RCVS Council June 2011

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:22:30 GMT

I took the trouble to attend a "meet the RCVS day " and there's nodoubt that the building is surprisingly small,and overcrowded Also,the day following my visit, Peter Jinman was flying to Edinburgh to brief the Scottish Parliament, so a lot of behind the scenes lobbying goes on which we don't always appreciate.Whether in this day of electronic communications, this justifies the entire secretariat being based in London is another matter.Shifting the civilservice out might actually be beneficial, if it would result in the balance of power returning to the elected Councilmembers I've done a lot of RSPCA prosecution work, so I know the importance of not "throwing a case " by premature discussion, so if alegal redress is possible,it might be wiser for Councilmembers not to be too outspoken prematurely

I am sitting on the fence a little on this one-although I thinkthe sums involved are staggering-especially in the middle of a recession Wynne

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:32:01 GMT

The discussion over the possibility of moving RCVS out of London reminds me of the furore many years ago when it was decided to move various Ministries to the jungle beyond the metropolis. 'Pensions' went to Tyneside, 'Overseas Development' to East Kilbride, Inland Revenue to... I forget where, and 'Passports' and DVLA also moved. When the kicking, squealing and tears had subsided, many staff admitted that they actually liked being able to walk to and from work, getting home in time to see the kids before they went to bed, and perhaps playing a round of golf in the long summer evenings........and nobody in London seemed to miss them! I expect that the same would happen with RCVS; after all, they do need to get out more.

Tim.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:15:44 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

...........Mrs Molyneux is unhappy she might have to change trains, even though
it's half the distance for her. [/quote]

Presumably Mrs.M's problem could be solved for her the next time that she stands for re-election.

[quote]The Registrar is dead against it and has implied she would resign along with other metrocentric senior staff. So, that would mean finding a new Registrar and senior staff - [/quote]

I regard threats to resign as a form of blackmail that when confronted often prove to be shallow. It is surprising how a prospective loss of income and perks can concentrate the mind. Is the Registrar due to retire soon? She seems to have been in the job for some time. In any case, are these senior staff irreplaceable? The loss of their experience might be felt for a while but, equally, might be advantageous if the RCVS needs fresh minds to break out of the mould.

Tim.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

J G Wray — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:29:35 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]if we could start as we mean to go on with new staff, who could be told firmly at the start that they were the servants,not the masters of the profession.I can't work out how to shift this extremely expensive cellar toNottingham[/quote]

Dear Wynne,

I can't work it out either, but there's more to this move thing

I wrote this somewhere else:

"..These days, these [RCVS roadshows] are heavily scripted, the same people go from RCVS and there are few of them in a year. The greater the access to RCVS uninhibited by the degree of organisation required for the Open Days RCVS holds, will , I hope, produce a trickle of visitations, casual and by appointment which expose RCVS to the profession and raises their perception of the members from numbers, from naughty retention fee payers, to valuable, intelligent respectable people, deserving of contact and worthy of listening to - on the members' terms.

People like Mrs Molyneux want to do this the other way round, if what she says is to be believed. And, if it isn't then she's a reed or something else...

The RCVS has a jewel in the Library. It is stifled currently. My preference for Nottingham is the opportunity for expansion of library services and access against an academic backdrop. Being close to the school will give RCVS an opportunity for EMS at RCVS. If RCVS want to get their message over, then how could it do better than by getting at the students? Once again, this would be exposure for RCVS to the people actually experiencing school rather than their appointed representatives from the staff.

The cost arguments are obvious.

The problems are largely ones of disruption in services and administration - as an aside "The Database" is a Web based product so......" - and the threat from senior staff to resign. This last is a tricky one, requiring Big Balls to sort out.."

JGW

PS JGW won't be standing for RCVS any time soon for reasons stated on RCVS election thread

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:52:34 GMT

Jonathan A wholesale change of headqurters staff might actually be a good thing. It could tip the "Yes minister " balance back a little more in favour of the profession, if we could start as we mean to go on with new staff, who could be told firmly at the start that they were the servants,not the masters of the profession.I can't work out how to shift this extremely expensive cellar toNottingham Wynne

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Bob Russell — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:21:30 GMT

Third here - would love to be a fly on the wall for the first meeting at least!

We do not have to agree with everything a candidate believes (or any of it really!) but we should vote for a balanced council! Without discussion and argument policies will go through on the nod. Not good for the RCVS or the profession.

Go for it!!

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Anthony Todd — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:54:05 GMT

Methinks too [that's 2 votes already]

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Kate Richardson — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:32:03 GMT

Dear Mr. Wray,

Methinks we should elect you to council to stir up the hornets nest.

Yours sincerely

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

J G Wray — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:18:17 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]They should move to somewhere cheap and cheerful [/quote]

RCVS could move to somewhere like Nottingham, close to the new college. This
appeals to me.

However, Mrs Molyneux is unhappy she might have to change trains, even though
it's half the distance for her. The Registrar is dead against it and has implied she would resign along
with other metrocentric senior staff. So, that would mean finding a new
Registrar and senior staff - bummer. Defra and RCVS are of course extremely
close in London although there appears to be a gulf in terms of contact, that no
geographical proximity can fix, so RCVS wouldn't really be any worse off.

They've spent £500k on the LGF which kind of ensures they're going to stay put
and have overspent to further justify no move i.e. some might complain about
spending all that money, if they errrr move.

Moving out of London has other problems like bringing the RCVS into geographical
proximity with more vets, which might lead to more physical contact (shudder).
Why would RCVS want/need that?

Those set against the move can see no benefit. They are implacable. They're
weird. They are also the people who profess indignation if you suggest they are
profoundly inflexible and dogmatic, preferring to believe their own message that
They Know Best and are Modern Liberal Thinkers.

JGW

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Bob Russell — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:49:06 GMT

But does not have the status of Belgravia House!

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Eamon McAllister — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:31:01 GMT

They should move to somewhere cheap and cheerful - say, for example, a trading estate in Luton or Milton Keynes with good road and rail connections and plenty of parking. It would save a fortune.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

J G Wray — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:51:25 GMT

[quote user="Eamon McAllister"]I'm a bit confused as well. Are they trying to rent out rooms in Belgravia House? I always understood that they were short of space and that conditions were cramped.[/quote]

Yes and they still are, but there was a plan to offset the Lower Ground Floor redevelopment costs (500K) by hiring out the rooms as well. Hasn't really gone according to plan.

JGW

PS More off list

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Eamon McAllister — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:33:34 GMT

I'm a bit confused as well. Are they trying to rent out rooms in Belgravia House? I always understood that they were short of space and that conditions were cramped.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

J G Wray — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:02:10 GMT

[quote user="Gareth Dowdeswell"]I'm a little bit confused - I've read the link you provided, and waded through the attached papers for the meeting, and can't see the facts you report anywhere? Have these facts come from another source regarding the rental occupancy?[/quote]

Yes. For more info contact me off list or Mr G gets all huffy.

JGW

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Gareth Dowdeswell — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:33:35 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Ho, ho this was a very long one

The official account at

http://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/key-decisions-of-june-2011-council-meeting/

is bland and gives no idea of what really went on. There is a minimal account of the overspends discussion for instance. Suffice to say that a Past President brought their homespun philosophy about overspends to the meeting, along the lines of "That's what builders do...". Her utter lack of comprehension of her fiduciary duty i.e. that RCVS are spending money held in trust from us, is risible.

Furthermore, having spent £500k on Ground floor improvements, not to mention the £60k overspend, with the intention of recouping some money by renting out the rooms, there appears to be no more than a 15% occupancy rate over the next year......Oh dear. She has previous for putting things in place then not thinking stuff through. She wasted £60,000 on promoting the PSS to the public with magazine inserts as some may recall. Our money is nothing to her.

The IT overspend - the project is well past £400k - is not to be discussed by Council because of possible legal redress. This will cost more money. Now, whose money will they be spending in the hope of recouping money?

I'm not on Council, so I'm at liberty to bring these things up. Agitprop has its merits.

JGW

[/quote]

I'm a little bit confused - I've read the link you provided, and waded through the attached papers for the meeting, and can't see the facts you report anywhere? Have these facts come from another source regarding the rental occupancy?

The planning and resources committee minutes actually makes quite interesting reading - it sounds like some members of the committee have grasped that there currently doesn't seem to be that much control of budgets at the RCVS. I'm also slightly concerned by the quality of the responses from the Head of Corporate Services, given the figures involved.

At least as a positive it sounds like council members will no longer be able to claim 1st class rail travel - probably not the best use of membership fees...

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:03:03 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I realise this is a bit simplistic but what does this system have to do that is not dealt with on a daily basis by every practice?[/quote]

I think you'll find it has to do a great deal more than a practice management system, but equally as important is the fact that practice management software has been developed to suit a large number of practices, so there are economies of scale. For the very specific tasks required by the RCVS, I'm pretty certain there wouldn't be an 'out-of-the-box' solution, and a custom system/database would have to be built, at great expense.

I'm not defending the overspend. I know nothing about it. But I do think it's a bit silly to suggest the regulatory body could be running on a system costing a few thousand!

[/quote]

Ok, but we deserve to know WHAT the "highly specific tasks" the RCVS has to modify this software for.

I fail to see why a system MUST be expensive to be any good.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

J G Wray — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:22:53 GMT

Q. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

A. The RCVS Governance people

In case anyone is wondering where this is all going to end up, it will be a Governance question.

This is going to be a severe test for the new Governance oversight at RCVS. Some may recall that there is supposed to be a Governance Review Group although a search of the RCVS Website for GRG sends you to an old copy of RCVS News and searching for Sir David Barnes produces nought.

There is nothing to stop anyone reporting this matter irrespectve of its "legal" status to the Governance people at RCVS, errrrr if you could find out who they are.

JGW

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:17:57 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But I do think it's a bit silly to suggest the regulatory body could be running on a system costing a few thousand![/quote]

It's not so silly to suggest the regulatory body could custom-build their own system in house using Filemaker. That's what Filemaker is for.

I would venture to suggest that if it were done in house by a member of staff (who would have to be reasonably competent in Filemaker and be prepared to learn more, and devote a fairly large number of man-hours to it, and be suitably salaried, of course) the end result would be a lot more useful to Belgravia House, even if it lacked slickness or prettiness or unnecessary bells and whistles.

Belgravia House is not the NHS.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:02:49 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Filemaker Server Advanced[/quote]

As far as I can see this is the sort of database software that the DVLA would find excessive and complicated ....

Imagine what a program that would do all the College wants, and more, would cost! £500 or less?? And they're designed to be soooooooooo easy to use!

[/quote]

I should have said even Filemaker Server Advanced costs only £2639....................... I deliberately chose the most complex application as I thought Belgravia House might quite reasonably need some of its features. If they don't, well, Filemaker Server is only £839.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:53:55 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I may be a number of things but I would not consider myself 'silly'.[/quote]

My apologies - I didn't mean to suggest that you are!

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Eamon McAllister — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:26:19 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Does anyone know who the Director of FInance and IT is at RCVS?

[/quote]

I think that the treasurer is Bradley Viner who in the past has described himself as an international level poker player.

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Bob Russell — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:25:59 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I realise this is a bit simplistic but what does this system have to do that is not dealt with on a daily basis by every practice?[/quote]

I'm not defending the overspend. I know nothing about it. But I do think it's a bit silly to suggest the regulatory body could be running on a system costing a few thousand!

[/quote]

They cannot get things running on a system costing hundreds of thousands!!

I was not being serious in suggesting a practice management system would be adequate for all their needs but the basic functions that have not worked this year would have been achievable with a very basic system. I may be a number of things but I would not consider myself 'silly'. My point is that there are some extremely powerful and customisable programs out there which would not have resulted in such a massive overspend.

I am not sure if a number of these IT firms are fit for purpose. Government IT projects indicate many are not.

I am not clear what particular functions the RCVS has that are unique compared to the large number of other regulatory bodies out there. They have clearly invested in a massively expensive system that is failing to do the most basic functions.

Do they even know what they want?

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Anthony Todd — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:10:18 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Your IT guy is obviously talking out of his derriere.[/quote]

Yes, but his derriere is not a £400,000 derriere and I'm not sure it's his derriere he's talking out of in acualite.

Explain to us why he is so talking please.

Of course you don't know what the brief was [if any]......

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

J G Wray — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:08:10 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Your IT guy is obviously talking out of his derriere.[/quote]

Just for everyone's edification the software is:

http://www.advsol.com/AM/template.cfm?section=Europe1

The annual licence fees are, I think, £30-40,000

I particularly like the testimonial from the Law Society of Scotland written by " Gordon Brewster, Director of Finance and IT"

Does anyone know who the Director of FInance and IT is at RCVS?

I don't think we should be looking at the software. It's the planning and management which has cost £225,000 over what was envisaged

JGW

Re: RCVS Council June 2011

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:53:41 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]My IT guy says it's an afternoon's work in ACCESS[/quote]

Your IT guy is obviously talking out of his derriere.