RCVS slush fund

RE: RCVS slush fund

Anthony Todd — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 11:53:23 GMT

[quote userid="4367" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund/231015#231015"]the £50k for the unsuccessful mole hunt[/quote]

I think all the MRCVSs, would wonder what should NOT be available to them all!

I'd love to see what was considered so critical and sensitive that it couldn't be disclosed, certainly to Members of the RCVS.

RE: RCVS slush fund

Iain Richards — Thu, 01 Jul 2021 07:45:51 GMT

[quote userid="10402" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund/230985#230985"]I understand that you are on first name terms with the CEO. Ask her how much they have spent recently on the legal services of Mr Ferry-Swainson (and I don't mean the £50k for the unsuccessful mole hunt), and ask her what it was for? [/quote]

You could ask the direct question at the AGM

RE: RCVS slush fund

Anthony Todd — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:56:27 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund/230994#230994"]I think I'd need something a bit more specific to go on.[/quote]

So would I! It sounds to me that the "offence" might be rated, not on the apparent severity or demerits of the "breach", but more on the chances of a successful Inquiry and then legal sanction.

For example, a member accused of being drunk while treating an animal, but the accuser will not give evidence, should still be investigated!

RE: RCVS slush fund

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:35:45 GMT

[quote userid="10402" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund/230985#230985"]If you don't think that hanging on to that quantum of members money whilst obscuring its purposes from the wider membership is a problem then we will just have to differ.[/quote]

I wasn't expressing an opinion on that. I'm just uncomfortable with people levelling accusations as strong as 'corrupt' behind the veil of anonymity. I didn't say it was wrong to ask the question you did.

[quote userid="10402" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund/230985#230985"]Ask her how much they have spent recently on the legal services of Mr Ferry-Swainson[/quote]

I think I'd need something a bit more specific to go on. I presume you are talking about Mr Ferry-Swainson the barrister, in his capacity on the Disciplinary Committee, so presumably he is an ongoing cost.

RE: RCVS slush fund

Chris Barker — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:55:53 GMT

[quote userid="10402" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund/230985#230985"]Ask her how much they have spent recently on the legal services of Mr Ferry-Swainson (and I don't mean the £50k for the unsuccessful mole hunt), and ask her what it was for?[/quote]

Tease... You clearly know what the answer is, and the rest of us have no way of knowing... Give us chapter and verse!

RE: RCVS slush fund

An On MRCVS — Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:07:24 GMT

Sorry Arlo,

What I meant to say was I am opting to post anonymously to avoid becoming again entangled in an investigation by my all-powerful and paranoid regulator.

If you don't think that hanging on to that quantum of members money whilst obscuring its purposes from the wider membership is a problem then we will just have to differ.

It saddens me that our regulator behaves in this way but as Chris Barker points out it is now more-or-less impossible to control the executive. They are a bunch of careerists interested only in perpetuating their position.

I understand that you are on first name terms with the CEO. Ask her how much they have spent recently on the legal services of Mr Ferry-Swainson (and I don't mean the £50k for the unsuccessful mole hunt), and ask her what it was for?

RE: RCVS slush fund

Bob Russell — Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:57:55 GMT

I think this has to be anon because it is a small profession.

The wording of the posts may be a little strong but still appropriate where governance is concerned. These are the same people that discipline us therefore need to be seen as whiter than white (within limits).

The offer to spread payments was far from generous and with these reserves the RCVS could have been far more helpful.

If a new building had been bought then it would have investment potential. They should find a nice building somewhere out in the sticks, near a railway station. I doubt that many working at Belgravia House live round the corner!

Remote council meetings have the potential to be more democratic and more vets may involve themselves.

The new building does not have to be a hole in the ground but also does not need to be in central London.

I consulted with a legal advisor in London and they rent a room by the hour. Based somewhere in the Midlands and use the train when required.

RE: RCVS slush fund

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:56:12 GMT

[quote userid="6353" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund/230932#230932"]It is only good fortune which prevented the RCVS from signing on the bottom line for the purchase of a new building in London before Covid struck[/quote]

Yes, but to be fair, the same could be said of anyone and everyone who happened not to complete on a property deal before COVID! And it is only bad fortune that I didn't didn't buy load of amazon shares at the same time

RE: RCVS slush fund

Chris Barker — Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:58:12 GMT

The argument regarding reserves for the 'estate strategy' was sound Purchasing and equipping a new building in London would have emptied the coffers completely

It is only good fortune which prevented the RCVS from signing on the bottom line for the purchase of a new building in London before Covid struck

It is now apparent that much of the RCVS's work can be performed remotely - the intended provision of a desk for every employee is now demonstrably foolish

(However the proposal that two out of six RCVS Council meetings will now be held remotely fills me with dread. Hard enough to keep the Executive in check when you meet face to face...)

But a new estate strategy must be formulated and enacted swiftly; 'we' are spending money monthly on the rent of a building which is no longer 'ours'

Where should a new base for the RCVS be sited and how big should it be...? The 'necessity' of being London based is no longer compelling

RE: RCVS slush fund

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:50:02 GMT

[quote userid="10402" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund"]Anon to avoid the Inquisition.[/quote]

I'm a little uncomfortable with this, in conjunction with:

[quote userid="10402" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29899/rcvs-slush-fund"]I have recently heard the phrase 'institutionally corrupt'. It has been used to describe an organisation more interested in preserving its own reputation than doing the job it is tasked with. Sadly the College is falling into this category. [/quote]

Because I think if you're going to call an organisation in a small profession like this institutionally corrupt, you should put your face to your allegation.

And it looks to me like you may have some form for RCVS bashing, as this earlier post shares exactly the same introduction, so presumably came from you too: https://www.vetsurgeon.org/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/29882/have-the-rcvs-erred-in-law

(and I think you were wrong on that one).

RE: RCVS slush fund

Anthony Todd — Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:34:08 GMT

The is an institutional generic problem which I find hard to understand.

Most residential organisations' managements do the same, and the interest rates, because they always choose "safe", are very very low.

I suppose it is so that they can never be accused of not "managing" to cope with this unknown imaginary possible future threat.

It's hard to see what threat they are "reserving" to face if they are, at least, vaguely competent to foresee risk??