A performance review (of sorts) on your board of directors!

As you know only too well, I don't usually write short columns. We work in a complex field. Whether the issues we take on come from within the profession or from our professional agenda, such issues are seldom simple. I therefore often use my column to clarify what these issues involve and to explain what NEHA is doing about them. Given that many of these issues are highly problematic, it is seldom easy to scrunch my commentary into a sound-bite-length presentation.

There are, however, times when less indeed means more. We all know the story, for instance, of the short but powerful Gettysburg address.

This column will be one of my shorter ones. (It is also a column that I have wanted to write for a long time.) I hope its shorter length serves to accentuate its point and that, for once, I can offer more for less!

Our board held its annual retreat meeting this past spring. I know of no set of meetings that are as intense and thorough as these meetings are--each and every year. As happens every year when your board gets together, different but considered viewpoints get aired as we explore a range of issues that are pertinent to the practice and cause of our profession.

In any case, we noticed something rather fascinating this year when we were completing the minutes of the meeting. Numerous decisions had been made on 7-6 votes. (Of note was that often, those voting in the majority one time were voting in the minority the next time.)

It is tempting to draw out of this pattern of close votes several conclusions:

1. Issues in our profession are complicated and often come with many sides to them--true.

2. Discussions aren't directed and votes aren't politicked beforehand. Rather, each director is encouraged to lay his or her case out, and all directors are encouraged to carefully consider the logic of the points made by their colleagues--true.

3. A board that splits down the middle on so many votes is obviously a board that is divided and one whose members probably feud between meetings--false!

It is this third point that forms the theme for my column this month. It also lays bare the single most important reason for why I have enjoyed serving NEHA for so many years.

Over the years, we have developed a very special culture on our board. We certainly have our share of vigorous (and passionate) debates. Yet throughout these debates, we consistently maintain a fundamental respect for each person--irrespective of point of view. In fact, we actually encourage dissent and varied opinions as our quest is to examine an issue from as many different sides as we can think of. The method to our madness is nothing less than a shared determination to find the best answer that we can for you, NEHA, and environmental health.

To that end, we value varied debates. Seeing an issue from many different perspectives serves only to enhance the decision-making process. It matters not who individually wins or loses. What matters is that we debate out the issues as best we can so that ultimately, we can get to a conclusion that is the best we are capable of formulating.

I remember thinking when we broke to eat lunch and dinner in public places that anyone observing our group would likely think, "Now there's a group that must all think alike. Look at how well they get along together." I'm sure that most such observers would have been completely shocked to have learned that this group had so many votes split right down the middle. Shouldn't that be polarizing?

After all, we live in a contentious society in which noisy gladiator journalists teach us that debates polarize and that it is okay to substitute slogans, platitudes, and ideologies for reason and rationales. Under these terms, it can hardly be surprising that in the end, it has increasingly become the norm to dislike the people with whom you disagree. The Dixie Chicks spoke their opinion and received death threats. The Reverend Jerry Falwell died and some people celebrated.

You elected 15 individuals to the governing body of this organization. I have the pleasure of working with these people and watching them in action. So how are these people--the ones you voted for--conducting the business of our (your) association? As perhaps the only person who can really get back to you with the answer and a performance review of sorts, it is my pleasure to report that you would be proud. Our directors can and do disagree--on the merits of an issue. On the merits of each person's humanity, however, they get along and respect each other. Better yet, we've got a good thing going ... and the momentum to keep it going for years to come for the benefit of NEHA and all those we serve and represent.

Nelson E. Fabian

Nelson Fabian, M.S.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]