ADA.org: CODA Minutes July 2009 - American Dental Association

communities of interest should be made prior to the Review Committee’s consideration
of the proposed standards, which is the current policy. The Subcommittee noted that there
were Board of Trustees resolutions (9 and 10) to the House of Delegates in 2006 calling
for a change in bylaws to the CDEL. The change in CDEL bylaws would, in essence,
require that non-specialty interest area first seek recognition by the House of Delegates,
then, after receiving approval of the House, the non-specialty interest area could then
seek accreditation of training programs by CODA. These resolutions failed to get the
necessary two-thirds vote to change the CDEL bylaws. Finally, Dr. Simon felt
communication could be improved by the appointment of a CDEL Liaison to the ad hoc
Commission committee that is formed to consider the accreditation application. After
further discussion, the CODA Subcommittee recommends to the Commission that a joint
group, made up of representatives of CODA, CDEL, and CEBJA, formulate standardized
definitions for the terms accreditation, certification, recognition, credential, and licensure.
The CODA Subcommittee also supports the appointment of a CDEL Liaison to ad hoc
Commission committees formed to consider accreditation applications. The CODA
Subcommittee deferred further discussion on early notification of accreditation
applications in non-specialty areas of general dentistry until the next meeting. While the
Commission was supportive of the formation of a group to study the definitions of the
terms surrounding accreditation, licensure, and credentialing, the addition of a CDEL
liaison to ad hoc committees which evaluate accreditation applications for non-specialty
interest areas in general dentistry was not warranted at this time.
Commission action: The Commission directs that a joint group, made up of
representatives of CODA, CDEL, and CEBJA, formulate standardized definitions
for the terms accreditation, certification, recognition, credential, and licensure.
Recommendation #5- CODA and the ADA should clarify their respective roles,
responsibilities and expectations and communicate these to their communities of interest.
(Governance)
Dr. Neumann gave the CODA Subcommittee a brief overview of the relationship
between the ADA and the Commission. The Commission is an agency of the ADA and
the ADA provides organizational framework and structure. As there is no U.S.
governmental agency that directly ensures the quality of education, the profession
believes this quality assurance function must be done with integrity and independently
(i.e., with no bias) in order to serve both the profession and the public. It is the
responsibility of the profession to support this function for the good of both the public
and the profession. In regards to the USDE recognition criteria, the Commission ADA
relationship falls under section 602.14 (b) of the USDE criteria. The Commission has
clear and effective controls against conflict of interest, as required by section 602.15(6).
The Subcommittee came to the conclusion that recommendation #5 is closely associated
with the three recommendations (#’s 1, 2, and 3) which deal with the structure of the
Commission. The Subcommittee will lay out several alternative structures, with
advantages and disadvantages articulated for each alternative. However, this must be
done in conjunction with the ADA Monitoring Committee and it will be discussed at the
Joint meeting on July 31, 2009.