Page 34 - Layout 1

LEGISLATIVE
ACTION

INCLUSION IS A REPSONISBILITY OF

BOTH PARTIES

By Alex Kenton, MD

A few weeks ago, I was asked, “What does inclusion mean to acteristics of the organization or group. Webster’s dictionary de-
you?” Because I was only allowed two minutes to give my defini- fines inclusion as a relation between two classes that exist when
tion of inclusion, I wish to expand on it here, as I think my defi- all members of the first are also members of the second. Many
nition has direct relative impact on what the Bexar County people latch on to these concepts and demand inclusion or claim
physicians face today. an organization is not inclusive enough.
Inclusion is a dual responsibility held by both the leaders of an If those individuals who request that leadership include them
organization and its membership or its employee base. Organiza- in decision-making don’t participate in all aspects of the organi-
tions can only be characterized as inclusive if the leadership wishes zation, then they are not meeting their responsibility and the or-
to be inclusive of others in the participation of the leadership, struc- ganization will fail; the loss of the expectation of dual
ture, and culture of the organization AND if those individuals who responsibility leads to failure.
make up the organization step up and PARTICIPATE to be in- No larger example of this failure is exemplified than what has
cluded. Inclusion is a responsibility of leadership and those who are happened at TEXPAC. I have heard many physicians complain that
being led. Indeed, the most effectively inclusive organizations will TEXPAC was not inclusive enough. When I joined TEXPAC lead-
have individuals who can be seen both as part of the leadership and ership, I found myself inundated with accusations that TEXPAC
part of the individual make-up of the organizational infrastructure. was only interested in endorsing conservative candidates. There
These are truly the most successful organizations. were accusations that the process of endorsing or giving money to
Too often inclusion focuses on many other factors. Some con- candidates was neither balanced nor transparent. In the last four
sider inclusion solely to be the responsibility of leadership. Lead- years, we restructured the entire assessment process. A scoring sys-
ers should ensure all others are included in the benefits of a tem including objective votes on legislation favorable or unfavorable
particular organization, regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. to the House of Medicine as well as a subjective scoring system,
Leaders should include others in the decision-making process. The which solicits direct input from the county medical societies and
term inclusion has been used to ensure that no specific group of lobbyists was put into place. At the same time, we sought out more
people is excluded from decisions, benefits, or other specific char- physician participation on the board and the Candidate Evaluation

34 San Antonio Medicine • May 2019