NBCE President Paul Tullio,DC, opened the congress. He introduced the NBCE Board of Directors and paid tribute to Larry Gerstein,DC, who was ill and unable to attend. "Ben Franklin" then welcomed the group to the city of brotherly love.
Titus Plomaritis spoke in memory of Louis Latimer,DC, the president of the NBCE who passed away March 7, 1999. Mrs. Latimer was presented with an oil portrait of her late husband and a jade crystal piece in honor of his service to the National Board. Dr. David Brown, newly elected president of the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Board, was presented with a $100,000 check from NBCE in support of FCLB projects for this year.
Call to Order
A quorum was verified. Forty-one of the 51 primary delegates were on hand. The chairman of the bylaws committee then reported on a request that had been recently submitted to change an eligibility requirement for being a director. Per the bylaws, a candidate for director of one of the five regional U.S. districts has to have been a member of the state board for at least the last three years. The amendment was to move that requirement to five years.
Per the NBCE bylaws, a proposed change to the bylaws must be submitted in writing to the board of directors, who then forward it to the bylaws committee. The committee pass it by their attorneys. It then returns to the bylaws committee for a vote, and then to the board. A minimum of eight yea votes by the board is needed for it to pass. Then the measure is put before the state delegates. That's the process. On the five-year requirement, the measure had passed the bylaw committee, the attorney and the board. It was now up for a vote by the delegates Philadelphia.
The Motion for Term Limits
Then the meeting got interesting. A delegate motioned to amend the bylaws to limit the 11-member board of directors of the NBCE to two three-year terms.
The Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards already has set term limits of two three-year terms, but the NBCE has three-year terms with no limits. The delegate who made the motion suggested the need for new ideas could not be ensured without term limits.
The motion on term limits was declared "out of order" by presiding president Dr. Paul Tullio. The only issue on the table, the delegates were told, was the amendment to be ratified. The delegates were told that any amendment to the bylaws had to go through the channels (as described above).
This set off a flurry of discussion:
• How could it be that the delegates couldn't amend the by- laws change that they were supposed to ratify?
• What power did the delegates really have?
• Why weren't there any term limits?
• Who has a copy of the bylaws?
At one point there was an attempt by a few of the delegates to end the discussion and "call the question" to vote on the bylaws amendment. That motion was soundly defeated. The discussion continued. It was clear that the delegates, many of them new, were not content with the feeling that they had little power to change the National Board or influence its direction. The issue of reviewing all of the bylaws began to emerge. But could the bylaws be changed when a majority of the directors were required to approve the change prior to ratification by the delegates?
Many state delegates made their concerns known. The question was called and a paper ballot requested. When the votes were counted, the bylaws amendment recommended by the bylaws committee and voted for unanimously by the directors failed. In its place a new motion was made, with further discussion:
"To have the five district directors review the bylaws and report to the delegates at next year's annual meeting."
This motion passed with little dissension. It was stipulated that a report of the review committee will be mailed to all delegates no later than Jan. 1, 2000, and that each of the state delegates be mailed a copy of the current bylaws. It was also recommended that "the bylaws committee study the bylaws and give the delegates the ability to evaluate the proposed changes."
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this event was the way that everyone conducted themselves. Having been to many a chiropractic meeting, this was one of the few cases where a major chiropractic organization was moved by its members to begin making significant, if not profound, changes in its governance without the typical anger and insults.
Even those that disagreed the most continued to infuse the discussion with the clear understanding that the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners provided great benefit to the profession and that its members could work together to make the changes needed.
Dynamic Chiropractic editorial staff members research, investigate and write articles for the publication on an ongoing basis. To contact the Editorial Department or submit an article of your own for consideration, email
.