It Is a New Day, 2003

In our opinion, there was nothing discussed in that extremely negative presentation for which the association or its leadership should be criticized. Our purpose in this space is not to defend the association either on a general or specific issue-by-issue basis, although we will comment on some association matters that are related to some of the concerns of the "critics" of our profession. The recent event was another illustration of a communication shortcoming that we have seen our profession suffer through from time to time, although it was typical of a communication difficulty that was actually more prevalent 10 to 20 years ago. It has been our impression that CDA staff and volunteer leadership, in recent years in particular, have made real progress in improving the communication of information to the membership at large. The ever-present communication problem tends to be lateral within the community of colleagues.

In discussing ill-advised criticism, let’s start with our basic premise. It is a new day! Most critics seem to overlook the fact that the forces outside of the profession that seek or bring changes that affect the profession have increased significantly in recent years. Access-to-care issues and regulatory matters that directly influence work patterns in the dental office are taking aim at the profession at an increasing pace. Association critics seem to expect, if not demand, that the association win every legal, legislative, or political battle that it faces. If the resolution of the issue does not allow these colleagues to have it their way (i.e., have a regulatory matter decided in dentistry’s favor the way it was five, 10, or 25 years ago), their attitude and criticism seems to suggests that the association has failed them and is unworthy of their continuing support.

As a good example of the world in the 21st century, let’s take the Proposition 65 matter. Despite the fact that the positions of the opposition often seemed unreasonable to the dental community, the matter consumed many hours and resources of CDA in achieving a settlement that served to resolve the legal actions that were initiated against many of our members. In the perfect world of the CDA critics, I imagine that there was an expectation that CDA should have had these suits against our colleagues thrown out, and the need for dentists to conform to Proposition 65 regulations waived. But that is not the real world in 2003. After some two years of legal challenge, that matter has been finally settled. There were significant costs in time and resources, and there is a requirement that dental offices must meet. Critics and noncritics within our membership may not be happy or satisfied, but our organization achieved the best possible resolution of the matter. Critics need to consider what might have happened to each of us if we had to individually face the legal assaults and costs to meet these challenges if there were no CDA to represent us, instead of criticizing the efforts or the result.

What about leadership? From our experience, any blanket criticism of staff or volunteer leadership is unfair. For 25 years, it has been my observation that commitment and the best interests of the dental practitioner have always been central to their efforts. In any group-generated discussion or decision, there is always the opportunity for dissent. But that is where leadership becomes even more important. A leader or colleague with access to the component leadership loop who holds a minority view and disagrees with a decision of the trustees or staff, should not violate the rules of fair play and responsibilities of leadership by directly communicating to others his or her view that CDA volunteers or staff made the wrong or an ineffective decision. Instead, he or she must learn to work with elected or appointed leadership to bring about a mutually acceptable resolution. Failure to do this usually results in the word-of-mouth communication of misinformation. Words laced with discontent often have become interpreted as words of fact. It is not long before a segment of the membership that does not have all of the real facts on an issue adopts the view that the association staff, elected officers, or Board of Trustees has failed to represent them in an appropriate manner.

As for top executive leadership, it is a new day, as Peter DuBois this month is commencing his tenure as executive director. The Executive Committee and Board of Trustees welcome him and anticipate growth and progress toward achievement of the association’s strategic plan during his administration. Contrary to a belief of some critics, CDA, under the interim leadership of Robert Witt and the elected officers, has maintained a steady course in the past 10 months. Important issues facing dentistry in California have been confronted, and the various committees and councils of the association have continued to provide the appropriate program development, decisions, and policies for consideration by the officers and trustees. The result of this activity has been uninterrupted support for the many membership services provided to the membership.

Another misconception is that the CDA membership market share continues to decline, perhaps due to a notion that CDA is not providing the necessary value for the dues dollar. Analysis of membership statistics shows that in 2002, there was a net membership increase of 300 even after taking into account membership losses of several hundred due to deaths and nonrenewals. It demonstrates that there are component members who believe in the value and the benefits received from being a CDA member and are, therefore, recruiting new members.

While the total of the tripartite dues is not an insignificant amount, how many hours does it really take for the average CDA member to produce the revenue to support his or her annual membership in organized dentistry? We suspect that the average member spends considerably more on elective and recreational activities that are considerably less important than the efforts to preserve the privilege to practice dentistry that members receive as a membership benefit through their dues support of organized dentistry. Insurance, education, and other visible membership services aside, where would we be without a CDA or ADA to provide expert testimony before the Legislature or Congress? Would we be able to muster the same clout if all of the critics dropped their membership, leaving CDA with a less-than-robust percentage of active dentists? The answer, of course, is no. Our leaders and representatives need a strong membership base if we are to demonstrate the clout to external policy makers that will enable us to obtain decisions that are in the best interests of the public and the membership.

Those who would criticize and complain must learn to work with their leadership to confirm the accuracy of all of the facts on any issue they have concern with. They must learn to work within the process to bring about positive progress through leadership, rather than stimulate the negativism that divides and fosters resentment within the membership. If they do that, it will go a long way toward ensuring that the new day at CDA will fulfill the expectations of all members.