Re: link about Chet and the CA Dental Board

ClintZ wrote:

>Lets take a few key points, such as:
>
>Was Chet Y fired from his post?


If by "post" you mean his Board position, the answer is no.

As "chair" of the two-person committee, he completed his committee
work. His proposal was not acceptable to the larger board, which then
appointed a larger committee, with a new chair.

If he considers this a "firing," he has to remember that ALL such
committees are merely temporary creations of the larger Board, and ALL
such committee members might considered themselves "fired" when the
specific committee work is done.

By that reasoning, we should consider ALL the members of the larger
committee to have "fired" themselves too -- as the committee work was
finished a year ago.



>Was the dental board subsequently sued for illegally
>taking over the fact *** committe?

I don't know. Since the board has the full legal power to appoint
committees, and to dismiss and reorganize its own creations
(committees) as it sees fit, how can anyone claim that it "illegally
took over" its own fully-owned committee?

That would be nonsense. All temporary committees created by the Board
are fully under the control of the Board anyway.

Probably any lawsuit which is based solely upon a contention that a
duly-appointed Board cannot reorganize its own committees is doomed to
failure. Is this "lawsuit" going anywhere? What can you tell me about
its current disposition?



>Did the CDA bring in an "expert" to testify for amalgam?

As far as I could tell at the public meeting, quite a number of groups
brought in people to testify regarding the content of the DMFS. This
included anti-amalgam groups.




>Did this or previous dental boards take any illegal action to stop
>distribution of a fact ***


No.

This board worked harder and faster than any other previous board to
produce and allow the distribution of a new DMFS.

(An important note -- the Board does NOT distribute the fact ***!
Dentists have to print and pay for any fact sheets themselves, without
a penny's worth of help from anyone. This is just another expensive,
unfunded mandate from big government.)

Previous boards worked more slowly and found it impossible to reconcile
the positions of the different groups who fought endlessly over each
proposed item of content in the first DMFS. No "illegal action" was
taken as far as I remember. Is somebody claiming illegal action was
taken? What action was that, and when?



>and are many of the appointees holdovers
>from the previous pro-amalgam law defying dental board.


The previous dental board was NOT "law-defying" and was not
"pro-amalgam." This statement alone casts grave doubt upon the
credibility of the writer.

And there can be no "holdovers" as the former Gov. Gray Davis had
terminated the entire dental board, at the behest of one noisy
anti-amalgam legislator who was a member of the governor's political
party.

All the members of the NEW board were later appointed by Gov. Davis.



>It must be obvious to you that on key points you will lose the
>bet. Notice how Dr. Bill Combs is suddenly silent.


Wrong again.

- dentaldoc

.