This web page represents an initial point of discussion, and hopfully may be useful to veterinarians. For years only 18 per cent of vets have voted in the RCVS elections each year, despite the efforts of the RCVS to improve the poor interest in their elections. There are several possibilities as to why this occurs, which include:

1. The RCVS has changed its mission statement from promoting advances in veterinary medicine, to focusing on the regulation and prosecution of vets.

2. The RCVS has increased the financial burden on vets.

3. Vets have first-hand or second-hand experience of poor or inappropriate judgements made by the RCVS.

4. Vets do not perceive the RCVS as offering something useful or beneficial to vets (in general practice).

Items (1),(2) and (4) remain within the remit and control of the RCVS and probably little can be done from without the RCVS. Hence to date, vets do not currently vote and the RCVS has maintained its status quo (and thereby its existence) in an unchanged format, and without the reasonable constraints of accountability. Since items (1), (2) and (4) above, are unlikely to change in the short to medium term, it may be useful to examine factor (3) above instead, and in isolation.

A vet with inside knowledge of the RCVS commented, "We might have to have a dictator in the RCVS but it's not the President...it's the head of the blood-sucking lawyers. The Registrar." A former RCVS Council member suggested that the Registrar's office should be held for a fixed term, to preclude any possibility of 'dictatorship'. The apparent widespread dislike of the Registrar may not be solely due to personality but an evolved style of governance, or possibly both. Another member of RCVS Council indicated that whenever RCVS lawyers have disagreed with veterinary Council members in the past, it has been legal factors that have taken precedence. A former President of the RCVS noted that the Registrar was not aversed to holding vendettas and using the office politically (nb. several relevant personal examples were cited). Another former RCVS President is currently facing disciplinary action for crticism of their witness statement: witness statements are taken by the RCVS to prosecute vets. Also of relevance, another RCVS Council member has suggested that the Registrar should not in fact, be a lawyer.

Political agendas remain hard to eliminate from within any organisation, especially where personalities play significant roles, both for and against an organisation. A candidate for the RCVS Council had previously been responsible for increasing the RCVS membership from 11k to 16k, thereby raising the RCVS workload by about a third [ie. his successful MRCVS application was prima facie for foreign vets coming into the UK from 10 new EU accession countries.] In turn, the RCVS blocked his Council candidacy. Their block was subtle but effective. The candidate's famous proposers (a Vet School Dean, a former RCVS President, and a national Chief Veterinary Officer) were mis-named on the RCVS election details [1], and therefore unrecognised by voters. The candidate interestingly held plans for RCVS reform, but was denied a RCVS election website and wasn't elected - other (successful) Council candidates were provided with websites [2]. In the same election, a homeopathic vet complained of similar mistreatment [3]. It appears that it remains difficult for the RCVS to act impartially on occasions, and this may or may not be a cause of concern for RCVS members.

When the EU was expanded to include more European countries in 2004, the RCVS exhibited some expected levels of protectionism for its RCVS membership, and resisted giving European vets a right to MRCVS status. The RCVS move was to state that all qualifying European vets must work in their country of graduation for three years prior to gaining MRCVS, and this was apparently designed to ensure that Europeans would not wish to relocate to the UK (after the three year period of working in their own country). However, the RCVS failed to factor that the first newly graduating vet from the European countries would in fact be English, and would return to the UK anyway - this duly set in motion a universal precedent, whereby European vets gained MRCVS rights.

The RCVS was thus responsible for its own rearguard action, and the RCVS Head of Membership was then caught acting inappropriately at best, but dishonestly at worst. The RCVS Head of Membership attempted to misreport a telephone conversation and agreement with a Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) in Europe, forcing the Registrar to either call the CVO a liar, or admit that her Head of Membership's statements were also inconsistent with her own [4]. Ultimately, the Registrar instructed the Head of Membership to back down. However, the RCVS did ensure that the English vet (with a European degree) was processed second for MRCVS, and rapidly processed a European vet to present the individual to the press - understandably, the first MRCVS from European countries couldn't be English!

It has been reported that in February 2012 a student made inquiries to the RCVS re studying Veterinary Medicine in Slovakia. The RCVS employee proactively discouraged the inquirer from undertaking a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree in Slovakia, indicating that the qualification would be substandard. The Slovak Veterinary School was EAEVE and FVE approved before a number of the UK vet schools, and its graduates automatically qualify for MRCVS. Dishonest protectionism should hold no place within a UK veterinary regulator.

Numerous political decisions for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are apparently being made by lawyers and other lower ranking non-veterinary employees. A former President of the RCVS challenged the Registrar in the way that RCVS Presidents were being elected. Previously, a selected President was presented to RCVS Council to ratify 'the annointed' candidate. However, this democratic and courageous President introduced open and fair elections for all future Presidents [5]. One member of the RCVS Council was so dissatisfied with the behaviour of RCVS officials, that he resigned not only from the RCVS Council, but also as a member of the RCVS itself. Numerous Council members remain dissatisfied by the abuse of office of non-veterinary employees within the RCVS.

The RCVS appears to do little to ensure that both its complaints procedure and its disciplinary procedure are not abused. Another former RCVS President commented of the disciplinary committee, that "I would not like to appear in front of these people! Justice and mercy are supposed to be combined but that's not what happens." An example of a poor decision was cited involving animal testing. A futher example involved two local practices colluding to lodge, and also encouraging clients to lodge, RCVS complaints against a third practice for business reasons. The owner of the third practice commented: "Witness statements prove that the two practices were talking to each other. They were encouraging our former clients (whom they stole by opening up within yards of us), to complain to the RCVS about us. Why is the RCVS Professional Conduct Department not doing something about it?" Two former members of the RCVS Council stated that the RCVS used to consider 'supercession' (or immoral business practices) seriously in the past, but that these laws have been set aside in recent years.

Several proposals aimed at redressing such anomalies have been outlined to the left and to the right of this (centre) column. There are numerous ideas that could be mooted and this discussion document is designed merely to offer a catalyst for constructive investigations into the way that the RCVS is organized, and to address the fact that an inherent mistrust of the RCVS has been engendered amongst its members. It is proposed that any reform would be beneficial, not least the removal of political and governance powers from lawyers and other non-veterinary employees currently within the RCVS.

Please take the time to register your suggestions or vote (on removing political and governance powers from non-veterinarians within the RCVS). There are relevant options at the top of this web page. Thank you.