55 Going from Straight to Mixer?
Printer Friendly Email a Friend PDF RSS Feed

Dynamic Chiropractic – March 26, 2001, Vol. 19, Issue 07

Going from Straight to Mixer?

By Donald M. Petersen Jr., BS, HCD(hc), FICC(h), Publisher
Chiropractic's Perennial Bad Actor Is Desperately Seeking a New Audience

It wasn't that long ago that the president of the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA) was heading his organization toward a merger with the International Chiropractors Association (ICA).

After discussions with the ICA Board in Phoenix, Terry Rondberg,DC, published the following statements in his column:

"My first action will be to ask all WCA members to also join the ICA NOW.

"Next, I urge ALL doctors of straight chiropractic to also join the ICA NOW.

"I urge all unaffiliated doctors to join the ICA NOW.

"Finally, I urge all members of the ACA who want to retain the identity of chiropractic as a drug-free, subluxation-based health care profession to join the ICA NOW."1


But, as we all know, the WCA never did merge with the ICA. In fact, the WCA's president resigned from the ICA late last year, taking a small band of dissidents with him:
"I have no choice but to resign from the ICA, since I refuse to support any group whose actions aren't in the best interest of subluxation-based chiropractic."2

The split with the ICA was followed by an attack on one of the WCA's long-time advertisers and columnists: Gary Pomeroy. (Please see "From the Bully Pulpit" by Garrison Pomeroy) The split was apparently because Chiropractic America refused to join the WCA in a "jihad" against the ICA. (One has to wonder if other WCA columnists are still being published because they did agree to join the WCA jihad.)

Now, in the wake of its war with the ICA, suddenly, a new WCA is born. In the first installment of the transformation, the WCA has made a sudden and dramatic detour from chiropractic's traditional position on diagnosis. After an apparent meeting with the other chiropractic organizations, the WCA reversed its previous political position by immediately sending a letter in mid-February to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs representing the sentiment of the group:

"It was evident during this very productive meeting that all these groups share a basic vision of chiropractic and agreed that the practice of chiropractic includes establishing a diagnosis, and facilitating neurological and biomechanical integrity through appropriate chiropractic case management that focuses particular attention on the subluxation."3 (Emphasis added.)

In that same letter, further evidence of the WCA's sincerity to change its position on diagnosis, the WCA instantaneously revised one of the five tenets in its Legislative Policy Statement to reads:
"Exclusion of drugs and surgery;"

The original tenet in the December 2000 and February 2001 issues of the Chiropractic Journal read:
"Exclusion of drugs and surgery or any mandate for medical diagnosis;"4,5 (Emphasis added.)

And just as quickly, the WCA modified its Legislative Policy Statement on its website. (At press time, the WCA had forgotten to modify the same statement on the website of the Chiropractic Journal for the December 2000 and February 2001 issues.)

How could this happen so quickly? How can a previously "principled" chiropractic organization suddenly embrace diagnosis and refrain from opposing "any mandate for medical diagnosis"? Is this what was meant by actions "in the best interest of subluxation-based chiropractic?"

The answer can be found in the "alliance" structure and how that differs from an association structure. Normally, such a dramatic policy change would require a vote of the membership. But the current WCA Bylaws registered with the state of Arizona make the rights of membership very clear:

"Members shall not have any right to vote under section 10-1015 of the Arizona Revised States."6 (Emphasis added.)

This means that the members neither vote on leadership nor policy (nor radical changes to policy). This fact may explain the membership status of the WCA.

When it was first formed in 1989, the WCA introduced the "alliance" idea where members gave blind allegiance to the WCA leaders and their only vote was their membership dues.7 And while membership grew to over "1,600"8 and was "quickly approaching 2,500"9 in 1992, the latest filing of the WCA's Statement of Revenues and Expenses reveals a meager $99,146.37 in "membership dues and assessments" for 1999 (the WCA's only reported form of revenue). Dividing the total membership dues by $250 (supporter member) suggests that the WCA had fewer than 400 members in 1999. It would seem that by discontinuing their membership, 75 percent (1,200) of the members have given the WCA leadership a clear vote of "no confidence."

Additional scrutiny of the WCA Statement of Revenues and Expenses brings several more questions to mind:

  1. Why isn't any advertising revenue listed in the statement filed with the state of Arizona? Who got the estimated $960,000+ in advertising revenue each year earned by "(t)he official publication of the World Chiropractic Alliance?"

     

  2. A total of $30,574.51 of the WCA dues (over 30% of the total income) was spent on "advertising" (spread across three different accounts on the statement). Where did that money go? Surely the WCA didn't have to pay for advertising in its own publication?

     

  3. Another $6,860.00 was spent on "management consultants." Who did this money go to?

Some watching these events have suggested that the WCA is moving toward the ACA and mixer chiropractic as a continuation of its efforts to undermine the ICA. Time will tell just how far toward that end of the philosophical and political spectrum the WCA wiggles.

Others have suggested that the WCA leadership has somehow "seen the light" and made these first dramatic departures from traditional chiropractic values because they have a new understanding of chiropractic. (No, I don't believe it either.)

Still others want to believe that the WCA is seeking "unity without uniformity," and is willing to severely compromise its chiropractic philosophy to get along with the rest of the profession and support higher goals. For those who want to believe this, history certainly suggests that such optimism is contrary to the facts.

As for me, I see this as an effort by an accomplished performer to find a new venue and a new audience now that the previously theater is almost empty. This sudden, unilateral revision of the WCA's Legislative Policy Statement demonstrates a particular level of philosophical flexibility that seems more dependent on motives then anything else.

References

  1. Let's applaud unity. Dynamic Chiropractic June 18, 1993. http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/11/13/18.html (The article in The Chiropractic Journal was featured in the June 1993 issue.)
  2. Do you share the WFC's vision of chiropractic? The Chiropractic Journal. July 2000.
  3. Letter from WCA President Terry Rondberg to Ms. Mary Gerwin, Senior Advisor for Health Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/whatsnew/dod-new-letter.htm
  4. World Chiropractic Alliance Legislative Policy Statement. The Chiropractic Journal. December 2000.
  5. The 2000 World Chiropractic Alliance Report to Members. The Chiropractic Journal February 2001.
  6. Bylaws of the World Chiropractic Alliance an Arizona Nonprofit Corporation. Article III Membership.
  7. International organization formed. The Chiropractic Journal August 1989.
  8. Figuring out how major a "major" organization is. The Chiropractic Journal March 1992
  9. WCA membership soars. The Chiropractic Journal June 1992.

Click here for more information about Donald M. Petersen Jr., BS, HCD(hc), FICC(h), Publisher.


To report inappropriate ads, click here.