Eddie Crouch interview [part 1]
- Details
- Published: Monday, 18 November 2013 15:26
- Written by News Editor
- Hits: 2320
![Eddie Crouch interview [part 1]](https://www.gdpuk.com/images/News/Eddie_crouch.jpg "Eddie Crouch interview [part 1]")
Eddie Crouch, who recently resigned from the Principal Executive Committee of the British Dental Association, answers questions from GDPUK about his reasons for resigning, the build up to this, what he feels went wrong with the BDA membership offering, and where he will go from here.
Eddie is an orthodontist practising in Birmingham. He remains secretary of Birmingham LDC.
GDPUK Thank you Eddie for agreeing to be interviewed for GDPUK. Your opinions are valued by our members. Can we start with your resignation from the BDA’s Principal Executive Committee (PEC)?
Eddie There are many factors which contributed to my decision to resign from the PEC, only some of these related to the membership offer but in many ways that issue highlighted many of the other reasons.
GDPUK What were these reasons?
Eddie I had been frustrated by the lack of change that was occurring, change that had been promised by the PEC core values on which it was to be judged. One of those core values was better communication to its members which fell at the first challenge over the membership offer. I had suggested at the earliest possible opportunity the information on how members had chosen and how it would affect the financial position to be related to members. I was told it “wasn’t a story”. I had felt that my position on the PEC was not one of any influence, and despite asking for more involvement with members services which I think I could offer something, that offer was never taken up by the Chair of the PEC (Martin Fallowfield).
GDPUK: You do not appear to have a constructive relationship with Martin.
Eddie: I had been surprised by the lack of knowledge of the new Chair of the issues surrounding NHS Dentistry, based on his position of being on the previous Executive Board. It appeared that he wanted a bigger role for the BDA in developing oral health strategies across all delivery of provision including non NHS. I understood this but as the most significant delivery in members’ terms was the NHS, it was important he understood the politics of this.
GDPUK: What precipitated your resignation?
Eddie: The final straw for me came when the Chair of GDPC (John Milne) rightly enquired on how the financial difficulties at the BDA would affect the workings of his committee and asked the Chair of PEC to alleviate any fears at the GDPC meeting in September. I was unable to attend that meeting but spoke to many afterwards who told me that information was being withheld, again contrary to the PEC values we had agreed.
GDPUK: Did you take this further?
Eddie: In email communication afterwards I had been told by the Chair of PEC that GDPC had been trying to make calculations on the back of a fag packet regarding the finances , and it was PEC not GDPC business. Having been a senior member of GDPC for many years, this was an attitude I felt was detrimental to the strong functioning of the BDA, and one I could not support by staying a member of PEC.
GDPUK: What did you think of the new membership offer?
Eddie I had always believed the membership offer was ill conceived in that I did not believe members thought one subscription was unfair. What I did believe was that members left the BDA because they felt it lacked influence and will to oppose changes that were detrimental to members and patients.
GDPUK: But you were on the PEC when the decision to implement the new system was made. Weren’t you as responsible as the others?
Eddie: In the early stages of the PEC, the approval was given and in hindsight I did not ask sufficient questions nor considered the ramifications of how basic verbal advice would not be available as a core trade union function, without upgrading the level of subscription. I felt I had made an error and I believed as such my resignation was needed. The redundancy of staff at the BDA made me feel bad. Whilst the change meant no alternative to improve the finances, it was support for LDCs that was looked at by the Senior Managers and PEC Chair as an area that could be reduced, which again felt incredibly uncomfortable for me.
GDPUK: With hindsight you obviously disagree now with the changes, but how do you think the process was handled by the BDA?
Eddie: I do not believe the membership offer has been handled well but of course others may disagree. The processes seemed led by advice gleaned from a company described as “blue chip” when their services were procured by the BDA, at top end prices. Their website even uses the BDA as advocate of their good work, but their advice has essentially lead to the problems. Opportunities were lost to question whether this advice really did stack up, especially based on the changing pattern in Dental Practices where pressures of costs have grown dramatically since the project started.
GDPUK: The debate over this appears to have been going on for years, back into the days when the Rep Body was in charge. Should they accept their share of the blame?
Eddie: The process of membership offer change took place during the constitution changes that ran alongside this, and the Rep Body meeting fiascos that allowed progression. Many Saturdays of meetings Rep Body talked and talked over these changes when so many issues that members would have preferred determined policy on were reduced to later agenda items. I feel in the end those on Rep Body making the decisions were worn down by the turgid nature of the business to approve changes to the essence of the BDA to allow a moving on.
GDPUK: Do you think others on the PEC should have resigned?
Eddie: It is not for me to determine what others should do in relation to resignation; every one of the PEC will no doubt have questioned themselves over the issue. Some are convinced that this is essential restructuring to protect against a future financial crisis predicted at the start of the project. Some believe they need to hold strong to affect the financial turnaround. Some believe by admitting mistakes it will lead to their removal so don’t want to face that. The election of PEC however is for members to decide in the future when re-elections take place, if those that have stayed to continue their work should be further supported or removed.
GDPUK: With hindsight was it a mistake for you to stand for the PEC? Was standing for election to BDA PEC a mistake you made? Does BDA get the best talents? Are they self-selected, in effect?
Eddie: I didn’t believe at the time standing for the PEC was a mistake. I had multiple run-ins with the BDA during my Judicial Review and I believed I had good insight in my opinion on where the BDA were failing in member support. I had hoped a PEC would be elected with similar feelings, but of course some seats were not contested and so the makeup of the PEC was one that had some individuals who did not agree with my philosophy and opinions. That of course is democracy and was highlighted to me by the refusal of the PEC to release the BDA legal opinion on Seniority Pay to LDCs, where only one other member of PEC supported my opinion that this should happen. In hindsight perhaps I could have been better use to the GDPC Executive which I left to take up the position. With regards to the BDA getting the best talents, it would be arrogant of me to presume I am one of those with “best talent”, that is for others to decide. If people are not prepared to stand for office then effectively the choice is left of those that do.
This forms the first part of this wide ranging insight into Eddie Crouch.
Link to part 2 of the interview can be found here.
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report