How GCC Chief Executive Margaret Coats tried to cover up a vote of confidence in former GCC chairman Michael Copland Griffiths

December 20, 2005
By

On the 12th of December I asked Margaret Coates if the rumour was true that members of the GCC had passed a no confidence motion in another member, because of unprofessional behaviour She responded that this “rumour has no basis of fact”.
This rumour did “have basis of fact”, A vote of confidence did take place.
A partisan split on council must bring into question their ability to regulate the profession impartially.
It seems the GCC is divided along the lines of BCA, SCA , and the Committee chairs for , the UCA McT’s and the four lay members against, definitely not what the Department of Health expected and demanded from the profession at the BCA conference back in 1994.

on January 12 2006, the GCC answered my request for information regarding the GCC vote of confidence under the "Freedom of information act" .

Vote of Confidence

At the closed meeting of Council held on 8 DecemDer2005 a motion of ‘no confidence’ in the Chairman was proposed on the grounds that the proposer and seconder were unhappy with the chairing of meetings. A written ballot was conducted and the decision was that the motion was not carried. Written ballots do not record names.

Your Right of Appeal

You have the right to write to the Chief Executive at GCC offices if you are not happy with my response.

If you are still not satisfied, you then have the right to seek a further review from the Information Commissioner. Please see www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk or contact the Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, or telephone 01625 545 700 for details.

Share Button

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to How GCC Chief Executive Margaret Coats tried to cover up a vote of confidence in former GCC chairman Michael Copland Griffiths

  1. Alfredia Ainsley on March 16, 2020 at 17:24

    There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That is a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a fair game. Both boys and girls feel the impact of just a moment?s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.

  2. Richard Lanigan on October 17, 2010 at 14:16

    Hi Paul,
    13 of the 20 GCC members voted to have me removed from council for calling Margaret Coats a liar in February 2008. You see according to my legal advice ( the GCC threatened with a defamation claim, in protection of their employee Ms Coats) just because the information someone provides is not correct it does not necessarily make them a liar?

    In the light of this advice I was left with no option than to withdraw my remark. The GCC has deep pockets and as Simon Singh showed us this would cost a lot and the chiropractic profession was not going to help me. People in power can always find away out. Remember Clintons “I did not have sex with that woman”.

    Coats told council members “There was no evidence that Greg Price (former GCC deputy registrar) had posted anti chiropractic messages on American websites from the GCC server”; There was evidence of the postings but only Margret Coats and Peter Dixon knew whether Price was working at the times he had made those postings and Dixon refused to divulge this evidence at my removal hearing. Therefore according to the law, I was wrong to call Margaret Coats a liar. Apparently I am allowed to think it but not write it or say it.

  3. Paul on October 16, 2010 at 18:42

    Margaret Coats ‘responded that this “rumour has no basis of fact”.’

    And so LIED?

    How would this affect her standing?

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: