Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Gerry Henry — Tue, 02 Jul 2024 07:15:26 GMT

Kate Richards has bought a flat in the same street as the new RCVS HQ. Coincidence ? It’s cut and dried, they’re lining up for the ‘independently’ appointed council posts as we speak.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Paul Kensington — Tue, 02 Jul 2024 03:12:06 GMT

[quote userid="8991" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244919#244919"]

Short answer as Malcolm Ness has expanded eloquently on this.

Whilst those voted on aren't representatives in the MP fashion etc they are mostly people with actual coalface experience.

Remember the Chikosi nonsense and blanket gate? That's what you get with lay people and army vets who haven't seen an animal clinically for decades.

This is the last thing that should be happening. Look at the university members. Reduce the lay people. Make some accountability of the reg and the CE.

Appointments lean to groupthink and those who won't rock the boat. It's a backward permanent step which will only distance the college more from the profession.

[/quote]

For sure!

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Paul Kensington — Tue, 02 Jul 2024 03:10:24 GMT

Absolutely agree!

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Judith Joyce — Mon, 01 Jul 2024 19:39:59 GMT

Agree Patient advocacy is our USP, Gerry. We shouldn't lose it to greenwashing, bluewashing and pinkwashing (sorry for BSBingo)

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Judith Joyce — Mon, 01 Jul 2024 19:34:57 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed"]I'm going to share a short film of Sue's main points shortly, and for those who are interested in the future governance of the profession, you can watch a webinar on it tomorrow evening: [/quote]

I am someone who is interested in the future governance of the profession but I'm taking a different route. I feel that as we are evidence based scientists we shouldn't be overly swayed by eminence (by webinar, website or whatever other weapon) so I'm having a read of the VSA along with the DEFRA consultations and guidances and amendments to the Act that have been developed since 1966 (available via RCVS website) Its taking a while.. I personally think it's a very big thing to change from the existing democratic process and needs a great more thought and detail than seems available,

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Gerry Henry — Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:57:54 GMT

Paterson will get her appointed council, it has already been decided. The Governance consultation is a farce - just listen to her video - the College clique want it to happen and so it will. She will get her new VS Act too. It will prioritise DEI, sustainability, neurodiversity and anything else you can think of that is 1.Progressive 2. Completely unrelated to patient care.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:42:40 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244962#244962"]This topic was most certainly discussed 13 -14 years ago when I started working in the UK. [/quote]

Low voter turnout, for sure, but my point is that I think there has always been a low voter turnout, or at least for the last 23 years that I can remember! I am not sure it is right to say it has declined.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Dinu Catilina — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 16:10:09 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244960#244960"]Hmm - what timeframe are you talking about[/quote]

This topic was most certainly discussed 13 -14 years ago when I started working in the UK.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:31:58 GMT

[quote userid="9515" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244957#244957"]And so even more of the profession became disillusion, fewer voted and the rest got their way.[/quote]

Hmm - what timeframe are you talking about Sarah Keir, because I've been reporting Council election results for more than 20 years now, and certainly turnout hasn't changed radically in that time.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Sarah Keir — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:28:40 GMT

[quote userid="4103" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244879#244879"]more vets will join the BVA after this change[/quote]

The greatest number of BVA 'members' are from paid subscriptions paid by corporates and other parties that mass purchase membership as a benefit. To me it doesn't seem that the BVA has many members who take an active interest or participation in what they do

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Sarah Keir — Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:26:54 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244875#244875"]So the elected system didn't work[/quote]

It wasn't that the elected system didn't work but that the profession lost interest when it could see that no matter what the general vet on the ground wanted, the RCVS was going to push ahead with their agenda anyway. And then they started shutting up the RCVS Council who spoke against their plans. And so even more of the profession became disillusion, fewer voted and the rest got their way.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:50:02 GMT

I am just waiting for some feedback from various places, but this is my proposed survey to find out what everyone thinks about elected vs appointed. For balance, I thought it would be useful to state the pros and cons (at least as I see them) at the start.

These are the draft questions:

The RCVS proposes to change the structure of the Council which regulates you from an elected to an appointed body.

The advantages and disadvantages of such a change would appear to be:

Elected

Advantage: MsRCVS select who is representative to sit on Council and regulate, which history has shown allows for an eclectic mix of people who are not beholden to anyone.
Advantage: Allows all MsRCVS to engage with the regulatory system in a limited way (by voting).
Disadvantage: System selects for those who are good at canvassing and social media, which are not necessarily the skills needed to regulate
Disadvantage: System perpetuates the myth that Councillors are there to represent issues or groups, when they are not. They can only be representative of the wider profession in how they regulate.
Disadvantage: Election is a daunting process which may be off-putting for many people with the necessary skills and experience.
Disadvantage: Lack of accountability. With collective responsibility now in place, it is no longer possible to judge how councillors have performed during their tenure and therefore vote for them to remain. However, Councillors are elected for fixed terms.

Appointed

Advantage: Council members can be selected for the specific skills needed to regulate
Advantage: Council members can be selected to be more representative of the profession, both geographically and by discipline
Advantage: Putting your name forward for Council may be less daunting than the elected system
Disadvantage: Not democratic. Currently no checks and balances proposed.
Disadvantage: Lack of accountability. However Councillors are appointed for fixed terms.
Disadvantage: Risk that Councillors will be elected by an independent body which is nevertheless comprised of an unrepresentative metropolitan elite, leading to unrepresentative candidate selection.

Qu1. Bearing these points in mind (and any you may have thought of), how do you feel about switching to an appointed RCVS Council?

I am profoundly against an appointed Council
I am mildly opposed to an appointed Council
I am mildly in favour of an appointed Council
I am enthusiastically in favour an appointed Council.
I couldnt care less either way.

Qu2. If you are profoundly against, or enthusiastically in favour, why?

Qu3. Do you have any suggestions which would make the appointed option acceptable to you, or improve the elected option?

If anyone has any thoughts about these questions, it would be very helpful to hear them. Is there something missing, or something you think should be added?

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:37:23 GMT

[quote userid="11901" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244938#244938"]nor do I have any idea whether they ever followed their manifesto promise… [/quote]

Miriam Lodewyks Thing is, they don't actually have the power to make a manifesto promise, or follow up on it, so as I said earlier, that is a bit of an illusion.

I think the main fear is that with an appointed system, Council will end up being populated by an unrepresentative metropolitan elite who will be accountable to nobody.

So it all seems to hang on who is appointing and what checks and balances would there be.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Miriam Lodewyks — Sun, 23 Jun 2024 20:01:03 GMT

I’ve just listened to the podcast discussion on this and the way Sue explains it an appointed system will be much better than the election system where barely 20% ever bother to vote.
The times I voted for RCVS council I chose one candidate based on her manifesto but must admit I did not read all 24 carefully, nor do I have any idea whether they ever followed their manifesto promise…

So having a council that’s been through a standardised application process that ensures they have the necessary skills, like for any other job, seems far more sensible.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:18:57 GMT

I am going to do a survey on this. Present the pros and cons of elected vs appointed, and then ask which would you prefer. I shall post the pros and cons here in advance, so that you can pick holes in them!

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Gerry Henry — Tue, 18 Jun 2024 09:27:54 GMT

One. Hundred. Percent.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

David Mills — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:35:55 GMT

Short answer as Malcolm Ness has expanded eloquently on this.

Whilst those voted on aren't representatives in the MP fashion etc they are mostly people with actual coalface experience.

Remember the Chikosi nonsense and blanket gate? That's what you get with lay people and army vets who haven't seen an animal clinically for decades.

This is the last thing that should be happening. Look at the university members. Reduce the lay people. Make some accountability of the reg and the CE.

Appointments lean to groupthink and those who won't rock the boat. It's a backward permanent step which will only distance the college more from the profession.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 13:56:10 GMT

Hi Malcolm Ness

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
I think the danger is of polarising the debate.

If you think that I am doing that, then you are quite wrong.

[/quote]

I wasn't talking about you ... I meant more generally (in particular in the written word).

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]I note that neither you (nor any of the other proponents of de-democratisation) have responded to my main point about who will be making the appointments and what is their agenda.[/quote]

I am not a proponent of de-democratisation ... but I do think the argument is not entirely black and white, ie there are benefits of an appointed system and flaws in the election system (and of course vice versa)

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
1. Has a very poor poor engagement rate with the electoral process. Voter turnout is dreadful.

The College leadership has worked long and hard to achieve this situation.

[/quote]

Malcolm, that is simply untrue!

I remember when I first launched vetsurgeon many years ago, working with Lizzie Lockett to find better ways to engage the electorate, because there was a genuine desire by the College to increase voter turnout. We tried various things over a number of years, and I see the College still making efforts in that regard.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]A sceptic might argue that it was a deliberate ploy to prepare the ground for the forthcoming de-democratisation.[/quote]

With the greatest respect (and I mean that sincerely) ... that is bollocks. Sorry, but totally untrue. I've seen for myself direct evidence to the contrary.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]For decades now, all the 'key' roles, including chairing the main committees were given to appointed councillors (at that time, mainly the University bods) and that they acted as a cabal with a vested interest, cow-towing to the registrar/CEO.[/quote]

This I dont know about.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]

Bear in mind that this was happening nearly 30 years ago, yet it is reminiscent of Richard Stephenson getting his wrists slapped for sharing council information; the increasingly restricted and even heavily redacted (to the point of incomprehension) record of council business, or the decision of at least one practitioner councillor (Colin Whiting) to resign - and that was all before the ludicrous decision about 'collective responsibility. This is (for the time-being at least), a self-regulating Liberal Profession and not a plastic parliament.

[/quote]

Yes, I couldnt agree more than the slapping of wrists and redactions are not a good look. And I also agree that collective responsibility in a profession like this seems, yes, ludicrous.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
2. Selects for people who are good at canvassing, not for people with skills needed to regulate, and not necessarily people who are representative.

They don't have to be 'representative' they need to be effective - folk that we might expect to do a good job at regulating. They also need to be allowed to get on and do that not merely act as patsies for the self-appointed great and good amongst the College apparatchiks. It has long been difficult to argue with colleagues who decline to vote because it won't make any difference.

[/quote]

I think we are saying the same thing. On this point (representative), I think the College is saying the same thing.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]The fact remains that we don't know (because no-one is telling us) who will hold the power to appoint council members and what their aim(s) is/are. Until the proponents of change make that clear, there isn't a debate to join - polarised or otherwise.[/quote]

At the presentation BVA Live, we were told that the appointment process would be conducted by an independent body. I forget whether it was named but will go and check that point.

[quote userid="3607" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244915#244915"]The notion of ever being able to 'sling out' appointed members is deliciously naive![/quote]

That's me, in a word!

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Malcolm Ness — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:58:17 GMT

Hi Arlo,

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244889#244889"]I think the danger is of polarising the debate.[/quote]

If you think that I am doing that, then you are quite wrong. The move to change this Royal College from a self-regulating Liberal Profession into, at best, a cadet branch of the civil service or, more likely, a wholly-controlled subsidiary of the metropolitan chattering class was not of my making. The rhetorical flourish of accusing opposing voices of extremism or polarisation is old and tired. As another one-time regular of vet surgeon was wont to say "Play the ball and not the man". I note that neither you (nor any of the other proponents of de-democratisation) have responded to my main point about who will be making the appointments and what is their agenda.

The College leadership has worked long and hard to achieve this situation. A sceptic might argue that it was a deliberate ploy to prepare the ground for the forthcoming de-democratisation. An anecdote: on several occasions I have been encouraged to stand for election to RCVS council, twice by sitting Presidents. The first time was in the mid-1990s. I declined because, after speaking with other practitioners who were already on council the message came through loud and clear that power sat not with council but with the senior admin staff, especially the Registrar. Herein lies the seed of the present problem - at one time, the College was able to recruit outstanding folk to sit as registrar - some will be old enough to remember Alistair Porter - but more recently the recruitment-pond became shallower and, as one of the smallest Liberal Professions, we didn't get first choice. More will remember Ms Hearn, whose overlong stay in post resulted in the bold move of splitting the Registrar role and appointing a CEO. That was well-intentioned but fell foul of the other key problematic feature of the College - the elected officers remain in post for a very short time and if any prove troublesome/problematic to the CEO/Registrar etc, the latter merely keep their heads down for a few months until a more malleable president surfaces.

For decades now, all the 'key' roles, including chairing the main committees were given to appointed councillors (at that time, mainly the University bods) and that they acted as a cabal with a vested interest, cow-towing to the registrar/CEO. Councillors were 'discouraged' from disrupting council meetings - ie offering a different opinion. Bear in mind that this was happening nearly 30 years ago, yet it is reminiscent of Richard Stephenson getting his wrists slapped for sharing council information; the increasingly restricted and even heavily redacted (to the point of incomprehension) record of council business, or the decision of at least one practitioner councillor (Colin Whiting) to resign - and that was all before the ludicrous decision about 'collective responsibility. This is (for the time-being at least), a self-regulating Liberal Profession and not a plastic parliament.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244889#244889"]2. Selects for people who are good at canvassing, not for people with skills needed to regulate, and not necessarily people who are representative.[/quote]

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244889#244889"]3. I think the amount of commitment needed to stand probably does deter many, and perhaps many with useful skills. [/quote]

I agree completely, but that commitment is severely blunted by the fact that they are prevented from serving and are, instead, reduced to rubber-stamping business developed by others as indicated above. What's more, now that there is collective responsibility they aren't even free to register dissent!

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244889#244889"]I wonder if that could be addressed in some other way. For example, having greater transparency over council members' voting record and retaining a right for the profession to sling out appointed members in extreme circumstances.[/quote]

Interesting that this idea runs directly against the current flow which is reducing transparency (now to the point of opacity) and raises the question of what an elected council member's vote is actually worth given that they have long-since been unable to set, or significantly influence, the council agenda, they are now effectively bound to silence over their verbal contribution to council and they are bound by 'collective responsibility' to support the decisions of a council most of whose members are appointed.

The notion of ever being able to 'sling out' appointed members is deliciously naive!

The fact remains that we don't know (because no-one is telling us) who will hold the power to appoint council members and what their aim(s) is/are. Until the proponents of change make that clear, there isn't a debate to join - polarised or otherwise.

Anyway, back to fixing broken greyhounds and studying Scottish history for me. I am hugely saddened that I am almost certain to leave the Veterinary Profession in a very much worse state than I found it.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:55:14 GMT

[quote userid="4181" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244913#244913"]Who is deciding what a 'bad job' is - those who appoint such people to push their own agenda through without wanting to be robustly held to account and rightfully questioned about this agenda, on behalf of the rest of the members of the RCVS?[/quote]

Not sure I quite understand what you're saying, but if you are saying that someone has appointed people to push through the appointed council agenda .... that's obviously not the case - the proposal on the table has been put forward by elected councillors, the majority of whom obviously believe that for many reasons, some of which we will not be fully aware of, that appointed is the better solution.

I'm not sure whether I agree or not. It seems to me as an outside observer that appointed could bring more applications from more people with more skills. And it would solve the perennial problem of both candidates and the electorate thinking Council members can represent issues / groups. But would you ultimately end up with a group of woke, lefty metropolitan elites imposing their view on everyone else. Perhaps. So what checks and balances would there be?

Or alternatively, could the existing system be improved? One way might be (as I said earlier) to stop candidates having manifesto based campaigns, and instead make it more of a CV-based beauty parade. Which of these people do you think has the SKILLS, QUALIFICATIONS and EXPERIENCE to represent you? As opposed to the current system which is more about which of these people's opinions resonate best.

And either way, could there be a way to introduce some incentive to do a good job. Money. Perhaps make time on Council REALLY well paid, something councillors really don't want to lose.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Rob Loxley — Fri, 14 Jun 2024 06:39:31 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244905#244905"]there is no consequence for doing a bad job[/quote]

Who is deciding what a 'bad job' is - those who appoint such people to push their own agenda through without wanting to be robustly held to account and rightfully questioned about this agenda, on behalf of the rest of the members of the RCVS?

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Judith Joyce — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:14:13 GMT

I currently feel bombarded with propaganda but enjoying hearing opposing views for balance.

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:12:45 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244905#244905"]alternative to an appointed system?[/quote]

Umm...don't do it

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244905#244905"]How could the current elected system be improved? [/quote]

Leave it alone, it's working in my opinion, gives any vet a chance to sit on Council rather than complain about it. I considered it last year, but with the trips, I'd need to be there 6 times a year and would 2000 vote for me? I'm sure a lot of vets have considered it. Indeed there is a good arguement that experienced vets in practice should be encouraged to stand and a number of places guarenteed.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244905#244905"]How could more of the electorate be engaged?[/quote]

Do they need to be? We get plenty of warning about it, it's not manditory to vote, so leave the decision to the 20% who at least take an interest and so can make an informed choice

Neil

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:04:44 GMT

[quote userid="8958" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244899#244899"]Actually I disagree. Having a smaller proportion of vets who have studied the candidates and know who would be good is a positive. Far better than 100% of vets voting, the majority by who looks nice on a photograph.[/quote]

Well to be fair, Neil Wheadon, I don't see any evidence that those who currently vote are more inclined to look beyond a photo than the rest of the electorate!!

[quote userid="8958" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244899#244899"] There are 2 places and this year presented, yes you guessed it, 2 candidates to choose from.[/quote]

Yeah, I think that can be a problem too ... that you're not exactly spoilt for choice. That is possibly an argument for making the selection process more accessible than standing for election.

[quote userid="8958" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244899#244899"]I'm old enough to realise that this may work for a few years but will then turn into an almighty stitch up of 'folks looking to enhance their CV's, a proverbial merry go round of concillors who wil one day be on RVCS Council, the next of your local water board, because they have a 'skill set' mainly knowing who to talk to.[/quote]

Is that not an accusation that could equally be made of the current elected system?

I ask again, aren't the two biggest issues with the current system:

a) it's not accountable in the sense that there is no consequence for doing a bad job.

An elected MP fears losing their salary, their position in society, power etc., incentive in most cases to do a good job.

What does an RCVS Councillor have to fear? Nothing, as far as I can see! Of course they want to do the right thing, but there is no consequence for not.

b) it doesn't select well for people with the skills needed to regulate.

It selects well meaning vets who are good at canvassing.

If you think my assessment is reasonable, then what is your alternative to an appointed system? How could the current elected system be improved? How could more of the electorate be engaged?

RE: Should RCVS Council be elected or appointed?

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:04:25 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244889#244889"]1. Has a very poor poor engagement rate with the electoral process. Voter turnout is dreadful. I don't think you can blame that on the College. It does its best, but ultimately, it seems most people just cant be arsed. [/quote]

Actually I disagree. Having a smaller proportion of vets who have studied the candidates and know who would be good is a positive. Far better than 100% of vets voting, the majority by who looks nice on a photograph.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30975/should-rcvs-council-be-elected-or-appointed/244889#244889"]Or alternatively, remain with elected version, but have a preselection process for running (ie so as to make sure that candidates have the right skills and are representative). And no more manifestos, just CVs and perhaps a personal video statement from potential candidates about what they feel they are bringing to the party (in terms of their skills and experience, not their opinions). [/quote]

Cycling UK do this. They have 60.000 members. Pushed through a charity vote a few years ago.

They have a council and they 'choose' from the great and the good. There are 2 places and this year presented, yes you guessed it, 2 candidates to choose from.

I'm old enough to realise that this may work for a few years but will then turn into an almighty stitch up of 'folks looking to enhance their CV's, a proverbial merry go round of concillors who wil one day be on RVCS Council, the next of your local water board, because they have a 'skill set' mainly knowing who to talk to.

Sorry, I agree entirely with Malcolm, because if it does happen it won't be reversible

Neil