02 June 2016

At the AGM, changes to the constitution are usually fairly minor and are agreed by the membership as a matter of course. This year, however, a major change is proposed - a move to a two-year presidency.  This has been approved by the Executive Committee and Council by an almost unanimous majority, but I am aware that not all members are entirely happy with the idea.  For this reason, I thought I should set out the arguments for taking this direction and to try to answer any concerns that you might have ahead of the AGM.

At its inception, when coloproctology was still firmly part of general surgery, ACPGBI was essentially a special interest group and the one-year Presidency, preceded by a two-year run-in as President-in-Waiting (PiW) and President Elect (PE) served it well. Now, however, coloproctology is, to all intents and purposes, a fully-fledged specialty, and the Association is active on many fronts: clinical, educational, research, medicolegal and political.  There is now an increasing requirement to engage with Government, the NHS, Charities, the Colleges and the other Associations, and with best will in the world, it is impossible do this and maintain any momentum from a one-year Presidency. In addition, a one-year Presidency is out of line with our sister organisations such as AUGIS, ASGBI and BSG which all have two-year Presidencies, and, of course, the College Presidents serve a three-year term.  This is because it is really impossible to achieve anything very significant in one year, and, externally, a one-year Presidency is seen as a little anachronistic. Although the PiW and PE roles offer an opportunity to start engaging, it is the President who has to take the lead, and the PE has traditionally had his or her work cut out beginning to organise the annual meeting. From personal experience, I know that I will have a considerable amount of unfinished business in July, some of which I will be able to complete after my tenure is over, but some which I will have to leave behind. For these reasons, after thinking about this and debating it long and hard, the ACPGBI Executive Committee and Council are recommending to the membership that ACPGBI move to a two-year Presidency. If you are minded to approve this change to the Constitution, after the current PiW (Jim Hill) has completed his term as President, the next President, who by that stage will have been PiW and PE, will serve a two year term, supported by a Vice President  (VP) who will be appointed by Council election to take up the post at the same time as the President.  The VP will be expected, under normal circumstances, to take up the Presidency. Understandably, a number of concerns have been voiced, and I list these below along with their counterarguments.

1. Two years is too long, and it might be difficult to obtain permission from employers. Other organisations have two or three year presidencies that work well. It is also worth bearing in mind that, with the run-in period, the President is already on the Executive Committee for three years, and current members of this group, the Honorary Secretary and the Chairs of the main committees in particular, work at least as hard as the President for periods of three years or more.  It should also be appreciated that the President is in a good position to delegate.
2. This means that fewer people will have the opportunity to be President. This argument might have been valid when the ACPGBI was in its infancy, but for many years now the role of President has been demanding at various levels and it can no longer been seen as merely a reward for service.  Furthermore, we are not overwhelmed by applications for the post, and competition will have the effect of ensuring that only the highest quality individuals will be elected.
3. With a one-year presidency, a poorly performing President is not in post too long. A poorly performing President is unlikely with an element of competition, and, in any case, Council will have the right to debar a VP from progressing to President at the beginning of his or her second year in post should there be concerns over his or her performance.
4. It is too onerous for one person to organise two annual meetings. It is envisaged that the President will appoint a Meetings Committee with an appropriate Chair who will be responsible for planning and delivering the Meeting.  This will free the President from having the major task of organising the meeting, while leaving her or him the option of having significant input.

I very much hope that this communication has clarified the issue of a two-year presidency and that you will feel able to support it at the AGM.  If you have any queries beforehand, I should be more than happy to try to answer them by email or personal contact. Bob Steele ACPGBI President 2015/2016

View other News