It appears that the Stuart City Commission is now proceeding along the same path as the Martin County Commission in revisiting their earlier decision to add fluoride to the City’s drinking water. While we are not taking a position on whether to add fluoride or not, we do believe we have a mandate to discuss the management and leadership evident in the decision-making process being displayed. The immediate fiscal cost to taxpayers as well as the follow-on medical costs and suffering that could be avoided also seems in our purview.

Rather than judge the performance that has been demonstrated, let’s perform a little exercise. Follow along with this summary version in the same manner many of you have probably done as students in some leadership, management or logic course:

Taxpayer exercise #1:

A decision is made by County M to fluoridate their water based on the recommendations of virtually the entire list of International, National and State government institutions. Almost all of the counties and cities surrounding County M have done so with excellent results. There are many years of positive experience with both natural and controlled fluoridation locally, nationally and throughout the world. All doctors’ and dentists’ professional associations and nearly all reputable groups concerned with health issues actively support it.

City S, located within County M, cite the same sources and also considering compatibility issues, make a similar decision. Both governments then appropriate money and grants are actively sought to help modify their relevant infrastructures to accommodate adding the fluoride, monitoring and controlling it.

Much staff time and energy are spent in coordinating the effort between County M and City S to make sure both systems will accept the new process and be compatible with each other. During a period of several years after the original decision some $200,000 in grant money is offered and accepted by County M. City S is offered and accepts approximately $60,000 in grants. This money, along with a large amount of local tax revenue, is spent procuring the appropriate fluoridation equipment and installing it in both water systems. Both systems are both now ready to be turned on.

At this point a group of local “experts” step in citing numerous Internet sources, a slightly onerous study by a graduate student and qualifiers printed on product labels offered by litigious conscious companies. The group writes many letters to the editors and is vocally present at government meetings. They discuss many theoretical problems with fluoridation and even a few conspiracy theories are offered.

County M’s Commission takes strong and immediate leadership actions by stopping implementation and appointing a prestigious select committee of local experts and scholars in the medical and dental fields to provide guidance. These volunteers spend much time and energy researching and providing a report on the subject of fluoridation. They cite the numerous benefits to large segments of County M’s population and discuss the negligible side effects and safeguards. The members of the Committee vote unanimously to recommend that County M go ahead with fluoridating their water supply.

Essay question 1: As a County Commissioner in County M, how would you vote and why?

Essay question 2: County M’s commission votes 3 to 2 not to fluoridate, returns their grant money using taxpayer funds and spends more staff time removing and trying to sell the previously installed fluoridation equipment. As a City S Commissioner, how would you respond to a call for a revote on your previous decision to fluoridate?

Essay question 3: Assume a revote is called and you are still a City S Commissioner,

How would you vote and why?

Hopefully the voters will offer their elected representatives sensible answers to these hypothetical questions.