Dynamic Chiropractic – May 10, 1991, Vol. 09, Issue 10

NCMIC Policyholders Elect Directors

President Charles Cline Attempts to Influence Vote

By Donald M. Petersen Jr., BS, HCD(hc), FICC(h), Publisher
Ballots recently went out to elect three candidates to the board of directors of the National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company (NCMIC). There were four nominees and the tally was as follows:

Louis Sportelli, D.C.

- 4,482
Phil L. Aiken, D.C. - 4,313
Don M. Krogh, D.C. - 3,912
Shelby Elliott, D.C. - 3,356

The policyholders re-elected Drs. Aiken and Keogh and added Dr. Sportelli to the NCMIC board of directors.

In addition, the ballot included an amendment to the articles of incorporation that would limit a director to a maximum of three terms of three years each. This amendment passed almost unanimously.

At the board of directors' meeting on April 16, 1991, the board elected Arnold Cianciulli, D.C. as the new NCMIC president, Don Krogh, D.C. as the new vice president and Louis Sportelli, D.C. as the third member of the executive committee.

But the election was not all it should have been. For the first time, the Policyholder's Report was included with the ballots. The ballots made very clear the distinction between the three candidates nominated by the NCMIC Board (Aiken, Krogh and Sportelli) and the one candidate nominated from the field (Elliott). In addition, a letter to the policyholders (as part of the Policyholder's Report) included a plea by then President Charles Cline, D.C. as follows:

"In closing, I urge you to support the nominees selected by the Board for the three vacancies and to vote yes on the proposed change to Article V of the Articles of Incorporations. The Board has given serious consideration to its recommended nominees and feels that with their NCMIC experience and stature within the profession, they will continue the collegial atmosphere and sound financial judgment so necessary in these changing times." What is the point of allowing for nominations from the field if the president will ultimately attempt to influence the policyholders to vote for the "nominees _selected_ (emphasis added) by the board?" Why have a system whereby ANY policyholder with only 250 signatures from other policyholders can be placed on the ballot if Dr. Cline is going to attempt to circumvent a fair election?
While the debate over what the election results might have been (had Dr. Cline not taken the liberty to tell policyholders how to vote) continues, the question for next year is: "Will this type of activity continue?" This is an especially provocative question given the fact that Dr. Cline's term will conclude next year.

It is ironic that the person who was elected as a write-in candidate by the policyholders on a slate of fairness and open elections would attempt to influence an election when he had the power to do so.

DMP, Jr.

Click here for more information about Donald M. Petersen Jr., BS, HCD(hc), FICC(h), Publisher.


To report inappropriate ads, click here.