ICA members demand withdrawal from WFC

Note: See also "What doctors are saying" for excerpts from some of the many letters sent by members to the ICA Board of Directors.

The board of directors of the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) were inundated with letters and e-mail messages from members angered by the group's continued support of the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC).

The issue heated up when it was revealed that, in May 1999, the ICA board voted to withdraw from the WFC but that vote was overturned during the group's annual meeting in Florida. As a result, the ICA has chosen to continue its support of the WFC by remaining a member and paying $10,000 in dues to it each year.

According to Dr. Gerald Clum, the ICA's representative to the WFC, he and two other members of the ICA board (Drs. Brickman and Williams) were absent during the first vote. All three voted to overturn the original vote. The move was seen by many as an implicit approval of the actions of the WFC.

The ICA's involvement with the WFC goes back to the group's first developmental meeting in 1988. The ICA was represented at this meeting by Dr. Gary Auerbach, who at the time supported a proposed merger between the ACA and ICA. When that merger failed, he left the ICA and joined the ACA. He later was appointed by the ACA to represent them at the WFC and subsequently was elected its first president.

For several years, the WFC -- now controlled primarily by Mr. David Chapman-Smith and Louis Sportelli, D.C. -- was an obscure Canada-based organization and a minor player in world chiropractic affairs.

More recently, it has attempted to position itself as a global chiropractic police agency, with special regulatory powers over chiropractic educational standards.

In August 1999, Dr. Sportelli called upon all colleges to sign a pledge that they will abide by the WFC's "Tokyo Charter." Few doctors had been aware of this document, which was developed by the WFC in 1997 and calls for all schools to abide by standards forth by the WFC.

The Charter specifically sets a goal of establishing "one minimum international standard in chiropractic education," and establishes the WFC the sole arbiter of that standard.

Since both Mr. Chapman-Smith and Sportelli have long been involved with the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) and were instrumental in creating the widely rejected Mercy Guidelines, few doctors had any doubt that the WFC's "standards" would be as medically oriented as the Mercy document.

According to the Tokyo Charter, educational programs could be conducted only with "prior consultation with and approval by the national association or other chiropractic organization recognized by the World Federation of Chiropractic as representing chiropractors in that country..." (italics added).

In addition, only WFC member associations would be allowed to invite people to teach in their countries.

Chapman-Smith, who claims the title "Secretary General" of the WFC, recently confirmed his intentions for the WFC and his vision of chiropractic in a book called "The Chiropractic Profession." In it, he repeatedly misrepresents the role of the WFC and its authority within the profession.

In the book, he states that the WFC is "the profession's primary forum for developing a consistent basis for legal recognition, education and practice in all world regions."

He also proclaims that educational standards around the world "are monitored by the various CCEs and the World Federation of Chiropractic."

Yet, the WFC plays no role in developing or setting the standards of any chiropractic educational agency nor is it empowered to "monitor" any educational process.

Chapman-Smith often tries to deflect criticism by saying he merely acts on behalf of the WFC board and member organizations. Yet, at a recent chiropractic Town Hall meeting, he was forced to admit he also makes unilateral decisions and takes action without consulting or receiving approval from the board or member groups.

Such was the case when he filed a complaint on Nov. 18, 1999, with the United Nations Public Information Office over the granting of NGO (non-governmental organization) status to the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA). The complaint was viewed by most chiropractors as petty and vindictive and he was chastised for his action at the Town Hall event.

Even Dr. Clum criticized Chapman-Smith, telling him in a letter that "you appear to have stooped to an even lower level of professional performance with your unsubstantiated claim that the WCA 'is not an eligible organization and that it has abused the status conferred.' It is ironic that the very status you see being abused was not known to you to even exist on October 22, 1999!"

Clum also took Chapman-Smith to task for criticizing World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA) President Terry A. Rondberg, D.C., for running the WCA as a private enterprise.

"You could be argued to have been a 'founder' of the WFC, its sole secretary-general and a person whose personal circumstances have been well served by the ties and situations the WFC has brought your way," he admonished.

Although, in the U.N. debacle, Chapman-Smith first stated that he had acted on order of "the executive," he later admitted that he had taken the action on his own.

That admission stirred speculation about other actions that he and Sportelli might have taken without the knowledge or approval of the member nations.

Chapman-Smith was caught in another lie when he asserted, in a WFC advertisement published in Dynamic Chiropractic on Jan. 1, 2000, that "all 65 national associations worldwide" are members of the WFC. In truth, several countries, including Japan and the United States, have associations that are not members.

When news of the ICA's second vote was made public, Dr. Rondberg -- who is a member of the ICA and serves on its Legislative Committee -- urged ICA members to voice their opinion to the board members. He made it clear he was not asking members to quit the organization, but felt they had an obligation to provide input into this important decision.

"I have long been a strong supporter of the ICA and have often helped with their recruitment efforts. I honor its history and its principles," he said. "But I've learned through my experience with the WCA that a good member is an active one, and a good organization is a responsive one. It doesn't do the organization, or the profession, any good for us to sit back and remain silent."

The response from ICA members was overwhelming. Within days, board members were flooded with letters and e-mail messages protesting the decision to renew ICA support of the WFC. From around the U.S. and from several other countries, doctors let the board know in no uncertain terms that they did not want their money going to support an organization that works to undermine subluxation-based chiropractic or attempts to control the profession.

Many of those responding engaged in spirited exchanges with ICA board members and it soon became clear that some of the ICA's leaders were also opposed to the decision.

"I am in favor of terminating our relationship with the WFC as well," ICA President Robert Hoffman, D.C., told one doctor. "Our board has flip flopped this issue twice as it is hotly contested...and I believe it will properly resolve itself in the near future."

However, Thomas M. Klapp, D.C., a member of Board of Directors, tried to defend the ICA position.

"Granted, the WFC isn't what anyone would call a "traditional, principled chiropractic' organization, but they do have tremendous influence," he argued. "That influence is why the ICA, despite the often vast philosophical differences we have with much of the WFC, continues to pay dues to the WFC. It is only by doing this that we have ANY input into their policies, positions and activities."

After reading that defense, Rondberg noted that he might tend to agree with Dr. Klapp, had the ICA been successful in providing meaningful input into the group.

"However," he observed, "it's clear that the ICA is a 'token' group where the WFC is concerned, unable to have any impact on Mr. Chapman-Smith or Dr. Sportelli. I doubt that the ICA even knew Chapman-Smith's book was going to be published."

Rondberg commented, "This is rather like saying D.C.s should pay dues to the 'Quackbusters' so they can have input into their policies and positions. It doesn't do any good and just aids the enemy."

In later correspondence, Klapp tried to defend the ICA with another argument.

He contended, "The ICA, if it had the numbers of members and financial wherewithal that would support the kind of 'global leadership and authority' you refer to, would indeed take dead aim at the WFC and simply compete with them."

This statement infuriated many doctors who read it, since it implied that the ICA was "forced" to support the WFC because it didn't have the financial resources needed to fight it.

That was interpreted as a lame excuse at best.

"I'm sure he didn't mean to suggest the only organizations that can remain true to their principles are those with huge bank accounts," Rondberg remarked. "Most chiropractic heroes weren't rich yet they didn't use that as an excuse to 'go along to get along.'"