-
-
-
-
-
- About extra-mural studies (EMS)
- EMS requirements
- Information for vet students
- Information for EMS providers
- Information for vet schools
- Temporary EMS requirements
- Practice by students - regulations
- Health and safety on EMS placements
- EMS contacts and further guidance
- Extra-mural studies fit for the future
-
-
- Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons
- Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses
- Contact the Advice Team
- XL Bully dog ban
- 'Under care' - new guidance
- Advice on Schedule 3
- Controlled Drugs Guidance – A to Z
- Dealing with Difficult Situations webinar recordings
- FAQs – Common medicines pitfalls
- FAQs – Routine veterinary practice and clinical veterinary research
- FAQs – Advertising of practice names
- GDPR – RCVS information and Q&As
New Working Party to ensure transparency and openness
13 June 2008
As the result of a motion laid before Council at its meeting on 5 June, it was decided that a Working Party will be established to consider Corporate Governance within the RCVS.
The motion, which was put by Mr Bob Partridge and seconded by Lt Col Neil Smith, proposed that a Corporate Governance Working Party should make recommendations to Council, and that it should take evidence from sources such as the Committee for Standards in Public Life.
In supporting the motion, Mr Partridge drew attention to the need for College business, not only to be done in the right way but to be seen to be done so. Perception was all-important in terms of maintaining confidence in the College, he said, citing the example of appropriate declarations of interest.
President Dr Bob Moore highlighted that the issue of declarations of interest was on the Officers’ radar and had in fact been raised by several of the Committees recently.
He outlined that the item was due to appear on the agenda for the Officer team’s three-day strategy planning meeting that would take place at the start of the new presidential year. One option was for one of the College’s honorary associates to become involved in the review, he said.
Council was evenly divided about an amendment to the motion proposed by Bradley Viner, which sought to leave the review to the Officer team. As a consequence, it was not carried.
It was agreed that Officers would progress this, and that there would be a report back to the November meeting of Council.