The Law of Triviality…briefly stated,it means that the time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. – Professor C. Northcote Parkinson
It was probably to be expected that at the last full Royal College Council meeting to be attended by Professor Neil Gorman, a considerable amount of time would be taken up with matters which many might consider to be of relatively minor importance.
During his 19 years on the Council (three years as a university appointee, the last 16 as an elected member), the learned professor has several times felt the need to rebuke the Council for spending too much time on trivia and not getting on with the serious business of leading the veterinary profession.
The first issue to trouble the Council at its meeting on 3rd June was the small matter of whether everyone on the register should be compelled to inform the College every year of where they were based, even if their address had not changed. It stemmed from a paper on revised registration regulations which had been initiated by the planning and resources committee.
Bob Partridge was first to catch the president’s eye, pointing out that members could actually be struck off if they failed to do this and he considered this to be ridiculous.
Roger Eddy, a past president of the College, declared that he was confused: “You could pay by direct debit by the due date but if you didn’t confirm your address you could still be struck off the register.”
Christine Shield said that on this occasion she actually agreed with what Mr Partridge had said (probably for the first time ever at a Council meeting).
She found it strange that people could be deprived of their livelihood for not simply confirming their address.
Lynne Hill, however, another former president of the College, did not think it would be beyond the ability of professional people to do this; but Richard Stephenson wanted only changes of address to be notified to the College.
Alison Bruce, a lay member (appointed by the Glasgow veterinary school) who has chaired the disciplinary committee in recent years, said that in light of the agonies which that committee went through before striking someone off, to use the same sanction for failing to confirm your address was “extremely out of proportion”.
Earlier, the College’s head of registration had noted that 9,760 address changes had been processed by the College last year.
Dr Bertie Ellis called on the Council “to do this properly” but the president, Professor Sandy Trees,refused to accept a motion from Mr Stephenson (which had been seconded) that this requirement should be dropped; instead he accepted a suggestion by Professor Stephen May (another member stepping down from the Council at the AG Mon 2nd July) that the Council should “vote on the regulations as they stand”.
The ayes have it
And that’s what happened. Twenty members raised their hands in approval and 15 in disapproval with one member abstaining. The president noted that the margin was sufficient not to require a recount, and thus it is that from now on all members of the College will have to confirm their address, in writing, to the College every year if they wish to remain on the register.
It could be, as the registrar pointed out, simply a matter of ticking a box if you have stayed put, but the box would have to be ticked.
After nigh on 20 minutes on this matter, attention turned to the treasurer, Dr Jerry Davies, who introduced the draft budget for the coming year. He began with retention fees, announcing that after last year’s zero increase, the planning and resources committee now wished to return to the policy of making small but steady increases each year and proposed that fees should rise by 2% this time.
Mr Stephenson sprang to his feet again urging (in the quaint language that is becoming all too common) that there be a 0% increase. This, he said, would still yield a surplus in excess of £105,000 – and actually more than that because of the intention to transfer some money to reserves.
Money not needed
“Should we raise the fee when we patently don’t need the money?” he asked, pointing out that the College was very well run and had more than £10 million in its capital account. “The 0% increase would send a powerful message about how well we look after the money. We can say, ‘Our stewardship has been so good that we don’t need to ask you for any more money’.”
Dr Barry Johnson,however, also a former president of the College, urged that the fee be increased by 2% a year but Mark Elliott agreed with Mr Stephenson. “Times are hard out there,” he said, and he urged that the increase should be set at 0%.
Bob Partridge went even further and suggested that the Royal College should follow the General Medical Council and keep fees down, perhaps even reducing them, but the president said that the GMC fee was already much higher than the RCVS fee and he did not think the College had much to learn from what that body did.
Roger Eddy piped up again. “We are in a low inflation environment,” he said and he lent his support to Mr Stephenson’s proposal. The president was reluctant to allow a vote on this but after a point-of-order from Mr Partridge he agreed to it.
The result was clear-cut. Only 12 members of the Council declared themselves in favour of no increase; 24 were against and again there was one abstention (a different councillor from the earlier vote).
So the retention fee for 2011 will rise by 2% which, as Dr Davies put it, will mean about £5 per practising veterinary surgeon.
And after a mere 45 minutes devoted to these two issues –which perhaps weren’t so trivial after all – the Council turned to the main business of the day.
