS has to do one of two things. Either, as JGW says, drop all this MRCVS business, and make everyone RVSs. It's the regulator; you're 'registered', and that's it. Would seem sad to me to lose the MRCVS. RVS doesn't have quite the same ring to it. But perhaps for clarity it would be for the best.

Alternatively, the RCVS accepts that it does represent the profession (I'm with you Evelyn, it does represent because of the M in MRCVS). It then finds a way to communicate what appears to be a slightly conflicting message to the public and the profession. I think that is achievable with targeted communications across different platforms (e.g. print / digital etc).
If the former, then clearly another organisation should assume all aspects of representation.
If the latter, I think the College could reasonably (and very effectively) do more to represent the profession, certainly in the media.

I'm sure more brilliant minds than mine (not necessarily saying much) will now spot the flaws in this thinking!

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:47:31 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] I asked whether ultimately it would be more satisfactory for the RCVS to become something else and for us to become RVS as in RVN, something which would be more transparent and recognisable to a MOP. That went down well, [/quote]

I'll bet it did!

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:44:44 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]'The role of RCVS Council and VN Council is not to represent the veterinary professions…' [/quote]

On the face of it that statement seems just plain wrong; perhaps when you dissect it in context it might not be.

RCVS does, de facto, represent the veterinary profession; the RCVS is the veterinary profession. Arguably RCVS Council is there to administer RCVS and carry out the statutory duties, so RCVS Council does not represent the veterinary profession, but it's all getting a bit weaselly here.

Anyway, Belgravia House freely claims to represent the veterinary profession when it chooses.

None of which detracts from my point that quite obviously the elected members of Council are there to represent the membership. They have other tasks as well of course.

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

J G Wray — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:35:45 GMT

In an exchange of emails with a BM of RCVS I asked whether ultimately it would be more satisfactory for the RCVS to become something else and for us to become RVS as in RVN, something which would be more transparent and recognisable to a MOP. That went down well, but would probably require a new VSA. Is that clear?

JGW

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Jo Dyer — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:26:58 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] but they are there to represent the views of the membership. Obviou[/quote]

That's what I thought too until I read RCVS News of Nov 2013 where it clearly says on page 2, headline 'People like you'; 'The role of RCVS Council and VN Council is not to represent the veterinary professions…'

I'm very confused. I though it was just me but no-one else seems to be any the wiser either! It seems to be another statement that we all interpret differently….

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:54:05 GMT

Sorry, was I rude? I didn't mean to be. I save that for JGW or DM. Fade in Donovan with a mellow

However. The RCVS is us. We are all MRCVS (unless we are F, of course ).

We are a self-regulating profession (and nobody in their right mind would want to be regulated by a government body).

That means that the RCVS is both us and our regulator. It's not so hard to get your head round.

Ever since it received its first Royal Charter RCVS has represented veterinary surgeons in the strict sense: RCVS is the veterinary profession. Don't people have an inkling of the history of their own profession any more?

The members elected to Council do not have constituencies, but they are there to represent the views of the membership. Obviously. That is why the constitution is constructed as it is.

At the same time it's not at all strange that we have to pay an annual subscription to fund RCVS: it costs money to run. It's the same in everything else in life, unless maybe you live in a tepee in the middle of a forest and live off grubs, toadstools and herbs. However the people in charge of the money have a duty to be very careful with it and ought to be answerable to us for every penny.

The problems are:

1. The ascendant faction in Belgravia House considers that Belgravia House is the RCVS and that the rest of us are merely fee-payers who are to do exactly what we are told.

2. Many - to their honour, not all - of those elected to Council get sucked in to the system and have the Belgravia House mindset surgically implanted (or maybe it's just something in the tea, as JGW suggested).

3. When they don't want to do something in Belgravia House by way of representing or promoting the veterinary profession, they tell us they can't do that because they are not allowed to (which may not be quite true.) However when it takes their fancy to do something, they find a way to justify it.

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:08:50 GMT

Gillian It depends whether you believe this site was "created " by Arlo, ( fundamentalist creationist theory), evolved after a "big bang" (fundamentalist atheistic theory) or is a mixture of the two (my maybe slightly muddled stance)

Wynne

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Mark Holmes — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:04:22 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Gillian are you establishing a new religion? [/quote]

erm...eh? I've reread my comments and can't work out what you mean? What joke am I missing?

[/quote] You referred to Arlo as the Creator. I also have a high opinion of him but not quite that high.

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 13:53:18 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Gillian are you establishing a new religion? [/quote]

erm...eh? I've reread my comments and can't work out what you mean? What joke am I missing?

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Bob Russell — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:11:30 GMT

I don't get this 'we don't represent the profession' nonsense, it should!

We vote as a profession to elect candidates to represent what is best about the profession. What it actually should be doing is providing a framework for us all to work within to establish high standards thereby protecting the bulk of the profession from the rogues.

This has the ultimate effect of protecting the general public. We have delegated the policing of the profession to the PIC and DC. How this came about is history. This is one key reasons a lousy DC decision can have so much impact.

The RCVS is our organisation, it should represent all that is good and right in the profession.

It is a real concern when people start to detach representation of (dare I say it) good vets and try to distance the college from its members!

Perhaps we should be reminding the college of its true place in the world!

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Richard Carter — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:46:12 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Ed it was made perfectly clear that even members elected to the RCVS are not there to represent the body of the profession.[/quote]

This is a slant that has been repeated so many times by those who desperately want to abdicate any responsibility for the welfare of the profession it has almost made it a truth. The reality is the RCVS IS there to represent the profession, just not the individuals in the profession. It is the committee that sets the rules for entry, it is the committee that will look to see if the individuals are keeping up to speed, it is the committee that rewards members for outstanding achievement, it has a library to assist in the furthering of veterinary knowledge and in doing so the whole purpose is to ensure a respectable and functioning VETERINARY profession.

The reason we vote is to put our representatives at the head of the profession is so when the government or any other interested parties needs an expert answer from the profession, there is a point of contact. This aspect has been abdicated totally with the Kennel Club and various charities now being the expert point of contact.

We pay for this and even though previous registrars have desperately wanted to sit at the same table as the head of the NHS for instance by increasing their reach and authority (PSS, post graduate training - either you are a fully trained member or not?), we seem to be losing the wood for the trees. Previous employees have pursued the path of RCVS for the sake of the RCVS with more and more flamboyant schemes based on looking over at the other NHS funded councils and trying to be in the same boat whether applicable to our situation or not.

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Bob Russell — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:45:26 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Michael welcome to the forum. Sorry about Evelyn he can be a bit rude. The RCVS are not there to represent us they are there to govern us. The BVA would be our representatives and are ridiculously quiet on the issue. In fact the members of Vetsurgeon.org and Arlo have recently been one of the bigger voices representing our views. You are in the right place but you need to be a bit bullet proof as demonstrated.

[/quote]

Actually I would consider Evelyn to be a pretty wise member of the forum. A king of dentistry (if we are lucky Bob Partridge will hang around on the forum to add his dental wisdom as well!).

Direct rather than rude but as Arlo keeps suggesting the smiley's can 'mellow' the comments!

Welcome to posting on the site!!

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Mark Holmes — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:02:12 GMT

Ed it was made perfectly clear that even members elected to the RCVS are not there to represent the body of the profession. I will find the link somewhere. Richard Stephenson cleared it up. He said explicitly that you do not have the role of an MP. You are elected onto and work for and in behalf of the council. I haven't been particularly interested in voting subsequently. The only thing self regulated about this profession is the RCVS council

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Edward Gillams — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:54:04 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]. The RCVS are not there to represent us they are there to govern us.

[/quote]

Dear Mark and Forum,

It is true that RCVS are not there to represent us but to regulate the profession, in the same way as Parliament/Government are there to legislate.

However that does not mean that the individual members of council are not there to represent us. My MP maybe part of the government but he IS there to represent his electorate. It is easiest for the employees of council and for the appointees to council to overlook the mandate given to the elected councillors to represent the profession to RCVS. This, combined with the tiny turn over of councillors each year, acts to remove the voice of the profession, rather than being a self-regulating profession we become an RCVS-regulated profession and, I believe weaker for it.

Please consider voting this year. There are a great range of candidates including "normal" frontline vets and people prepared to say it as they see it and stand up to defend our great profession.

I hope that you feel you can support me with your vote, and I will work tirelessly to represent the profession on RCVS Council.

P.S. JGW - I feel your pain and your little violin made me smile and little sympathetic smile for you. It is great to have you back posting.

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

J G Wray — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:25:49 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Mind you he does seen omnipresent, omniscient and has the power to control JGW so you may have a point![/quote]

Re the last bit, in truth my life is not my own. There's Mr Guthrie here, the present Mrs Wray everywhere, my staff ( sorry team) at work, my children ( bloody parasitic boomerangs), my bank manager ( why don't sharks eat bank managers? - professional courtesy), the list goes on and on. Other than Mr G I have been told this is normality, but what's normal anymore.

I don't do little animated things in emails so pls imagine the smallest violin in the world at this point....

JGW

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Mark Holmes — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:11:27 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="michael berman"]Thank you Mark. Just wonder why do you need to be bullet proof?[/quote]

He simply means on this site - we are a passionate lot and the arguments occasionally get a bit personal!

[quote user="michael berman"]PS. What is this Arlo? [/quote]

lol- Arlo is the creator and moderator of this site!

[/quote] Gillian are you establishing a new religion? Mind you he does seen omnipresent, omniscient and has the power to control JGW so you may have a point!

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:01:38 GMT

[quote user="michael berman"]Thank you Mark. Just wonder why do you need to be bullet proof?[/quote]

He simply means on this site - we are a passionate lot and the arguments occasionally get a bit personal!

[quote user="michael berman"]PS. What is this Arlo? [/quote]

lol- Arlo is the creator and moderator of this site!

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:59:05 GMT

Welcome to the forum Michael! Always great to have more voices on the site- hope you don't get put off by the odd spiky comment!

Re: Feedback from Standards Committee meeting 27th March

michael berman — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:58:58 GMT

Thank you Mark. Just wonder why do you need to be bullet proof? Now that is really uprising, we pay them to govern us, unheard of, hehehe.

Well, my view is, people power can make government to fall, RCVS have big 0 chance to stand united power from all the members. Just as i said, united, otherwise no point. Anyway, at the moment, being vet is what i am best at and i love my job to bits. So as I will share my views when possible, but will not break walls to get the point. My way is to express my views slowly and gently, once we all agree on the same point- changes will happen.

PS. What is this Arlo?