Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Gerry Henry — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:26:31 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="David Mills"]Interesting letter in VR this week regarding a survey carried out in a vet practice's waiting room regarding the new logo. Overwhelmingly against. Not sure if the 'public' in general really need to know that much about the RCVS -[/quote]

Set me thinking. Yup the cost of rebranding came in more than 50% over budget. That can be added to the other stuff.

JGW

[/quote]

But surely worth every penny, that lovely shade of blue, the cute, winsome little V in the middle, it makes me think of spring. Bless.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

J G Wray — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:30:07 GMT

Set me thinking. Yup the cost of rebranding came in more than 50% over budget. That can be added to the other stuff.

JGW

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Tim Cheyne — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:32:15 GMT

I see from today's BVA e-News that the BVA July Council meeting will include "a discussion on the remit of the RCVS and the future of the Guide to Professional Conduct." Apparently the discussion papers will be available on the BVA Community Forums by the end of this month. Could be an opportunity to test the resolve and commitment to the profession of both organisations.

Tim.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:23:47 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Take the example above. Aside from the fact that describing someone as ridiculous isn't really what you'd call useful, I wonder whether you would be this obnoxious to Mrs Molyneux to her face, JGW. I don't know, perhaps you would. But if if you would, perhaps to her face would be the correct place to say something like that, and not in a forum like this.

[/quote]

Having been one of Jacqui's nominators when she stood for RCVS council, I (obviously) disagree with JGW. However, I defend his right to be as forthright as he is in his criticism - I assumed that JGW was calling her actions ridiculous and as a politician you will sometimes feel the need to act in ways that your detractors might consider ridiculous.

RCVS council membership is a heavy responsibility and far too many go into it for self-agrandisement, or as some kind of paying hobby and some of the "lightweight" comments from officers demonstrate that many individuals struggle with the step-up from being chairman of the golf club, secretary of the PTA or president of the local BVA. Those of you who know Jacqui will be well aware that she is more than capable of fighting her own battles. I agree with much of Jaqui's analysis of the problems around RCVS - competence and governance are the key, many of the most senior staff appear to have been promoted well beyond their competence and the governance is woefully inadequate. Jacqui favours a "softly-softly" approach believing that in the end that will be more effective. My calm, reasoned, retiring nature means that I favour a nuclear option. I retain the belief that unless and until RCVS council "mans-up" and acknowledges the failings of governance and the shortcomings of their senior staff then nothing will change. Regrettably, I think it very unlikely that anything will change - the establishment in general and this establishment in particular is horribly conservative. It is also all-powerful and well-practised at covering its own ass. The defence has already begun - note well how few of the council members who were happy to engage with this forum at vote-collecting time are showing themselves now; consider the difference in tone between Jacqui Molyneux's demand that "council will be kept fully informed every step of the way" and Peter Jinmans (terribly patronising) "assurance" that council would be "party to all decisions" (not making the decisions but apparently merely told of what decisions others (who???) had taken); consider that many have had significant prior knowledge of this fiasco but chose not to share it with the membership; consider that most of what we do know is still down to the efforts of investigative journalism by JGW and others.

Realistic or pessimistic, I think it most likely that with the passage of time this whle affair will go the way of previous debacles - masterly inactivity overlain by a patina of pomposity and patrosnising guff emanating from the very officers/members of council who should be resigning while the membership is left unable properly to engage the debate because the facts of the matter are essentially controlled by the miscreants.

Lessons will be learned, systems will be reviewed and all will be well in Belgravia House. Unfortunately, the inadequatestaff and lax governance that allowed this all to happen will remain and we will all have forgotten this mess because our interest is focussed on the next one!

PS. Before anyone has a go about the expression "man-up" being sexist, I believe that amongst the current council members most likey to man up are Jacqui M, Jill N and Clare Tapsfield-Wright.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Bob Russell — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:03:37 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]It seems they are No1 for customer satisfaction[/quote]

Yeah, but they only work for organisations that don't actually really mind how much they spend, 'cos it ain't their money and, as we have seen, aren't hard-nosed businessmen in any way, shape, or form, and are very very forgiving.

And "within budget", give me a break, these organisations are always "within budget!. They often get the tenderer to suggest the budget in the first place....

I'll bet the RCVS database could have been developed using an off-the-shelf program for less than £5000, probably £2000.

[/quote]

These quotes were from their own website! I suspect they quoted what they thought they could get away with (could argue this is the way of the world!) and Belgravia House did not have the nouse to work out what they required before the work was commissioned. I wonder if they paid for professional advice before committing to such a massive spend.

The phrase 'one born every minute' springs to mind.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Richard Carter — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:56:34 GMT

Reminder - hope everyone who has an opinion (and there seem to be a refreshing number) has replied to the RCVS on the proposed amended Code of Conduct - deadline Friday 24th!!

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Anthony Todd — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:32:32 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]It seems they are No1 for customer satisfaction[/quote]

And "within budget", give me a break, these organisations are always "within budget!. They often get the tenderer to suggest the budget in the first place....

I'll bet the RCVS database could have been developed using an off-the-shelf program for less than £5000, probably £2000.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Anthony Todd — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:25:14 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Possible RCVS solutions/ways forward:[/quote]

et seq.

Mmmm, our candidate's manifesto is growing by the day....

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Julian Earl — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:43:33 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Gareth Dowdeswell"]

The research showed that the public were not aware of who the RCVS was, which given it's role in regulating the profession, was not great. Apparently the public prefer a clear logo and find it easier to understand than a coat of arms. I'm not sure it really matters if we as vets like the new logo or not - we're stuck with the RCVS regardless, but the RCVS will be able to provide better service to the public as a regulator if the public can recognise it and find it approachable, which I think the new logo will help with.

[/quote]

Interesting letter in VR this week regarding a survey carried out in a vet practice's waiting room regarding the new logo. Overwhelmingly against. Not sure if the 'public' in general really need to know that much about the RCVS - only those who actually own or keep animals really. Why should John Smith non-farmer, animal-apathist need to, or give a damn what the RCVS is about? And the guff about an organisation being more 'approachable' through a logo - come on.

Possible RCVS solutions/ways forward:

- sell the shockingly expensive Belgravia House and set up in the north somewhere - Manchester, Birmingham and I bet at a stroke those councillors who love a jolly in London three times a year wouldn't be quite as keen on a rainy day in Manchester. Pompous nonsense about being 'close to Parliament' - RCVS is in no way an effective, particularly active, persuasive or robust political body (same goes for BVA) - just look at TB testing. And it's only 2hr from Manchester to London, 1h Brimingham ton London. Meetings would be cheaper too.

- get rid of PSS

- simplify the RCVS role to that of a regulator only.

- introduce a two-tier registration system - one for those who simply want (ha) to be regulated without voting rights - the silent majority - and those who want the full package (about 10-15%).

- make it actually democratic in its decision making process rather than a consultation-then-council package which is open to shameful abuse and personal agendas - put out important decisions to vote

- maximum three terms for any Councillor to speed up change and prevent career-RCVSers

- full financial housecleaning with publication of detailed accounts, project proposals, future financial planning and all expenses accounts.

[/quote]

I agree with a lot of what you suggest here, but I can see the reply to the two-tier registration idea: "Why should I have to pay to vote?"

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

David Mills — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:36:32 GMT

[quote user="Gareth Dowdeswell"]

[/quote]

Possible RCVS solutions/ways forward:

- get rid of PSS

- simplify the RCVS role to that of a regulator only.

- introduce a two-tier registration system - one for those who simply want (ha) to be regulated without voting rights - the silent majority - and those who want the full package (about 10-15%).

- make it actually democratic in its decision making process rather than a consultation-then-council package which is open to shameful abuse and personal agendas - put out important decisions to vote

- maximum three terms for any Councillor to speed up change and prevent career-RCVSers

- full financial housecleaning with publication of detailed accounts, project proposals, future financial planning and all expenses accounts.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Bob Russell — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:51:19 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

http://www.advsol.com/AM/Template.cfm?bh_se=adwords&bh_camp=asi%20Europe&Section=Products1&bh_i=18&bh_head=ASI%20-%20The%20Makers%20of%20iMIS&bh_adg=Branding%20-%20ASI&gclid=CLi63cmbv6kCFcJP4QodhkxGfA

These are the folk who did the database, according to Vet. times

[/quote]

It seems they are No1 for customer satisfaction and bring projects in on time and on budget! What on earth did Belgravia House ask as 'upgrades' to allow this overspend?

Who screwed up? RCVS council? RCVS employed staff or the company developing the system? The website suggests that the software is modular so you pick this bit or that bit until it does what you want it to.

It is only of marginal importance whether the screw up was by the software developers or those employed to supervise it IMO. Heads should still be on the block for the overspend!

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Gerry Henry — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:06:52 GMT

The old logo was clear and had a certain dignity about it; I for one have NO intention of removing it from my practice ambulance, premises or website. The whole thing has been nothing but candy floss (sweet F all).

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Tim Cheyne — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:32:34 GMT

[quote user="Gareth Dowdeswell"]

......... did anyone read the PR stuff in the most recent RVCS mailing about why the logo was changed? The research showed that the public were not aware of who the RCVS was, which given it's role in regulating the profession, was not great. Apparently the public prefer a clear logo and find it easier to understand than a coat of arms. [/quote]

and yet, in the summary of key decisions of June council meeting "......Professor Crispin cast some doubt over the robustness of the research carried out in order to establish an evidence base for the change in corporate identity but, equally, comments were made about the importance of taking proper account of professional advice that had been sought, and paid for, by the College...."

It appears that even Council were not fully informed but we had to take the advice because we had paid for it! It will be interesting to learn the width and depth of the survey and the way in which it was implemented.

Tim.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Mark Hedberg — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:07:36 GMT

It's not an impossible number; though a bit high, methinks. Meetings in London probably cost more than elsewhere.

- travel expenses for members

- hotel accomodations for members if staying overnight

- booking premises for the meeting (do they always occur at RCVS owned property, or do they occasionally do things at outside property?)

If we assume 25 people to attend a meeting...£200 a night for 25 people in a hotel is £5000, £200 per person for travel expenses (let's assume they're all driving 200 miles each way, some will be closer, some will be farther, some probably take a train)...that's another £5000, so that's £10,000 so far. I don't know what other costs are involved (not being an RCVS council member or anything!) but preparing agendas, sorting schedules, assorted staff time - it probably takes a few months to put together a big meeting like that so who knows? You can probably budget quite a few things to cover a council meeting. I also don't know the average attendance of an RCVS council meeting - if 50 people show up that bumps up hotel and and travel to £20,000.

So no, not impossible.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Gareth Dowdeswell — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:49:02 GMT

With regards to the logo (perhaps this should be in a separate thread now), did anyone read the PR stuff in the most recent RVCS mailing about why the logo was changed? The research showed that the public were not aware of who the RCVS was, which given it's role in regulating the profession, was not great. Apparently the public prefer a clear logo and find it easier to understand than a coat of arms. I'm not sure it really matters if we as vets like the new logo or not - we're stuck with the RCVS regardless, but the RCVS will be able to provide better service to the public as a regulator if the public can recognise it and find it approachable, which I think the new logo will help with.

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

and a rumour I heard but haven't been able to verify yet of each Council meeting costing in excess of £20k,

[/quote]

Easy to confirm, the figure is quoted in the June meeting minutes on the RCVS website, from memory think it was £27 or 28k. Not sure if that's a reasonable sum or not, but I imagine the logistics of the council meetings, with travel expenses, staff time etc are never going to be cheap things, hence why there's only 3 a year.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Tim Cheyne — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:11:51 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]...... Lay people,none of whom I know,but I disapprove of their presence, as I think it should still be a Royal College OF Veterinary Surgeons-and it's a fundamental principle of justice that those accused of wrongdoing should be judged by their peers [/quote]

Wasn't there some reason for lay people being imposed on various professional organisations? Even so, do they. apart from a legal adviser, need to be on the PIC or DC?

[quote] One of the problems (IMHO ) is that the presidential cycle is so short,.....[/quote]

Yes, the span of Junior VP, President, Senior VP (or Past President), is only three years but perhaps more of a problem is that one or more of these officers might have to seek re-election during that cycle. I vaguely recall that on at least one occasion the incumbent lost the election. Is there not a case to be made for a guaranteed fixed term for the 'Presidents' and the Treasurer?

As far as the logo is concerned, I agree that it is rather pathetic. The Royal Veterinary College has done something similar. Perhaps it saves on printing costs. Neither logo has the 'gravitas' that I expect of a professional organisation but presumably they are 'with it' which I certainly am not.

Tim.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Anthony Todd — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:13:12 GMT

These are the folk who did the database, according to Vet. times

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:57:43 GMT

Richard If you read ALL my postings on this thread,you will see that I have alsocriticised the waste of money on a wishy-washy new logo,and written that I would like an EXPLANATION for the overspend, on both IT and the basement-but I'm asking polite if searching questions,not mud-slinging

Wynne

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Richard Carter — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:48:41 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]the permanent staff willhave even greater power-but I'm disagreeing with a POLICY you've proposed[/quote]

yes and hopefully also a £60k IT budget, an £18k overspend, and a rumour I heard but haven't been able to verify yet of each Council meeting costing in excess of £20k, barristers being employed by DC at £xxk only to have decisions overturned on appeal - it seems to be easy to spend money if no-one is actually asked to account for the numbers - is there any personal risk to the Councillors or even the permanent staff as things are at present?

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:25:22 GMT

Please everybody including Arlo-let's be polite

There are some actions of Royal College which I support, others I disagree with,but this blanket criticism is just going to make them more defensive-when people feel unfairly criticised, they are simply going to refuse to accept ANY further criticism fromthat person

I would class Royal College councillors in 5 groups

1) Veterinary surgeons I know and like, and can communicate with

2) Veterinary surgeons I don't know, but generally approve of their ideas

3) Veterinary surgeons I don't know , but generally disagree with their ideas

4)Veterinary surgeons I know, and both dislike and distrust

5) Lay people,none of whom I know,but I disapprove of their presence, as I think it should still be a Royal College OF Veterinary Surgeons-and it's a fundamental principle of justice that those accused of wrongdoing should be judged by their peers

I hope that those Councillors who are in the 1st group will forgive me when I disagree with them,because they know that it's that particular policy I'm criticising-not them personally

Also don't vilify the current Officers-as Peter Jinman wrote in his end of year report,there's some policies which he inherited, and has seen to completion,some he has inherited,and is passing on , and some he's initiated, and is passing on

One of the problems (IMHO ) is that the presidentialcycle is so short,a "Yes Minister " situation has arisen,in which the permanent staff have forgotten that they are the Civil SERVANTS of Council. Identifying the problem is easy (it often is ) Finding a solution is harder, as extending the Presidential term will mean even fewer will be prepared to tackle such a very time consuming role That's the reason Chris I disagree with you wanting to limit former Presidents term on Council,as without them the permanent staff willhave even greater power-but I'm disagreeing with a POLICY you've proposed-not criticising you personally

Wynne

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

jamie winstone — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:24:37 GMT

Today I got a letter clearly franked from the RCVS which always leaves me a little nervous. Luckily, this was not a complaint but just a response to an earlier query-I could breathe again!

The above states my perception of the RCVS, if you keep your head down they will probably leave you alone. Ask awkward questions and you soon may have lost your career.

This is why I admire JGW for questionning the RCVSs use of our money. He is right on so much of what he says. In fact, I am a member of the JGW Appreciation Society!

However is this not where the BVA should be batting for the membership?The costs at the RCVS, in all areas.are immense and it is pnly now thata few people are shouting 'enough is enough'. My sentiments are that the silent majority would also be in revolt if there wasn't a dictatorial fear factor holding us back.

There are questions to be answered and the BVA is the best placed organisation to ask them.

On another note please let Arlo have a voice as the Vet Surgeon site is the best vehicle to have helped the veterinary practitioner since the internet started.

Jamie

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:27:25 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]When in a hole (and you are), stop digging.[/quote]

When I want your advice, I'll give it to you.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Gerry Henry — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:25:01 GMT

Agree 100% with Wynne. The old logo had something of substance about it, this pale blue thing would look better on a bottle of shampoo.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Gerry Henry — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:22:38 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Anthony Todd"] Well we did, and you come back with things like the new logo was the result of someone's hard work!

Lord give me forbearance......

No one could say that your's was a constructive rebuttal in fact I'd say it was particularly lame and biased.[/quote]

Oh for God's sake.

The reason mine wasn't a constructive rebuttal was because it wasn't a rebuttal at all. How many times do I have to say that I am not writing in defence of the RCVS or its actions.

I'm writing in defence of reasoned discussion, rather than subjective insults.

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Let's hope we get some information; it may well be that the overspend couldn't be avoided and was justified, but without information and with nothing else available wot's a member to think?[/quote]

I agree with you.

[/quote]

When in a hole (and you are), stop digging.

Re: Figures, Spin, VAT, RCVS

Anthony Todd — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:59:10 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]£18,000 was authorised by officers[/quote]

Sorry, the IT overspend was quoted as [only ]£18k, not £60k, my mistake.

The £60k was for annual maintenance.