Vet-behind-the-Times

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Tim Mainland — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:20:12 GMT

Anthony

Thanks for clarification. No probs.

The problem with committee decisions is that they are made on the basis of a vote, not on common sense, or expertise. Hey ho.

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Anthony Todd — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 01:13:49 GMT

[quote user="Tim Mainland"]Talk about selective quotation out of context![/quote]

It's very difficult, I find sometimes, to find a quote when I want to comment in general and, as often, I have been misunderstood.

The obvious defence of the IT overspend would be "We are not trained to do this stuff, ie the RCVS are not IT experts. Nothing to do with you, Tim, sorry.

Even a committee should be able to apply the same criteria as applies to the purchase of bread.

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

David Mills — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:44:42 GMT

It's a well established fact that committees of academics, intellectuals, or those that consider themselves such, cannot make decisions and are best with petty squabbling. It's why the current technocrat trend in the eurozone is doomed to failure. Enthusiastic amateurs (politicians for instance) running the economy might not actually be a bad thing - perhaps externalisation of the RCVS is actually the answer?

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Tim Mainland — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:20:12 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Tim Mainland"]Vets are not trained to do this stuff.[/quote]

What a convenient cop-out!

They weren't dealing with complex financial derivatives, just simply buying a product as cheaply as possible, making sure it was the right one and making sure it was "OK".

I'm sure all members of the Council buy bread and make sure it is the right bread, and fresh.

[/quote]

Talk about selective quotation out of context!

Of course we all buy stuff, and at the right price - but we don't have an f*****g committee to take along with us on every decision.

No way am I defending any of this, but committee work drives one to distraction. And maybe therein lies just a little of the problem.

Are committees the best way to get things to happen at RCVS?

And why did the greyhound biscuit case ever get to DC? Why didn't PIC throw it out ages ago? It just gets worse..........

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

J G Wray — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:53:45 GMT

[quote user="Emma Cooper"] And VT has never been happy about being thrown out of most of council's business.[/quote]

Dear Ms Cooper,

Ref the overspends - At earlier Council meetings where the failure to adopt P&RC minutes was brought to the attention of the Press, did the VT understand what was going on? They certainly didn't report it...........

JGW

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Emma Cooper — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:01:06 GMT

Hello all,

The McKelvey recommendations certainly make fantastic reading and Vet Times is extremely interested in following up on them. We speak to council and would-be council members frequently and I, for one, AM interested in the internal workings of the college and it's (apparent) not-so-transparent/strict internal governance.

When Vet Times (i.e. me) attendend council at the beginning of the month we were not allowed to see the report - it was mentioned briefly in the documentation and in passing. It was, however, discussed in camera.

You wouldn't see a mention of it in the most recent VT - it wasn't out by the time we went to print! The recommendations have now been out for a few days, with some acknowledgement from Jerry Davies that they are "very helful". Ahem.

It's great to read your feedback over the past day or so, though. Just justifies what we've felt for a while, the RCVS does a lot behind closed doors, decisions get made on a less than formal basis, and vets are not happy! And VT has never been happy about being thrown out of most of council's business.

Talking of less formal it may interest - though not surprise you - to know that when Jane Hern announced her decision to leave I asked the college for her full job description. They did not provide one. At council earlier this month the RCVS admitted it needed to define the role of the registrar (in order to aide the recruitment of a new one...of course).

Vet Times would welcome any comment regarding the McKelvey recommendations - sorry Arlo, shameless plug but Chris "started it" ;P - please feel free to give me a ring on 01733 383547 or email emmacooper@vbd.uk.com WE WILL BE REPORTING ON IT! (albeit behind the times due to printing constraints.)

Meanwhile, it would appear (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me) that Sheila C and the DC have demonstrated common sense still remains with the recent DC decision:

www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/disciplinary-committee-dismisses-case-against-notts-vet/

It certainly takes the biscuit - especially when you work out that (potentially) the RCVS has just spent £30k plus deliberating about a biscuit!

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Chris Barker — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:14:45 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

There's 4 (imho ) very good people up for re-election

Wynne

[/quote]All of whom were in post throughout this whole debacle. None of whom have detailed what they knew, what they thought, or what they did about it.

So on that basis - which of these 'good people' do you suggest we return to office?

Chris B

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:09:33 GMT

There's 4 (imho ) very good people up for re-election

Wynne

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Anthony Todd — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:31:23 GMT

[quote user="Tim Mainland"]Vets are not trained to do this stuff.[/quote]

What a convenient cop-out!

They weren't dealing with complex financial derivatives, just simply buying a product as cheaply as possible, making sure it was the right one and making sure it was "OK".

I'm sure all members of the Council buy bread and make sure it is the right bread, and fresh.

And Harrods shouldn't, be the first and only place you look for bread........

I wonder what they pay for photocopier paper??

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

J G Wray — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:11:01 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]How about mass resignations and a new election? Unfortunately it seems we cannot have a vote of no confidence in the committee! [/quote]

Hmm there'sa problem with this years elections. Those up for re-election are Gruchy, Johnson, Ellis,Goldie, Chesney , and Stephenson. Any protest vote would be seriously counter-productive.

JGW

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:35:07 GMT

Unfortunately without more detail I do not know who is to blame. It would be an honorable thing for those who were in charge to offer their resignation. Someone has to take responsibility for the fiasco. I assume the full report is detailed enough to identify those who are failing.

Where is the response to the report? Do the council really believe that they have no responsibility for the 'misfortunes' of the RCVS?

If none of them have the guts to stand up and accept failings what are they planning to do to stop the next overspend? Could it just be they expect it to be 'business as normal'?

How about mass resignations and a new election? Unfortunately it seems we cannot have a vote of no confidence in the committee!

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Chris Barker — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:31:19 GMT

'Vets are not trained to do this stuff. Few are involved in a successful business structure that is anything like RCVS. But they should have the collective nouse to maintain a managing executive who are more than up to the job'

Very true and very important. It takes a degree of humility to recognise your limitations and to seek advice from those more experienced than yourself. In practice this is key to our survival and profitability. And hence the value of the active practitioner, accustomed to running a business, being elected to Council. One would hope that the complacent members of Council responsible for the failure to exercise proper supervision (together with those who saw the problem but did nothing) will now have humility by the bucketful.

Chris B

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Judith Joyce — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:21:47 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Who would you want to see resign[/quote]

All those past presidents and all those councillors that have served more than one term must be called to explain why they did nothing during their term of office and why they stood for re-election without mention of the problems. The position of those councillors with many years of service and those past presidents of very long standing looks almost indefensible and that is a pity because there are some apparently "good chaps" amongst them.

Some will quite properly, be able to defend their conduct by demonstrating that they were politically active in engineering change. The others are part of the problem and should go.

I will be keen to see the report in its entirety, but not yet. Full disclosure at this early stage could allow the bigger issue to become diminished and personalised. That will allow the conservative establishment to rally in defence of a popular individual (even if that popularity has first to be mythologised). The consequence will be a preservation of the old way.

Don't anybody lose sight of the fact that the financial screw-ups alone are matters of such enormity that they would have rendered bankrupt any of those of us running a small or medium sized veterinary business.

Malcolm N

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Tim Mainland — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:24:55 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I have checked the latest RCVS News and have not found mention of it anywhere.[/quote]

Page 4, quarter page article!

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I am also waiting to see a list of those offering resignations as a result of the report. Are they still so complacent that they think it will all go away if they wait long enough?[/quote]

I think without the full report (and perhaps even with it), it's hard to argue that 'heads should roll'. Whose heads? Thus far, the report is about a failure of systems and processes. It doesn't really say anything about who was responsible for those systems and processes. And would heads rolling fix the underlying issues?

[/quote]

Whilst naming names is a gruesome process, and to be avoided if possible, we do need to avoid the re-election of those central to the issue. Whether that means they resign, or simply don't stand for re-election next year, or if not standing for re-election next year then they resign in time for the elections....well a voluntary approach would be best.

Indeed, resignation could free up the individuals to "spill the beans" where appropriate and facilitate the masses in pushing for the right changes to both the executive and council. They may then at least feel that falling on their sword(s) was to the ultimate benefit of their profession.

Vets are not trained to do this stuff. Few are involved in a successful business structure that is anything like RCVS. But they should have the collective nouse to maintain a managing executive who are more than up to the job. And yes, training of the councillors to assist in their role would be appropriate. Perhaps they could count it towards their own 35hrs - as long as they recorded it online.

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

J G Wray — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:17:10 GMT

Well, here's the P&RC list. Who would you want to see resign?

Planning and Resources Committee

Miss Liz Branscombe (VN Council Chairman)
Mrs Lydia Brown
Dr Jerry Davies (President)
Dr Bertie Ellis
Mrs Lynne Hill (Public Affairs Chairman)
Mr Peter Jinman (Vice-President)
Dr Barry Johnson
Prof Peter Lees (Disciplinary Chairman)
Mrs Jacqui Molyneux (Vice-President)
Dr Robert Moore
Mrs Jill Nute (Preliminary Investigation and RCVS Trust Chairman)
Professor Stuart Reid (Education, Policy and Specialisation Chairman)
Colonel Neil Smith
Mrs Clare Tapsfield-Wright (Advisory Chairman)
Mr Bradley Viner (Chairman)

I'm pretty sure none of the elected Councillors here advertised inaccessibility when they solicited your vote to get elected, but do you or does anyone actaully know their contact details? If you did then you could ask them individually what they plan to do.

Some are on vetsurgeon.org of course and could be sent a private message.

I'd like to see some outstanding examples of taking personal responsibility, rather than a collective thing through the President for instance. I think that'd be admirable, but what would be better would be taking responsibility and coming up with a Plan, which doesn't cost an arm and a leg ( our money again, buying their way out of this- irony huh?).

JGW

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:10:10 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I have checked the latest RCVS News and have not found mention of it anywhere.[/quote]

Page 4, quarter page article!

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Gerry Henry — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:46:00 GMT

I am also waiting to see a list of those offering resignations as a result of the report. Are they still so complacent that they think it will all go away if they wait long enough?

In a word: Yes.

Re: Vet-behind-the-Times

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:30:47 GMT

Do we have the McKelvey report or just the summary?

The summary is damning enough and as a member of the RCVS I would expect the opportunity to see more of the details that led to this criticism. I have checked the latest RCVS News and have not found mention of it anywhere.

I am also waiting to see a list of those offering resignations as a result of the report. Are they still so complacent that they think it will all go away if they wait long enough?