In many states, licensing board members have acquired the habit of presenting their opinions as though they were board rulings. In these situations, it's impossible to differentiate between a board member's personal viewpoint and an 'official' position of the board.

This has been particularly true in Idaho in recent years. Some members of the Idaho Board of Chiropractic Physicians have a history of proclaiming personal opinions, all the while implying that they are the official opinions of the board. However, the minutes of the board meetings show that the topic in question was never even discussed.

Unfortunately, there is no oversight control of such activities since the attorney general's office, which is supposed to serve as the people's legal counsel, is also the board's legal counsel. The adage about serving two masters comes to mind.

To make matters worse, the Governor, who appoints individuals to numerous state boards, does not have the time to oversee them or ensure they follow the administrative rules of civil conduct.

An example of this type of situation occurred on May 10, 2001, when Board member Henry West, D.C., of Pocatello, Idaho, made a presentation on documentation standards to a group of approximately 100 chiropractors.

The notes provided during the seminar indicated that Dr. West made the presentation as a representative of the Board of Examiners and his information was based on the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) guidelines.

However, board minutes (which are public record) indicate that West was not authorized to speak on behalf of the Board. The reference to NCQA was also misleading since that group has nothing to do with the documentation standards. It is a private, not-for-profit organization dedicated to assessing and reporting on the quality of managed care plans. NCQA's mission is to provide information that enables purchasers and consumers of managed health care to distinguish among plans based on quality, thereby allowing them to make more informed health care purchasing decisions. Nowhere on its web site is there a single reference as to documentation standards.

Although West was advised by no less than three individuals that his reference was inaccurate, he refused to issue a formal retraction or apology. He stated that confidential sources at a college provided him with the information. As West has served on the Board of Examiners at least 15 of the past 20 years, his actions put into question his own honesty and the reputation of the Board he represents.

Even after a formal complaint was filed against West, no disciplinary action was taken by the Board of Examiners. Could it be that the Board, charged with maintaining the integrity of the chiropractic profession, allows its own members to get away with deceitful actions that, if done by a field doctor, would result in the board's censure?

Historically, complaints filed against members of the Board of Examiners which should have resulted in disciplinary action have been set aside – even when the offenses were of a nature that could have negatively impacted the public health and safety.

West and other members of the Idaho Board of Chiropractic Examiners have been involved in various activities over a period of years which many doctors feel were unprofessional and punishable by censure, sanctions, suspension or other penalties. Yet, their actions and the complaints against them have been ignored.

Because they are charged with conducting the business of the people of the State of Idaho, West and members of all Boards should be held to a higher level of ethics and integrity than members of the general community.

All board members should be required to operate within their own administrative rules. That means clearly differentiating between official opinions issued after a subject is discussed by the board (as reflected by the minutes) and a 'stray' personal opinion.

Further, in all states, we need to ask our legislative leaders and governors to develop an oversight mechanism to control these abuses. Dr. Henry West should be ineligible to serve on behalf of the people of the State of Idaho, and subject to the same disciplinary action as other members of the profession. Political connections do not waive the responsibility for maintaining a reasonable degree of integrity and ethics.