When news of the new VA Committee was released last month, most D.C.s reacted with mixed emotions. On the one hand, the panel had representatives from across the professional spectrum and it was refreshing to see new names on the list, people who would bring creative ideas and renewed energy to the proceedings.

On the other, however, the presence of so many non-chiropractic names (and one blatantly anti-chiropractic person) was at the very least disappointing.

After all, since it was designated a chiropractic advisory committee, everyone would have preferred an all-chiropractic panel. When was the last time a D.C. was appointed to a medical advisory committee?

Having Charles DuVall's name show up on the list enraged many of us.

What makes it all the more aggravating is that we all worked long and hard to get this far, and the progress we've made getting chiropractic into the Veterans Administration system is noteworthy and something we can be proud of.

The ability of the major chiropractic organizations to work together on this issue and end up with very positive legislation (despite encountering some differences of opinion along the way) shows what we can accomplish when we can get past the turf wars and posturing.

Since it's clear that a unified profession can accomplish a great deal more than one that is constantly engaged in civil war, why is the ACA so quick to want to stir up turmoil? Why is it trying to point the finger of blame for the committee appointments?

Are they really under the illusion that DuVall and the other non-chiropractors were appointed because the WCA and ICA didn't march in lock step with it when it came to submitting nominations for the committee? Or is the ACA just using this as an excuse to once more carp and complain about other organizations and try to sow disharmony in the profession?

After reading two articles published in DC, you really have to wonder.

The article by Garrett Cuneo, ACA executive vice president was the most insulting. He repeatedly refers to "fringe groups" and, although he doesn't name names, ACA leaders have spat out that epithet before when talking about the WCA. It's the same tactic the AMA used against chiropractic. It's just as unethical, and proving to be even less effective.

What Mr. Cuneo doesn't mention is that this particular fringe group has had an enviable record of success.

If it weren't for the WCA, the VA bill itself might not have passed — and definitely wouldn't have included reference to subluxation care.

One of our board members was the only D.C. appointed to the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Another served as chair of the NGO Health Committee, and the WCA itself has been recognized as an NGO associated with the Department of Public Information of the United Nations.

We were the ones to spearhead the campaign for the ground-breaking Concurrent Resolution 46 on chiropractic. We have strong allies in Congress and our lobbyist is president of the American League of Lobbyists. We're working with the World Health Organization to develop global chiropractic standards. And we're doing all this and more on a fraction of the budget used up each year by the ACA.

And they call us a fringe group?

The second article is unsigned but I'm assuming it was penned by DC publisher Don Petersen.

Both articles refer to the so-called "agreement" between the WCA, ICA, and ACA to support whoever the ACA wanted to nominate.

In reality, there was no such agreement and the ACA knows it.

The WCA and ICA simply — and rightly — refused to back the ACA plan to nominate the same people who served on the Department of Defense committee. That was a bad plan to begin with and every savvy political expert said it was doomed to fail. But the ACA wouldn't budge.

They came in with their normal "my way or no way" attitude and refused to even try to work with us to come up with a list of names we could all agree upon and support.

In his article, Mr. Cuneo huffs, "This action by the ICA and the WCA has left a bad taste in our mouths regarding future cooperation and coalition building with them. In particular, it is impossible to work with the current leadership of the ICA, which has shown its inability to follow through on its commitment." Maybe that taste is merely one of sour grapes.

They seem to be looking for an excuse not to have to deal in the open with other organizations, or to admit they are not the sole arbiter of all things chiropractic!

In a veiled reference to the Life University situation, Mr. Cuneo notes, "Perhaps with what is occurring on the educational level, changes will be made in the political organizations." It makes me wonder if there might not be validity to the widely held theory that the ACA engineered Life's accreditation problems to weaken the ICA.

The two articles didn't stop at merely repeating the same lie about the "agreement."

Mr. Cuneo adds, "given its previous action, the VA saw this sign of disunity as an opportunity to reverse what the Congress and the president had done."

Mr. Petersen, predictably, echoes the ACA position. "Sadly, this lack of unity created a golden opportunity for those overseeing the administration of the chiropractic veterans' benefit to choose an advisory committee that would be most detrimental to the chiropractic profession and still appear representative."

How absurd! Are they really trying to convince doctors that DuVall was appointed because the WCA and ICA refused to defer to the ACA about the nominations? The fact is, there are many "DuValls" in this world, and many in our profession. We have no idea how many of his comrades in arms might have been appointed had the WCA, ICA and other groups NOT put forth their own nominations for this important committee.

What if, as many political experts warned, the ACA's list of nominees had been rejected (and, considering that they were Clinton appointees, the chance of them being approved by the Bush administration was slim)? DuVall's group, the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine, would still have submitted its names — and would have been the only alternative!

Although I'm sure Mr. Cuneo and Mr. Petersen would have loved to have the committee loaded with chiropractic physicians from the ACA, we need doctors from all segments of our profession if we truly want to represent the profession fairly. That's where our paths apparently diverge. I think diversity is good for the profession and should be the goal of all our efforts. Their statements make me wonder whether they really want diversity -- or simply domination.

Yes, it's disheartening that the Department of Veterans Affairs chose to select some of the people it did for the committee, and the WCA has already lodged a protest. However, the ACA should stop trying to make points by blaming the WCA and ICA.

If the ACA and D.C. continue to use every excuse to gripe and whine about the actions of the WCA and ICA, they're going to waste a great deal of time and energy. If you ask me -- or just about any chiropractor -- those are two precious commodities best spent on more productive pursuits.

Mr. Cuneo closes by saying, "We don't oppose the idea of coalitions, but coalitions must be based on mutual respect and trust." I hope he and the rest of the ACA remember that (particularly the word mutual) the next time they call the WCA and ICA fringe groups and try using us as scapegoats to mask their own legislative failures.