Fixed terms for those elected to pharmacy boards and governing structures would provide opportunities to introduce new blood and fresh insights, says Rob Darracott

This year’s pharmacy election season has not been a classic. Bad behaviour via social media in the RPS English Pharmacy Board election did not see the profession at its best. Without dwelling on the matters that led the Society’s chief executive to issue a post-election statement of disappointment, the online “debate” did cover one issue that deserves a fresh look: term limits.

In an election, incumbents have a clear advantage. It can be as simple as name recognition, but when you only need a few hundred votes, waxing lyrical about your “achievements” in office might be enough. Neophyte candidates can win – Thorrun Govind (EPB) and Reena Barai (NPA) both triumphed first time as strong female candidates, but individual successes are hardly cause for celebration unless they are followed by others.

In the major national pharmacy organisations, where elected members of the governing structures can go on, and on, and on, the usual arguments against term limits are deployed. What about the advantage of experience, the ability to “hit the ground running”? Or the nous built up over years of dedicated service that equips you to deal better with devious officials and tricky policy questions that will come your way? Why take the risk with Ms Newperson, when you can rely on good old Mr Steadyhand?

Yet term limits make room for new blood and fresh insights as the passage of time brings with it a need for new skills. Static membership can lead to unhealthy insider attitudes, worse group-think and self-interest – all of which are to the detriment of the greater good of an organisation.

Some who’ve been around forever still seek re-election on a “we need change” ticket. That begs several questions. I do not believe pharmacy is so short of fresh ideas, enthusiasm and leadership that we need to rely on the same 30 or 40 people for ever – to say nothing of the low representation of elected women, which flies in the face of the make-up of the profession at large.

Missed opportunity

More than 10 years ago, the old RPSGB had the opportunity to show some leadership when an external governance review by Julia Cumberlege’s team recommended, if memory serves, term limits of nine years (three by three years), with no re-election for a further three years.

Of course, turkeys never vote for Christmas. “We should trust the good sense of the electorate” said the (mainly male) incumbents, as they saw a threat to their future decades in charge. “Why should voters be told who they can and cannot vote for?”

We saw similar hackneyed arguments deployed this year on social media in response to the stirrings among some candidates for changes that would force some long-time members off boards for a period.

As Hemant Patel has shown, you can always come back – and Hemant should be all the better for his experience these past few years in North East London.

In pharmacy, with the electorate having little or no opportunity to sort the dedicated and rational professionals from the blusterers or the illogical, is it sensible to rely on the current processes to remove those who are unproductive, incompetent, difficult to work with or who simply never show up? Term limits would be a start.