The May 10 issue of Forbes magazine features its annual list of the "The Most Overexposed Celebrities," and pop star Britney Spears is number one. While Britney is working hard to make a comeback, she is misguided in her attempts. For example, many of us have seen or read about photographs of her bare chest, see-through tops, torn, fishnet stockings, flashing her privates, as well as the 14-minute concert in Florida in May, when her background track skipped and her headset fell off, revealing that the shaven-headed maven was lip syncing.
Britney's post rehab comeback will be tougher than expected if she continues to make ill-advised choices and garner reckless publicity. Her actions and the public's perceptions remind this 20-year member of the American Dental Hygienists' Association of the association's recent rebirth.
I was energized by the hiring of Anne Battell, RDH, as executive director of ADHA, the appointment of Christine Hovliaras-Delozier, RDH, as the editor of Access, the return of the print version of the Journal of Dental Hygiene, as well as steps toward further connecting with consumers, corporate allies, members and potential members through a branding campaign. Yet some of the ADHA's recent dealings appear to be sabotaging the renaissance.
It is my understanding that at a recent Board of Trustees meeting, the ADHA Committee on Administration, comprised of the ADHA president, past president, president-elect, vice president, and treasurer, determined that District XI trustee Sharon Zastrow, RDH, editor in chief of the Journal of Practical Hygiene, executive director of ASDHA, and clinical hygienist, had a conflict of interest regarding the ADHA branding campaign.
The result was that, with the rolling out of various branding logos and implementation of the ADHA branding campaign, the ADHA Board of Trustees and Committee of Administration decided in a 16 to 1 vote that Ms. Zastrow was not able to separate her various dental hygiene roles. She was asked to leave the room and could not provide a voice or final vote for the members she represents. Ms. Zastrow's district includes California and Arizona, whose numbers translate to about 4,680 members — 3,900 in California and 780 in Arizona. The district generates approximately $795,600 in dues for ADHA.
I find this action curious because through the years, the district trustees are usually the most informed and effective dental hygienists in the profession. They comprise corporate employees, educators, clinicians, speakers, writers, and entrepreneurs. Many hold or have held various positions. Each district trustee is asked to sign a confidentially agreement that contains a conflict of interest statement. Why then was Ms. Zastrow voted out? Are her signature and integrity up for debate? If they are, then why aren't the signatures and integrities of others?
As clinicians and educators, many of us have attended lunch-and-learns during which a company provides CE credits, food, and even free products. Yet none of these activities seem to rise to the ethical dilemma that prevent trustees from fulfilling their duties without bias or the possibility of spreading the information to other entities. Writers and speakers receive financial support from companies and publications, yet they leave their prejudices at the boardroom door to follow the ethics of ADHA and vote according to their constituents' wishes. However, the trustee from District XI was judged, without permit, to be unable to separate her professional responsibilities and was not allowed to carry out her duties charged by her district!
The reality is that many past and current trustees and officers express their dental hygiene expertise in a variety of settings, and some are employees of corporations. Nevertheless, when they receive confidential information, they are expected to keep it private and out of the corporate competitive arena, yet Ms. Zastrow cannot? Finally, it is my understanding that while the District XI trustee has not seen the proposed branding logo or initiatives, it has been sent via e-mail to some corporate allies.
For many of us who love all aspects of dental hygiene, it can admittedly be a challenge to ensure confidentiality, whether it's our patients' dental care, medical histories, student's grades, corporate programs, etc. We all need to conduct ourselves based on ethical rules and standards. Yet the unanimous finger pointing at one trustee appears hypocritical and self-serving. Why did no one in the boardroom stop this action? It seems like our appointed trustees and officers as well as the executive director were influenced by "group mentality," and that is very disconcerting to me. If I wanted to belong to an association of "sheep" I would join the ADA as an allied member.
Instead, I want my trustee to be included in all board votes and decisions, and to be accepted as a trusted colleague with integrity and a personal code of ethics. A trustee is elected to represent his or her district and deemed capable of separating all professional roles and defending all confidentialities that we as dental hygienists have the privilege of knowing.
ADHA Board of Trustees, what were you thinking?
Kristine A. Hodsdon RDH, BS
Director, RDH eVillage
