Pink Sheet is part of the Business Intelligence Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

APhA ANNUAL MEETING RESOLUTIONS: "FUTURE" REORGANIZATION PROPOSALS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO HOUSE OF DELEGATES; OPEN NOMINATING PROCEDURES

Executive Summary

"Future" proposals to reorganize the American Pharmaceutical Assn. (APhA) must be submitted for debate to the House of Delegates, the assn. resolved in a vote by the house during the final, new business session at APhA's March 16-20 annual meeting in San Francisco. "All future proposed changes in the structure of the assn. [must] be submitted to the House of Delegates for debate and recommendation before submission to the membership as bylaw amendments," the house recommended in the resolution. The resolution, offered as a motion by Eugene Lutz of the Academy of Pharmaceutical Management, also provides that the "Board of Trustees not propose any bylaw change that would reduce the existing autonomy of the academies or student APhA." All new business resolutions will be considered by the board at its June meeting; the Lutz resolution is not expected to affect APhA's current reorganization proposal. The resolution follows the APhA board's proposal last fall to totally restructure the assn. ("The Pink Sheet" Oct. 21, p. 6). The proposal, which would centralize the assn.'s authority with APhA's Washington headquarters staff, has been challenged by members of the Academy of Pharmaceutical ceutical Sciences, who have since formed a separate group called the American Assn. of Pharmaceutical Scientists. The leader of that group, Leslie Benet, PhD, called the recommendations to the APhA board "a real strategic planning process that is a two-way open communication." In addition, the resolution calls for "bylaw amendments that will assure an open nominating process independent of the Board of Trustees." In a background statement, Lutz maintained that "there is a concern that the current nominating process is not open and as free as possible from political pressures." Nominations for APhA officers currently are made by a nominating cmte. appointed by the board. Resolution To Permit Write-In Nominating Petitions Passes House, Will Be Considered By Board Following the House's approval of the Lutz motion, APhA board chairman James Main stated at a press conference, "I think we're earning the trust of the House. It will take a while . . . We don't want to force something that the membership doesn't want. It won't work." President John Schlegel commented: "I'm disappointed with that sense of distrust that you felt oozing out of the House . . . I respect the House . . . and when the House speaks, I'm going to listen as president and the board is going to listen as the board. I'm looking forward to the time that we begin to establish a more natural tension as opposed to a sense of distruct. And that will come." In support of the resolution to retain the existing autonomy of the assn.'s academies and student APhA, Lutz referred to the lack of "widespread membership support for the proposed restructuring plan." Lutz maintained that "a mechanism must be found that will assure APhA membership a voice in decisions of this magnitude." Regarding the nominating process, Lutz stated, "One goal of the process should be to assure that no single group or individual can control the nominating process." A second motion passed by the delegates recommended that APhA bylaws be amended to "allow additional nominations for the Board of Trustees to be made by petition according to the procedures established by the House of Delegates." Arthur Mlodozeniec, the author of the resolution, maintained his motion was not superfluous after the Lutz resolution. "I feel that the intents of both motions are not exclusive . . . [This motion] is more specific. It really talks about the petitioning process and encourages the election of the Board of Trustees be carried out in the same manner in which we elect our other officers within the association." Enabling statements for nomination by petition exist for all academies and subdivisions.
Advertisement
Advertisement
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS009876

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel