News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Neil Wheadon — Fri, 16 May 2014 17:00:07 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]So why is it, that when the same people are also asked to take a little time out to decide who should be in charge of making these decisions in the first place, the metaphorical tumbleweed blows into town?
[/quote]

I agree with JGW when I read this statement.

I signed the petition as it was a single issue point that I knew a lot about and have strong opinions on and I thought that it might make a difference

With the RCVS elections, I felt that to fully understand all the issues and the candidates was going to take a lot of reading to make a correct choice rather than the 'dartboard' approach (but was glad to see Dave Bartram and Neil Smith elected)

In essence the petition and feeling that this issue is very important may make a far bigger difference to our welbeing than ticking a few boxes at random.

Neil

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 16 May 2014 16:14:14 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

You did ask.

JGW

[/quote] Yep, and it took you just 7 min to come up with an answer. You really are priceless

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

J G Wray — Fri, 16 May 2014 13:33:23 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What do you think? Does he have a point?[/quote]

Weeelll,

"...

I was delighted with the reaction to this initiative, especially the 5,000 or so responses we received from vets and VNs. Since then, we have invested a considerable amount of time and effort in evaluating and analysing the feedback we received, culminating in the publication of our ambitious strategic plan 12 months later.

JGW - The delight at 5,000 responses here stands in interesting juxtaposition with the bafflement over only 5,294 voters in this year's election. Mr S seems to suggest 5,000 are enough to drive a wholesale revision of RCVS Strategy, but not 5,294....

And

"..

Now, these specific topics have attracted acute interest amongst the profession, culminating in a rapid mobilisation of numerous individuals expressing their opinion via social media and online petitions, as well as more traditional methods such as email, letters to the College and the press, and face-to-face conversations. (I'm all for this, incidentally, although I wouldn't want there to be a referendum every time the College makes a decision!)

JGW - Theexclamation mark just about saves this paragraph, since it is silly to make the connection with the volume of interest, the engagement from the profession in these matters with a wholesale demand to control RCVS through constant referendums. No one else is saying this except RCVS Board members and this hyperbole from those in senior representative positions should stop or they will become a joke and that won't help a search for credibility.

So why is it, that when the same people are also asked to take a little time out to decide who should be in charge of making these decisions in the first place, the metaphorical tumbleweed blows into town?
Just 4,137 veterinary surgeons and 1,157 veterinary nurses voted in this year's Councils elections, representing a mere 16.1% and 10% of the two professions, respectively (and a fall in both turnouts compared to last year). Obviously, my thanks to those who took the trouble to vote, but to the 31,974 veterinary professionals who didn't, I would like to ask, why not?
We have been repeatedly reminded of late that our communications need to be a two-way process, that we need to engage more closely with the professions and to listen, not just speak. I wholeheartedly endorse this approach, but, equally, I would maintain that vets and nurses have a professional responsibility to keep in touch, to respond, to get involved and, of course, to vote! You lose the moral authority to complain about the College if you essentially do your utmost to ignore everything it does and says.

JGW - I find this too much. To be lectured on moral authority derived from a voting choice by an RCVS appointee and have it connected to essentially doing our utmost to ignore everything, everything RCVS, whilst in a previous breath there is the implication that RFPs want to have referendums on all that RCVS does rankles and is plainly silly...."

You did ask.

JGW

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 16 May 2014 13:26:37 GMT

Think this is worth bumping up, because there's been a comment about the election turnout from the CEO himself, which is both a first and he makes an interesting point ...

http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2014/05/07/114087.aspx

What do you think? Does he have a point?

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

James Laidlaw — Wed, 07 May 2014 23:42:55 GMT

I never received any voting papers this year - anyone else have this problem? By the time I realized it was too late to apply for new login details as it was all done via snail mail.

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 07 May 2014 16:54:38 GMT

A refreshingly candid post from Mr Stace on the subject yesterday, I see: http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/referral-vet-news/archive/2014/05/06/receiving-you-loud-and-clear.aspx

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

J G Wray — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:07:55 GMT

"..

Overall turnouts in both elections fell, with 4,137 (16.1%) veterinary surgeons and 1,157 (10%) veterinary nurses voting. These turnouts and voter numbers compare with 4,661 (18.8%) and 1,329 (12.5%) last year, and ten-year averages of 3,927 (17.4%) and 869 (9.9%), respectively.

RCVS Registrar Gordon Hockey, said: "It was always going to be tough to beat last year's record turnout, even with a record number of candidates standing this year, but it's encouraging that voter numbers are still the third highest in the last ten years..."

Bearing in mind the title of this thread, what a brilliant write up of a missed target, even with more candidates and ever growing RFP numbers.

For all those business owners out there who monitor performance, perform appraisals and set business and personal aims how would you see this? For all those who quietly set personal aims, how would you see this and the rationalisation from the Registrar?

Step forward the unaccountable to justify the silliness.

JGW

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:51:11 GMT

I'm glad some got in, sorry others did - but that's democracy!

Wynne

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:48:18 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Oh I dunno. Consider Mr Bartram from this crop of candidates. Who has he alientated?[/quote]

Not many, it seems!

He scored the second highest number of votes, a hair's breadth behind Neil Smith.

http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2014/04/30/113764.aspx

Congratulations to all the successful candidates, particularly the newcomers, Mandisa Greene and Sue Paterson (not to mention DB).

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

J G Wray — Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:46:28 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]Basic politics Arlo - those who you inspire by your issue centric manifesto are equal in number to those who you disinterest. Marmite is a very risky strategy in electioneering! You might end up picking an issue and alienating the rest of the profession who dislike Raw Meaty Bones.[/quote]

Oh I dunno. Consider Mr Bartram from this crop of candidates. Who has he alientated?

[quote user="martin whiting"]More importantly, the candidates I want to vote for are the ones who can demonstrate high level critical thinking and who wish to regulate the profession in light of the public interest (that is the purpose of the RCVS).[/quote]

Ah, perhaps here you have it. This profession is blessed by dint of selection and education with critical thinkers, but, and here is the flaw in your premise, since when is regulation and profession management best served by only having critical thinkers, analytical types serving? Whither the process driven, the appreciative of sensibility, the risk takers and those blessed with management competencies in this multipurpose organisation?

These candidates are not joining an organisation forming from scratch. It pre-exists, with its baggage and it has to be run byt those who can do so, because they have competencies and ideas which will complement and enhance the existing imperfect edifice.

[quote user="martin whiting"]When they get to Council and have the wealth of knowledge and information presented to the committees in order to make their decisions, I want to ensure they are open minded enough to make the right decision for a regulator of a profession, not just a decision that they feel obliged to make because that is what they 'promised' their voters.[/quote]

This is fantastic, in the real sense of the word. That wealth of knowledge did not serve RCVS terribly well on the PRC when there was an overspend on IT. Some of those Councillors, had been there for over a decade and either didn't understand what was going awry or turned a blind eye or suppressed what was happening. That wealth of experience sadly does not equste to thorough competence.

JGW

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:16:24 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I also think candidates should be much more issues-focussed in their campaigning. I mean, more or less all this year's manifestos were pretty, well, bland.[/quote]

Basic politics Arlo

[/quote]

Well, nobody ever accused me of being the sharpest knife in the drawer!

But since you mention it, why then is noone doing it?

[quote user="martin whiting"]those who you inspire by your issue centric manifesto are equal in number to those who you disinterest[/quote]

But Martin, you then seem to be kind of contradicting yourself by saying:

[quote user="martin whiting"]You might end up picking an issue and alienating the rest of the profession who dislike Raw Meaty Bones.[/quote]

(i.e you'll never bore and inspire in equal measure!)

[quote user="martin whiting"]More importantly, the candidates I want to vote for are the ones who can demonstrate high level critical thinking[/quote]

But isn't that demonstrated in the reasoning behind a) the selection of the issues, and b) the arguments they put forward for their stance on the issues.

[quote user="martin whiting"]I don't want to be selecting candidates who have preformed, prejudged ideas.[/quote]

Well, we all do (have preformed ideas), but I don't think that precludes:

[quote user="martin whiting"]I want to ensure they are open minded enough to make the right decision[/quote]

Also

[quote user="martin whiting"]I want to ensure they are open minded enough to make the right decision for a regulator of a profession, not just a decision that they feel obliged to make because that is what they 'promised' their voters.[/quote]

I don't expect those I elect to keep to their promises. Things change. But If they break a promise, I do expect them to explain why. i.e. issues-led campaigning creates greater accountability, because there is something to account for.

Looking at the manifestos in previous years, I'd be hard pushed to find anything, with probably the sole exception of RMB, which I could actually hold anyone to (if I had that privilege, which I don't!)

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Martin Whiting — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:59:19 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I also think candidates should be much more issues-focussed in their campaigning. I mean, more or less all this year's manifestos were pretty, well, bland.[/quote]

Basic politics Arlo - those who you inspire by your issue centric manifesto are equal in number to those who you disinterest. Marmite is a very risky strategy in electioneering! You might end up picking an issue and alienating the rest of the profession who dislike Raw Meaty Bones.

More importantly, the candidates I want to vote for are the ones who can demonstrate high level critical thinking and who wish to regulate the profession in light of the public interest (that is the purpose of the RCVS). I don't want to be selecting candidates who have preformed, prejudged ideas. When they get to Council and have the wealth of knowledge and information presented to the committees in order to make their decisions, I want to ensure they are open minded enough to make the right decision for a regulator of a profession, not just a decision that they feel obliged to make because that is what they 'promised' their voters.

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:35:24 GMT

[quote user="martin whiting"]Do you have any advice on how we as a profession may encourage our fellow members to take part in the vote?[/quote]

Very good question, and one which I too would love to hear JGW's answer to.

Meantime, I signed a petition today - the first time I think I've ever done at at my own behest (i.e. not one sent to me by someone else). By contrast, I didn't vote at the last general elections.

What made me sign a petition (and circulate it to people I know, and think of contacting my local Councillor, the local paper, my MEP, the Prime Minister and Barack Obama), but not vote?

Well, call me shallow, but the petition is this one: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/cancel-bath-bus-gate-fines. I got filmed and fined for going down a recently introduced bus lane which wasn't signposted clearly. Seemed unfair, and I think that if enough people sign, maybe the fines will be rescinded.

Same sort of thing going on with the 24/7 OOH home visits and postnominals petitions. Very large numbers clearly motivated to sign and encourage others to do the same.

What can we do to inspire that same action from the many MsRCVS who have signed the petitions but who presumably didn't vote?

Personally, I think the answer perhaps lies in these petitions themselves (and importantly, what actions the College takes in response), because once you start to get a feeling you're being heard, the next thing that becomes important is 'by whom?'. Sadly, the outcome of these petitions didn't come in time for this year's election. But perhaps by next year, those who signed the petitions will be voting with the benefit of seeing how the current councillors dealt with the issues that are so important to them.

I also think candidates should be much more issues-focussed in their campaigning. I mean, more or less all this year's manifestos were pretty, well, bland. Wouldn't it have been much more interesting/inspiring to ask them to write one sentence about their position on what they think are the top three most important issues (which the College has the power to influence) facing practitioners today?

In other words, a bit more marmite.

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:46:52 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Everyone should be compelled to vote every year in order to retain MRCVS status. This could/should include a box for 'none of the above'.[/quote]

Cripes, absolutely not.

The people who at present do not vote at all would, mostly, just fill up their six with people they'd heard of, or just at random. The net result would be even more of a skew in favour of the old, er, guard.

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Bob Russell — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:59:37 GMT

Everyone should be compelled to vote every year in order to retain MRCVS status. This could/should include a box for 'none of the above'.

There were some interesting candidates. Some I voted for because I believed they should be there. Some I voted for because they held interesting views in the hope they might shake things up. Some I did not vote for because they were 'in power' and did not feel deserved my vote!

BUT I voted (as I always do).

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Martin Whiting — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:03:20 GMT

Dear JG Wray,

Surely the target is always going to be 100%? That is what we want in any election be it veterinary council or national general elections. Giving the profession a 20% target is a realistic increase on last year and the year before, don't you think.

That fact that we, the profession, choose not to partake in the election, is more of a reflection of us than of the regulator, don't you think?

Or course, we could make it 100% by linking it to our yearly retention fee! But I suspect you might not like that.

Do you have any advice on how we as a profession may encourage our fellow members to take part in the vote?

Martin

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:57:08 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] They should be assessed and judged by what they do not what they say.[/quote]

As indeed should we all.

But, you know, i've never understood the point of targets, except when shooting . Sure, if you need £10,000 for the church roof, then that's your target. But the setting of arbitrary targets, NHS fashion, seems ......... just pointless.

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

J G Wray — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:23:49 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]A number of people at the College have expressed quite the opposite to me. And I've always thought the College has been (hate the word) proactive in exploring new ways of getting people into the booths (such as participation in these forums, webinars etc), which is not the behaviour of an organisation that doesn't have a moment of reflection.[/quote]

Their words do not match their deeds. There are any number of them who are plausible. They should be assessed and judged by what they do not what they say.

JGW

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:03:24 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]not even a moment of reflection or embarrassment, let alone an attempt at understanding how to get a better result.[/quote]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Have you any evidence of any sort to account for your certainty on this point?[/quote]

JGW, like Evelyn I do wonder where you get this from. What possible grounds do you have for saying "noone at the College has 'even a moment of reflection or embarrassment, let alone an attempt at understanding ..."

A number of people at the College have expressed quite the opposite to me. And I've always thought the College has been (hate the word) proactive in exploring new ways of getting people into the booths (such as participation in these forums, webinars etc), which is not the behaviour of an organisation that doesn't have a moment of reflection.

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

J G Wray — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:41:18 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Have you any evidence of any sort to account for your certainty on this point?[/quote]

If you want corroboration then ask The Pres and /or Head of Communications and/or the CEO and see if you get a straight answer....

The questions I've put in the past were

Do you have targets for turnout?

Who sets them?

What do you do if they aren't met?

What do you do if they are exceeded?

What do you do to understand the result?

I have no idea what audience they are trying to address with these targets. Do you?

JGW

Re: News - RCVS Election turnout target missed

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 27 Apr 2014 22:36:45 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I'm certain there's no accountability for being so far off target, not even a moment of reflection or embarrassment, let alone an attempt at understanding how to get a better result.[/quote]

Have you any evidence of any sort to account for your certainty on this point?