Re: The next overspend at RCVS

J G Wray — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:23:02 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Someone said to me the other day that the RCVS has lost the benefit of the doubt - which I thought was a good way of putting it. Discussions about the RCVS here - and I think online discussions only reflect what is said offline - are almost all started on the assumption of guilt, incompetence, overreaching ambition etc. etc. And much of the discussion is based on supposition and conjecture.[/quote]

Point well made, but there is a certain amount of contribution from RCVS in the way they set about things. Communications with members is not a priority. I once asked Ms Lockett whether they had any Comms Charter for members. She gave me a thunderous look and said "No". Soooo, they get a version from members because they give little and what they give is their version. They have not adopted Nolan Principles of Governance and even with the latest meeting fudged the issue of which stuff is confidential and which available to the public, even if "..in the basement of the local planning office.." to paraphrase Douglas Adams

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]A VS candidate should bring balance, and ensure members are better informed. To my mind (as a dispassionate observer), that is as important a reason for having a VS candidate as actually being able to effect change, which I agree with you would be hampered by the fact that there would only be on

[/quote]

But we don't need a VS candidate for this .Mrs Molyneux said she would do this. Has anyone heard anything from her? When/if we do, we probably ought to ask her if she wears rose tinted glasses or blinkers, i.e. ask her about the sticky stuff like overspend just to get some balance back, if you see what I mean.

JGW

Re: The next overspend at RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:16:33 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] I do not believe a single vetsurgeon.org candidate can make a difference, because of two factors:[/quote]

JGW, I'm thinking you probably know more about this subject than most, and if you say a single candidate can't make a difference, you're probably right.

But, one of the things that attracted me to this idea is that a VS candidate would (I hope) feel obliged to come and explain so much of what goes on at the RCVS (or at least insofar as is possible bearing in mind the confidential nature of some of the proceedings).

A VS candidate should bring balance, and ensure members are better informed. To my mind (as a dispassionate observer), that is as important a reason for having a VS candidate as actually being able to effect change, which I agree with you would be hampered by the fact that there would only be one.

Incidentally, Richard Stephenson best illustrates what I mean - I think his posts contribute a very great deal to these forums.