{"@context":"http://iiif.io/api/presentation/3/context.json","id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/iiif/jm23b5z63h/manifest","type":"Manifest","label":{"en":["Phyllis Dolen "]},"logo":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/organizations/logo_images/000/000/246/original/CenterForHistoryFamilyMedicine_2c_RGB.png?1773344256","metadata":[{"label":{"en":["Rights Statement"]},"value":{"en":["\u003cp\u003eThis item is protected by U.S. copyright and related rights. It is being made available by the Center for the History of Family Medicine as its rights-holder for noncommercial use, including sharing and adapting the work. No permission is required for noncommercial use so long as attribution is provided. All other uses require permission from the Center for the History of Family Medicine.  Disclaimer:  The views presented in this broadcast are the speaker’s own and do not represent those of CHFM or the AAFP Foundation. The information presented is for general, educational, or entertainment purposes and should not be considered legal, health, financial, or other advice. \u003c/p\u003e"]}},{"label":{"en":["Date"]},"value":{"en":["2005-03-24 (created)","2005-03-25 (other)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Type"]},"value":{"en":["Oral History"]}},{"label":{"en":["Agent"]},"value":{"en":["Don Ivey (Interviewer)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Format"]},"value":{"en":["audio file"]}},{"label":{"en":["Keyword"]},"value":{"en":["family medicine","family physician","American Academy of Family Physicians"]}},{"label":{"en":["Subject"]},"value":{"en":["Phyllis Dolen (personal name)"]}},{"label":{"en":["Language"]},"value":{"en":["English (primary)"]}}],"requiredStatement":{"label":{"en":["Attribution"]},"value":{"en":["\u003cp\u003eThis item is protected by U.S. copyright and related rights. It is being made available by the Center for the History of Family Medicine as its rights-holder for noncommercial use, including sharing and adapting the work. No permission is required for noncommercial use so long as attribution is provided. All other uses require permission from the Center for the History of Family Medicine. \u0026nbsp;Disclaimer: \u0026nbsp;The views presented in this broadcast are the speaker\u0026rsquo;s own and do not represent those of CHFM or the AAFP Foundation. The information presented is for general, educational, or entertainment purposes and should not be considered legal, health, financial, or other advice.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"]}},"provider":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/aboutus","type":"Agent","label":{"en":["Center for the History of Family Medicine"]},"homepage":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/","type":"Text","label":{"en":["Center for the History of Family Medicine"]},"format":"text/html"}],"logo":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/organizations/logo_images/000/000/246/original/CenterForHistoryFamilyMedicine_2c_RGB.png?1773344256","type":"Image"}]}],"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/public/images/audio-default.png","type":"Image","format":"image/png"}],"items":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284064","type":"Canvas","label":{"en":["Media File 1 of 2 - Dolen_Phyllis_PT_1_05.wav"]},"duration":3737.93697,"width":640,"height":360,"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/public/images/audio-default.png","type":"Image","format":"image/png"}],"items":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284064/content/1","type":"AnnotationPage","items":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284064/content/1/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"painting","body":{"id":"https://aviary-p-centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.s3.wasabisys.com/collection_resource_files/resource_files/000/284/064/original/Dolen_Phyllis_PT_1_05.wav?1754506113","type":"Audio","format":"audio/wav","duration":3737.93697,"width":640,"height":360},"target":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284064","metadata":[]}]}],"annotations":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284064/transcript/82295","type":"AnnotationPage","label":{"en":["Phyllis Dolen interview transcript [Transcript]"]},"items":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284064/transcript/82295/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"transcribing","body":{"type":"TextualBody","value":"Today is  and my name is Don Ivey.  I’m the Manager for the Center for the History of Family Medicine and today I’m speaking with Ms. Phyllis Dolen who is the Manager of the Information Services Department for the American Academy of Family Physicians.  And today we’re going to talk to her about her thirty-six year career here with the Academy.\n\nPhyllis, can you tell us a little bit about your background?  Where did you come from prior to being hired for the then American Academy of General Practice?\n\nI was born and raised in North Dakota. I went to college in Grand Forks, North Dakota. And then I moved to Minneapolis with some other friends I had gone to college with. There I worked for Control Data Corporation, I was a secretary. At Control Data I worked for the government relations division, I guess they called it. We contracted with the government to do the computer programs for submarines that could carry nuclear weapons. So I had a black stripe and it was all secret, but I didn’t know what the secret was that we were protecting.\n\nWhat was this period of time?\n\nThis was in the early 60s, 1963 to 1968 or ’69. And when I moved out here to Kansas City, I didn’t know the city at all. And there was also a language barrier. \n\nHow’s that?  \n\nTo me it was real Southern down here. The first place I stopped, at a gas station, I told them to fill up the car. They didn’t understand what I was talking about. They looked at the license plate and said oh, we understand. So it was quite different; to me it was real Southern, but it’s not anymore. And then I went to an employment agency down on the Plaza. I thought it was better since I didn’t know the city. Somebody could direct me.\n\nWhat led you here to this area?\n\nMy then husband took a teaching job down here.\n\nSo you came with him and then you decided you wanted to get a job out here?\n\nYes. And then of course the Academy was located in Brookside, which was around the Plaza area. In those days in Kansas City, the Plaza was really just a cultural spot. Everybody knew what the Plaza was even if you didn’t live here. So I thought I’d get familiar in an area where I knew my way around a little bit and at least could find the employment agency. Because when somebody from a small town with a population of 400 comes to Kansas City, it’s pretty overwhelming with the street signs and things like that. And the employment agency just happened to be the one that the Academy worked with. At that time, everybody went through and employment agency who was hired here. We had a personnel director, but he was also like the Deputy EVP at that time.\n\nWhat was his name?  \n\nCharles Nyberg. \n\nDo you recall the name of the employment agency?\n\nNo, I don’t. It was owned by a woman but I don’t recall. It’s no longer in existence.\n\nWhen was this?\n\nApril of 1969.\n\nSo the employment agency led you to the Academy?\n\nYes. The same day I had two interviews. One was with the Academy, medical. And right next to them on Volker there was the Midwest Research Institute. They were doing research on cows, cattle, which is the project I would have been involved in. I would have been secretary to that person. I was offered both jobs, but took the one here because it seemed more exciting than being involved in the farming industry, which was my background. And I’m sure that’s why they…because obviously of all the people that the Midwest Research Institute interviewed, I was the only person who knew what an Angus was. But it applied, so…my final interview was with Chuck Nyberg and Mike Miller. He had started in October of 1968 and I started in April of 1969.\n\n  \n\nSo he had just been here maybe five months before you?  \n\nRight. And I always kidded him about it because I was his third secretary. I was a secretary for twenty years.\n\nThat’s the one you initially interviewed for?  \n\nRight. \n\nSo you ended up interviewing with him?  \n\nAnd Chuck Nyberg mainly. And it was just the three of us in Mr. Nyberg’s office. He had just a big Chief’s notebook and a yellow tablet he was writing stuff down on. And he asked me a few questions…and the one thing I’ll always remember is that before I left, they said “We’d like to offer you the position.” I said “When do I take my physical?” And Mr. Nyberg said “Are you sick?” I said “No, but in Minnesota it’s state law. Before you’re employed by anybody, you’re required to have a physical. So I thought that applied to every state.” But it obviously didn’t in Kansas City. I’ll always remember “Why, are you sick?” and I said well no, just thought I’d get a free physical.\n\nSo you started that same month, in April, you took the job.  What were your duties?  What were the kinds of things you did?\n\nHe was directly under Mac Cahal. He was then the EVP. And we had a commission on public policies, is what it was called then. But it’s now the Commission on Legislation and Governmental Affairs. We had the Committee on Bylaws. We had the Cancer Committee and we had a Mental Health Committee for a while. Just different committees and also the legislative arena. I remember my first meeting – I had never really flown anyplace before. So it was a legislative meeting in Atlanta, Georgia – of all the places. From the time the plane landed until I left, I had not understood one word they said, and I was supposed to be taking notes. It was really the Deep South.\n\nWhen was this?  Do you recall?  \n\nIt was in 1969. But I hadn’t been here long and I had to cover a meeting in Chicago. It wasn’t really that difficult; it was a smaller meeting. And once you didn’t have the language barrier, it was okay (as I did in Atlanta). And Mike knew there was a language barrier, so I took a tape recorder, which is taboo primarily. But it was an actual formal meeting. And then I was supposed to transcribe it. But even then I couldn’t understand anything they said.\n\nYou had to get a translator?  \n\nNo, Mike was raised in Pratt, Kansas and he went and listened to it and he said “This is horrible; I can barely understand it.” And the person that became my good friend initially from the Academy and has been for thirty-six years was Annette Hoel. And she was from Mississippi, so we learned to understand each other’s language. \n\nHow did you meet her?  \n\nShe was also a secretary. She was Chuck Nyberg’s secretary.\n\nAnd your duties initially, were they to take notes, transcribe meetings?\n\nYes. You prepared the agenda for these various meetings and you attended the meetings and took the minutes and then you transcribed the minutes. And you didn’t have the technology then. You typed them on a typewriter. And if your boss made a change, you retyped the paper.\n\nHow did your work change over the years with the Academy?  \n\nThen Mike progressed on up the corporate ladder and I just went along with him. The duties changed and evolved into basically still the same area. Mike was still in the same area even as Vice President. He was over socioeconomics and legislation which covers the health care services arena, etc. Then in 1989 this position came open.\n\nThe one you’re presently in?  \n\nYes. But then it was the Assistant Manager because Karen Carter was still the Manager. Then when Claudene Clinton retired, Karen was promoted to that position and I was made the Manager of this department. But at that time, we didn’t have…the medical library used to be housed in the Foundation. The Library was not then a part of that department. Before the web, we got a lot of member calls on general policy about the Academy and general policy on anything, was referred to us. We did a lot of member communications, to answer certain questions. So I guess technology has made it evolve. Of course, the organization has grown. When I started there were sixty-some employees and our membership was around 19,000. Now we’re a little over 94,000. And in 1969 Family Practice became a specialty. It was recognized by the certifying board. And it was an exciting time then for family physicians to be certified. Not just being a general practitioner but also being a specialist. And then in 1971, the Academy changed its name to reflect that change. And a lot of changes occurred in that period of time with the certification and recertification. And then everybody worked together; it wasn’t just your field. Like if you had to help this person out, no matter where they were in the organization, you helped them out even if it was not even remotely your job – which we don’t see much anymore. Of course, we were smaller then. But it was just more a culture then, I think. The association was flatter.\n\nTell us a little bit more about that period of time when you started.  Around ‘69 to ‘71 when it became its own specialty and it changed its name, how was it different then?  What were things like then here?\n\nEverybody was really excited about it. Because there were people that are where I am now that had been here for a number of years and it seemed family doctors, general practitioners, struggled and it was a status symbol then for a patient, if they were fluent they would go to a specialist and wouldn’t go to, you know, a general doctor, they were called, because they weren’t a specialty. And that’s actually the basis in 1947 that Mac Cahal formed this association. And he wanted it always to be very prestigious. That’s why the Board and staff traveled first class, etc., because he wanted the family doctors to feel good about belonging to an association that granted them a status and prestige.\n\nSo it was kind of that period in ‘69 to ‘71, was kind of the fulfillment of that then?\n\nYes, they finally were recognized as a specialty.\n\nSo there was a great feeling of accomplishment then by the staff?\n\nYes, the staff and also the members. Because I guess it kind of feeds on itself, the enthusiasm from one to the other. And the members were so grateful for the staff. And the staff and the members had a pretty close interaction with each other. Which we felt very special that they had gotten to that point and they were so proud to belong to the Academy for those reasons and serve on different commissions and committees and the Board. And if you look back historically at the attendance at our Annual Assembly, as our membership has increased from 19,000 to 94,000 the attendance at the Annual Assembly has not. Some years there’s almost as many there as were at the first Assembly in 1949 or ’48 as there are now, which is interesting.\n\nWhy do you think that is?\n\nI think then it was exciting for them, one of the factors. You didn’t compete among ourselves. Now we also see the CME programs in different states and then you didn’t. It was just the one where they had to get the continuing medical education, the 150 hours. And we didn’t have home study to get credit. So those were a lot of the factors too. We didn’t have all those many ways to get the CME. You could either get it through the state or through the county.\n\nYou mentioned when you first started the organization was flatter.  Was it more informal?  More interaction between staff and…. \n\nYes.\n\nHow was that?  \n\nWell, you didn’t have so many levels of management. You had the EVP and there was an Assistant. Wasn’t even a Deputy [EVP]; it was Assistant. And then we didn’t have Vice Presidents. You had division directors. And then just a few departments.\n\nWhat were the divisions back then?  Were they different than they are now, different divisions?\n\nYes. A lot fewer, like Membership, Communications and Publications I think were one. There weren’t that many. But you only had like fifty employees, so you didn’t…then they didn’t even call them division directors. I can’t remember what they called them. But you could go back someplace in the archives with that organizational chart. It’s always interesting, the Transactions, to look back at how flat it was then compared to now. But there are some titles that are now comparable to our division directors. They were still that but they had a different name. I think there were only about three or four divisions. But even the division directors, you used to have to collate a lot of things because you didn’t have copiers that collated it. The division directors would help along with anybody else. They worked with data screens [?].\n\nA much more informal interaction between the different levels and less levels. You had more day-to-day contact with the membership?\n\nOh, absolutely. Personal contact. And a lot of it is your email and the web have taken away from the personal communication we used to have. Times change. And things you send through email, or even if they ask you a question through email, the response is different or can be interpreted differently when there’s not the personal interaction with the person that you’re talking to.\n\nWe can talk a little bit about the people you’ve known through all the years here. And we thought we could start maybe with Mike Miller. You mentioned he was your first boss, right?  \n\nYes.  \n\nYou worked for him. And he eventually served as General Counsel and then he was a Deputy Vice President, EVP. And he was even active...\n\nYes, on the interim between Roger Tusken and Bob Graham.\n\nWe’ve heard a lot of stories that he was quite a character.  \n\nYes, he was.\n\nSo tell us a little bit more about him and your relationship with him over the years and what was it like to work for him.\n\nI think we kind of grew up together. We’re the same age. We were more like brother and sister. Even though he was a little older, it’s more like sometime I had to take care of him because he did like to party sometimes too much. And Mac Cahal was his boss in his younger years. And Mac Cahal was rather strict. And it didn’t matter who you were, you were expected to arrive at a certain time, work and then go home. You know, none of this coming in whenever you wanted to. So this one morning, Mike called and he said “Come and pick me up. I went to Westport last night and had too much to drink and I’m someplace, so you have to pick me up.” And I said “Well, I would be glad to do that, but where are you?” He said “Oh, wait a minute, I’ll have to go outside and look at the street sign.” He was at some girl’s apartment. He went outside, came back and told me what the address was in Westport. I went down there, picked him up and brought him to work. And he of course was not well, but…and there were a lot of funny stories about things like that.\n\nYou got him out of trouble a lot of times?  \n\nOh, yes. And one time we were in a meeting in Washington, DC and he had had too much fun the night before and was terribly ill the next day. And it was like a suite and the bathroom was just off to the side. I was in there taking notes and I could hear him in there getting ill. And I just pretended, I went into a coughing fit. I coughed real loud [inaudible]. But when he came out, you could tell he wasn’t…once in a while that happened where I had to get him out of trouble. But he was brilliant. Everybody liked him. He never got into trouble for things like that, but now it wouldn’t work so well, I guess. But he had a good time. He enjoyed his life, for sure. But he could sometimes be difficult to work with.\n\nHow so?  \n\nFor me it wasn’t because I knew him so well. But I know other people would approach him when he didn’t want to be approached. He would get a little angry at people.\n\nIf you catch him at the right time kind of thing?  \n\nYes.  \n\nHe had his good moments and bad moments?  \n\nYes, like anybody, I guess. But we had a good working relationship and he got things done when they were supposed to get done.\n\nAnd every time he was promoted or went up the ladder, he took you right with him?  \n\nYes. Now that’s not the case anymore. The position stays where it is. Of course, the boss would still have the option. Of course, now they don’t have secretaries. We call them something else, but they’re still the same thing. They call them administrative assistants, but it’s just a name change.\n\nYou’ve worked with all the Executive Vice Presidents over the years?  \n\nYes.  \n\nSo let’s start at the top and tell us a little bit about what your impressions were, your relationships were with each of them. Starting with the first... \n\nMac Cahal. \n\nYes.\n\nMac Cahal was a lawyer. He expected certain behaviors. He had certain criteria directed to women and men. And he was equal, down the line. He applied it equally, what he expected. Some people were very afraid of him. When I first started, I didn’t see him for about two or three weeks because he had fallen off his horse and broken his leg, I heard. And everybody was talking about Mac Cahal. I had never seen him or met him. Had seen a picture of him. One afternoon here comes some guy in blue jeans with a cane into the back area we were in. Everybody was just real quiet and working and everybody said hi. I thought it was the janitor or somebody there to fix something. So he takes his cane and goes over to the window and said “Why don’t you women look out at all these beautiful apple blossoms?” And the whole blinds fell down. Nobody said anything, and I thought what’s going on here? Why isn’t somebody getting this guy out of the building, dressed like that? Or if he’s here to fix something, how come he’s destroying things? Somebody said “Did you know who that was?” And I said “No, does he work in the mail room, I’ve never seen him?” And they said “No, that’s Mac Cahal.” He just looked sickly because of his broken leg. It was pretty funny, I thought.\n\nWhat was your relationship with him as you got to know him? Did you get to know him over the years?\n\nHe wasn’t there much longer. I think ’71 or ’72. But I knew him. Of course, he was working for [with?] Mike.\n\nIt sounds like Mike and Mac were kind of two different personalities. But they got along? They didn’t fight?\n\nWell, they both had law degrees and both were graduates of KU so they had that tie there. And no…once in a while he’d have to be called and Mike and he would clash a little bit on certain things. His first secretary, I guess he was doing things that he shouldn’t. But I guess he called Mike in and said “You’re going to have to fire your secretary; she’s not doing a good job.” And he said “I think she’s doing a wonderful job.” This was the secretary before me. He said “No, with all the new responsibilities you’re going to take on, she can’t handle the job anymore.” So he made him fire her, which was common in those days. I guess they were both married.\n\nWas that the one you replaced or the one... \n\nNo, there was another one after [before?] me, which she just didn’t like us. So she was only there like a month or two, I think. Short-term. The other one had been there for a while.\n\nLet’s move on. How about Roger Tusken?\n\nHe had been under Mac Cahal. He was like the Assistant EVP. And was also the Director of Membership in what we called the Division of Membership. Roger was quite a character too. He tended to I think micromanage a little bit. But he was very careful about…the Academy was never in a deficit when he was there. If you had the money, you would spend it. If you didn’t, you didn’t.\n\nHe took over directly after Mac?   \n\nYes.  \n\nDid he die or he retired?   \n\nHe retired, yes. Mac Cahal outlived Roger Tusken by quite a ways. Mac Cahal even outlived Mike Miller. Roger was a character too. We always said he was a bohemian or something. He would holler and scream and stuff. \n\nHe had a temper?  \n\nYes. And he would like to intimidate people that he knew he could. \n\nHe was kind of a difficult person to work with?  \n\nI didn’t find him difficult because he didn’t intimidate me. But he didn’t ever find my weak spot, so…some people found him extremely difficult but I personally did not…he would go out to lunch and sometimes didn’t come back. But everybody would get their work done. \n\nMuch more informal then?  \n\nVery.   \n\nBut it sounded like he could be strict, a little bit like Mac?  \n\nBut he liked to have fun. He was very much a staff person. A member of the staff rather than…\n\nUp above? \n\nUp above, yes.   \n\nHow did your boss Mike Miller relate?\n\nThey had a love/hate relationship, I would say. Very much so. They would holler and scream at each other and then they would go out and have a drink.\n\nIt sounds a little bit similar there. Were they similar types?  \n\nIn a way, yes.\n\nThe next EVP was (inaudible).  What happened with Roger?\n\nI think – alcohol problem. (inaudible). So they were looking for an interim EVP. And Mike Miller and (inaudible name) I think applied for it and they gave it to Mike.\n\nHow long was he the acting EVP?\n\nBob Graham took over I think in 1986. Probably one or two years.\n\nAnd during that period you were still his secretary?\n\nYes, because he still kept up the other end too, the other responsibilities. This was in addition to.\n\nSo what was that like for both you and he?\n\nHe wore the two hats, I guess. (inaudible) She did the secretarial work that involved that office. Of course, we both had more to do. But there wasn’t that much change, just more frequent back and forth, you know, in between two jobs. (inaudible)\n\nSo he had the two secretaries. And you kind of handled what he was doing formally and then Roger’s secretary (inaudible)... \n\nExactly. Because one secretary couldn’t do it all.\n\nHow do you think he did as the acting EVP?\n\nHe didn’t like to deal with the everyday stuff. He didn’t want to do that. (inaudible)  \n\nSo next they hired Robert Graham. And then you both went back to your former...\n\nI had been with Bob and Mike as executive EVPs. And then I worked for Mike for a while and then I took the job as ----.\n\nThe Deputy EVP, was that a new position? They made it for him?  \n\nYes. He called himself the Deputy Dog.   \n\nHe served under Robert Graham?\n\nYes. He was also the General Counsel then. He did that in addition to his other duties.\n\nHow about Robert Graham? What was he like?\n\nHe was very much a staff person. He considered himself staff. He didn’t micromanage at all. I had the utmost respect for him. He was a great administrator. He worked for the federal government for a number of years. And I also knew Bob Graham when he was a student coming up through the ranks. He was a student resident [?].\n\nHow did you get to know him?\n\nI guess with his Academy involvement. \n\nOh, he was involved in the Academy?  \n\nYes, all the time. (Inaudible question.)\n\nI guess in the position you were in, you probably got to know a lot of people through the years?\n\nOh, yes. \n\nWho were some of your favorite people?\n\nI would say Doug Henley. Doug Henley served on the Commission on Legislation and Governmental Affairs ----.\n\nWhen did you first meet him?\n\nThe late 70s or probably early 80s when he was a student.\n\nTell us a little bit about him. Do you work with him much?\n\nNo, not now. A little bit during the Congress of Delegates. \n\nOver all the years, through all your work with the boards and commissions and with the Academy, you got to know a lot of people. Can you tell us some of your favorite people or the people you most remember, looking back over the last thirty-six years?\n\nA lot of the presidents like Jim Jones. He was a colorful character.\n\nWhat was he like?  \n\nHe was a native American and he was always [?] and jovial. Just very staff-friendly – friendly to the staff. He’s kind of like Bruce Bagley on the staff here. He was always really appreciative of the staff. And I also knew Herb Huffington. Like the Huffington Library, and the Foundation’s got a whole history with Herb Huffington. He died when he was President-Elect (inaudible). But I had known him for thirty years, up through the ranks. He had always been active as a student and resident and on commission and committees. So that’s how I go to know him.\n\nLooking back through all the presidents, which ones impressed you the most and which ones do you consider the most effective?\n\nI think they all kind of had their little areas of expertise. One maybe more on mental health, one maybe more on legislation, one more in Medicare reimbursement, one focused more on finding a cure for cancer. So each of them was unique I think in what they perceived as a priority when they were president. I don’t know if I could say really that one particularly stood out over the others because over the years I’ve seen a lot of really good ones.\n\nHow about the Officers or Directors or just staff people? What kind of people really stand out in your memory?\n\nI guess like the Mike Millers and the Claudene Clintons. Just loyal and dedicated people; I guess what the Academy was about. I’m not seeing it at all anymore in the lower ranks, the ranking member staff. Because a lot of them don’t really know what we’re about, you know, because they don’t seem to (inaudible) more staff interaction. I don’t know – better communication, what we were about and what our mission was. Even though it’s written everywhere, I don’t think they get what the mission is. It’s changed, especially in the last four or five years.\n\nReally? What do you think happened in the last four years?\n\nI think the society ----. You see somebody in the elevator and that’s about it. \n\nA little less than in the old days. And we’ll talk a little bit more about the old buildings too because you’re into the fourth one. A little more open space here, kind of thing?  \n\nRight. And both in Brookside and [1740], we didn’t have cubicles, except the managers had cubicles.\n\nSo are you saying the last four years, would you say the changes are more societal or less really having to deal with this organization specifically or (inaudible)?\n\nI think it’s a societal change with our…before if you wanted to ask somebody a question, you could do that. Now we send emails. I get emails from people, I respond to them and I don’t even know what they look like. And if you can sit and talk to somebody, you at least know what they look like. And the next time you see them, you can ask how are you? You might see them in the building, but you don’t know them.\n\nMore of an impersonal world then?  \n\nVery, very impersonal.\n\nAnd you think this has had an impact on everybody?  \n\nYes.  \n\nIncluding the Academy?  \n\nYes.\n\nTalk, if you can, a little bit about the Board and the committees. You mentioned a little bit about the ones who were involved from the very first. From the first time you were hired, you were involved with those.  \n\nYes.  \n\nWhat kind of experiences have you had? You mentioned you traveled. You probably traveled more than you ever had?  \n\nYes.   \n\nThe different commissions and...  \n\nRight. And the Congress of Delegates annual meeting; my first one was 1970. That was my first annual meeting.\n\nWhat was that experience like, the first one?\n\nMy first one, I went before Mike Miller even went even though he was my boss. And it was kind of a last-minute thing. One of the secretaries…at the last minute they found out that she didn’t have any typing skills, so they didn’t send her. So like two days before, I had to pack up to go to a ten-day meeting someplace with no clue what I was supposed to do. Then it was out in San Francisco (inaudible).\n\nWhat did you do?  \n\nI worked in the office typing up reports and answering the phones and things like that. And afterwards I worked over at the convention hall, We had to put up signs for different seminars and stuff like that. So that was quite an experience because I wasn’t prepared for it at all. I had no background for that.\n\nYou had no idea what was –?  \n\nNot at all. \n\nWhat are some of the boards and committees that stand out in your mind? Which ones do you think in your experience were the most effective, most productive?\n\nHow about the most fun?\n\nOkay, the most fun.  \n\n[The Committee on] Bylaws to me was the most fun. \n\nWhy was it the most fun?  \n\nIt just met once a year. And we usually met at a nice place because ----. And the meeting wasn’t very long. Depending on the number of bylaw amendments, it wasn’t very long at all. So we had the rest of the time…\n\nWho was on the Bylaws Committee? What was that made up of?\n\nThe physicians. And those were all active members, to be on the Bylaws. Our Bylaws Committee, you wouldn’t have the residents and students to do the bylaws. State chapters can ---- the bylaw amendments which then go before the committee. It doesn’t even happen anymore. They call it a Bylaws Working Group. They might fly six doctors out to this resort someplace if one bylaw is amended. It just seems one word…\n\nSo back then they did it... \n\nYes. Of course, sometimes there are a lot of amendments to the bylaws. So there are a lot of bylaw amendments. But there are more that aren’t.\n\nThat early period then when you first got involved with them, they did quite a bit it sounds like?\n\nYes.\n\nSo you had fun but it sounds like you did a lot of ---- stuff too with them.  \n\nOh, yes, with all the changes and things like that. [The Commission on] Legislation probably isn’t that exciting to start to understand for the lay person, how the legislative affects that ---- and then Title so-and-so and whatever. (inaudible) And sometimes I would have to cover for somebody else. One time I had to do a Board meeting. I covered some for Socioeconomics. I covered the Health Care Services session once. We used to do that for each other.\n\nTake me back. Which ones do you think had the most impact overall?\n\nWell, Legislation. With the different legislation that was passed (inaudible). And the Medicare reimbursement. There’s all kinds of legislation attached to medicine. And a lot of lobbying. They used to call them congressional receptionists years ago. (inaudible)\n\nDid they wine and dine them kind of thing?  \n\nYes.  \n\nThat must have been kind of fun?  \n\nIt was ----.\n\nIn Washington?  \n\nYes. It had been quite a few years. And then after a while it seemed that the Congressmen would just send their aides to participate. The aides did most of the work anyway – under certain bills so…\n\nDid you have much interaction with the folks on Capitol Hill, with the Congressmen, Senators, all those?\n\nI met some of them like Larry Winn. People like that, that you kind of knew because they were around all the time. Even Ted Kennedy, I met him once. (inaudible name[Gerald Ford?]) \n\nWhen he was still Congressman from Michigan?  \n\nYes. One of my jobs was to ask the senators or whoever came in with them if they would like to have a drink ----. (inaudible), didn’t really look like he knew where he was at. He looked all around. (inaudible conversation) I talked to him awhile, just small talk. He never said who he was and I never asked. Even if he had probably said, I wouldn’t have known. But later on Mike Miller comes over and he says “Do you know who you were just talking to?” And I said “No, some tall guy who’s not a clue what he was doing here and couldn’t find the food table.”  “Well, that was (inaudible name [Tip O’Neill?]).” I think he was the Minority Whip then. \n\nOf the House?\n\nYes, House Minority Whip. I said “Oh, cool.” Then later on when he came back, I said “That’s that guy that walked in, that guy way at the end.” So it was kind of funny.\n\nThat also leads into the fact that you did a lot of traveling in conjunction with these –. You traveled around a lot?\n\nNot all that much. About six, seven times a year.   \n\nDid you enjoy it?\n\nYes, because it was just enough but not too much.\n\nYou could mix in the work and then you could...\n\nRight, have a home life and other things and didn’t always have to worry about traveling. The Legislation Committee met twice a year and Bylaws met once. And one would be at like January or February and the next one would be June or July, so it gives you all that time. And the annual meeting is in September or October. So I’ve traveled to places and stayed in places that you could never afford probably to stay and do on your own.\n\nWhat were some of your favorite places you traveled to in conjunction with your job?\n\nProbably Palm Springs, Key West, Florida, the Virgin Islands. \n\nYou got to see pretty much all fifty states?\n\nI think so. A lot of them. The East Coast, like Maine, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina. They’re all different.\n\nWhat were some of your least favorite places you went to, places you don’t really want to go back?\n\nDallas.\n\nSo you won’t go back there again after you retire?  \n\nNo.  \n\nWhy not?  \n\nIt’s too spread out and you can’t find the core community -----.\n\nLet’s talk a little bit about that you were the person responsible for a long for handling Transactions of the Congress of Delegates. Is that right?  \n\nYes.  \n\nPlus, you did the ----?  \n\nYes.\n\nTell us a little bit about that process. What is the Congress of Delegates? What are its views? And what did you do in conjunction with that and how did it work?\n\nEver since I started, I was involved in the Congress of Delegates. The Congress of Delegates is the highest policy and the body ----. They’re over the Board of Directors, they’re over everybody. They’re the only body that could actually do away with the Academy. They would say let’s just end. And according to the democratic process, its constituency [?] is to help ---- delegates. So they get together and meet and vote on different issues, resolutions, recommendations, etc. once a year. And it’s actually like the minutes of a meeting. The Transactions are after they get through this process. You get a steno report and the notes you made and then you type up minutes. But it includes all the annual reports, all the resolutions, all the reference committee reports. (inaudible) …and vote for or against it. This is why I’m against it; this is why I’m for that. And the reference committee makes our recommendations to the entire Congress of Delegates, all the 124 delegates. So then the Transactions are the official proceedings; now they’re put on the web. But this year, the 2004 has to be approved. That’s one of the ultimate things of the Congress of Delegates, to approve them and make sure that what we think this is, is it. And it’s always backed up by a general report also. (inaudible)\n\nNow they actually videotape the proceedings, don’t they?\n\nYes.  \n\nBut when you first started out, you didn’t do anything like that?  \n\nNo.  \n\nYou would get somebody taking notes, right?  \n\nWe always had a steno reporter like a court reporter.\n\nBut no audiotapes?  \n\nI think they had audiotapes. I believe so. They should be around here someplace.\n\nBack in ‘69, ‘70 they were doing that?  \n\nYes.  \n\nOkay, so they were recording?  \n\nBut the video, they just started that when they got that CD system. A lot of the candidates wanted to speak, so they just did the whole thing and then gave us a tape. But personally you never use them for Transactions or anything like that. A lot of the candidates generally come back and want copies of the speeches. And the good archival…\n\nYes, absolutely. What was your first Congress of Delegates like?  \n\nIt was in San Francisco at the last minutes. But I just stayed in the office. I didn’t actually serve the whole meeting, you know.\n\nSo as you got to become familiar with the whole Congress and the process, how does that seem still every year in your perception?  \n\nIt’s tremendous, the technology. We used to do them on this ---- and all that. I mean there wasn’t any word processing. There were typewriters. You typed it, you made a mistake and you cut and paste and do all kinds of stuff to get the report done. Because sometimes you’d go work all night on this report to have it ready the next morning.\n\nDid you use the old carbon paper and all that?  \n\nYes.  \n\nSo a lot more labor intensive?  \n\nYes. And you use the multilith machine to make multiple copies of these reports.\n\nI forget what you call it ----but I used to use those.  \n\nIt was a very tedious process and took us so much longer, of course I remember one report, this was the Reference Committee on Bylaws. (inaudible), and I was so tired. It was like 3:30 in the morning and I was still typing on this thing after having been up since 6:00 am that morning. So I thought I cannot make a mistake on this, because then you had to retype it.\n\nThere was no Liquid Paper back then.  \n\nRight. I was so tired and on automatic pilot, I typed seventy-eight pages without making a single typo. That was my record. \n\nWhat was your typing speed?  \n\nMy typing speed? In college I think my top as 120 [wpm]. So probably around ninety. But that wasn’t considered all that fast. It is now though on the computer.\n\n(Second cassette tape:)\n\n...this was undervalued, underappreciated for some time. And even in the 90s, the public did not know what a family doctor was and that he could do all these things – deliver babies, this and that.\n\nThat’s been a topic of discussion. Do you think the family physician has an image problem now or...\n\nI think he still has. Some years ago some would say well, what is a family doctor? Do they have any education? You know, things like that. Some of the public is just very ignorant. And a lot of women still go, get all of their care from an OB/GYN, no matter what it is.\n\nYou think they still have a bit of an image problem as far as the public understanding who they are and what they do?\n\nRight. It’s better than it used to be, I think. But it’s still there where people just don’t know.\n\nDo you think it’s better than when you first started in the late 60s and it was evolving into a specialty?\n\nYes.  \n\nDo you think the specialty designation helps?\n\nOh sure, tremendously. It wasn’t GP with a horse and a buggy and a brown bag to cure a cold maybe or give you medicine for a cold or give you a shot. It was undervalued, their training and experience.\n\nOne final question I have: There was a lot of speculation reviewing the history of the organization that the Academy in fact may have saved the general practitioner, the family physician. Do you think that’s correct?\n\nYes.\n\nDo you think the Academy, by virtue of its forming? Or do you think that wasn’t true?\n\nOh, definitely. Because the general practitioners couldn’t survive unless they united in some way. And then they finally got the certifying board. If it wouldn’t have been for the Academy, there wouldn’t have been the American Board of Family Practice in order to become board certified the way they are now.\n\nDo you think they have more influence than they had back when you started in the councils of policy making bodies and Washington and what-not?\n\nOh, sure definitely. They didn’t exist.\n\nAnd you mentioned, opening a Washington office was a major turning point?  \n\nYes, when they got involved in legislation. They always had been to an extent, but not to that degree.\n\nDo you think they have the influence that they should have or need to have in order to change policy or get things accomplished?\n\nTo try to get them accomplished, you know, they have the legislative visits where the whole Board goes in. And the key contact program in different states. So they’re a lot more visible to get the message across that they want to about healthcare and where it is or isn’t going. Healthcare for all and Medicare reimbursement and other issues too.\n\nDo you think the Academy is working effectively with other medical organizations in this field?  \n\nWith the AMA, yeah.  \n\nAMA and some of the other specialties?\n\nWell, there’s the CMSS.\n\nWhen you started, was there much interaction between the other groups?\n\nYes, there was some.\n\nWas it always cooperative? Was there tension between them?\n\nSometimes yes and sometimes not.  \n\nWhat was the cause of the friction, if any?\n\nJust different issues or specialties agreeing. Where the OB/GYN ---- well, family doctors can’t deliver babies. They’re not qualified to do this, all the specialties ---- even though the family doctor did have the training and experience to do the procedure. But obviously, the specialty didn’t want them to take business away from them. That’s kind of where it was, coming from the other specialties.\n\nHas it gotten better over the years?\n\nYes.\n\nMore cooperation? A little more delineation of where everybody stands?\n\nWhere everybody stands, yes. That nobody’s trying to take anything away from somebody. A family doctor still has trouble getting hospital privileges and things like that.\n\nReally? Because that was really the initial impetus for the creation of the entire organization. After World War II when they weren’t getting hospital privileges and it was becoming almost a crisis ---- and they banded together. But that still goes on somewhat?  \n\nSomewhat, yes. In certain areas where one specialty may have influence, I guess. But it’s minimal compared to what it was.\n\nIt’s not the issue it was where it practically was excluded from practicing in hospitals?\n\nRight.   \n\nAny final thoughts? Any last things you want to leave with your colleagues?\n\nI hope everything goes on and everything goes well. You know, we all have to keep up the good work. I know it will change, but change is inevitable so…\n\nThank you for your time.  \n\n... (Conversation continues:) ...\n\n...the hard copy. And a lot of the things we put on the web aren’t read because the links are difficult sometimes. I would much prefer to take a book and read it where I want to read it, in an easy chair, than sit in front of the computer and read it. So even though the information is available, I don’t think it’s being used as much as people hope it would be.\n\nPeople still want the hard copies?\n\nRight. And then they can read part of it. They can put it on the shelf and come back next week. If it’s on the web, it’s replaced and then it’s gone. Some of it’s archived but it’s not so easy to go back and read it. So technology has changed a lot. Some of it’s good and some not so good.\n\nWhat do you think are some of the good things?\n\nIt’s immediately available. Some of our online registration where they can register online. I think the electronic health records that doctors are using are good now because at least somebody can use them. So there’s a lot of good things about technology (inaudible). And a lot of things we have in archives came from our files. I would say 90% of them.\n\nWe talked just a little bit before about the different headquarter buildings you have known over the years. Do you have any memories of them? What was the first one you...\n\n(inaudible [The Volker Building was first.]) It was small and very nice. It had kind of an open environment. It was very nicely decorated. The parking was so limited. Even though it was close to the Plaza, when it came to find a place to park, you parked your car and you didn’t leave until it was time to go home. And then we all went to Tea Time. Once again, that was with Mac Cahal. Tea Time came with a prestige to it. It was nicer to say “Let’s go to Tea Time” rather than “a coffee break.” We would all go down and some of us would play bridge. We had bridge clubs. So we did a lot of socializing then. \n\nHow long did that last, Tea Time?\n\nIt was twenty minutes in the afternoon. \n\nI’ve heard about the card games. What other kinds of things did they do?\n\nSome of them played poker. Some knitted, crocheted, watched television. And some actually did talk.\n\nBecause this was a smaller building and a smaller organization, it was kind of a social time for everybody?  \n\nYes.  \n\nOr did some people participate, some people not?   \n\nNo, just about everybody did.\n\nEverybody? You just dropped what you were doing and just... \n\nEverybody went okay, let’s take a break. Anybody will tell you that if you work so long on something you need to take a break.\n\nWas it , the time period?\n\nYes.\n\nWhat about lunch? When did you usually come in, in the morning?  \n\nEverybody worked the same, 9:00 to 5:00. You had a thirty-five hour a week workweek then. It’s when we went through a budget reduction that they changed it to thirty-seven hours. It hasn’t been that long ago. And it was not a good move.\n\nWhy do you think it wasn’t a good move?\n\nAll of a sudden they’re telling staff okay, we’re going to make you work two and a half hours more per week but we’re not going to give you any more money, so there. And it really didn’t cost us any money.\n\nAt lunch time did you eat at your desk? Or how did that work?\n\nNo, eating at your desk was not allowed.\n\nSo you just didn’t take lunch?\n\nWe went out to lunch, down to the dining room.\n\nFrom  to 1 p.m.? Everybody took the same time?\n\nYes.\n\nAnd then you had the built-in Tea Time from  to ?\n\nYes. And then you’ve got to remember, you couldn’t drink coffee at your desk. You couldn’t go and get a snack and bring a pop and everything else back to your desk. No eating or drinking at your desk. You could smoke at your desk. \n\nKind of ironic, when you look back at it.  \n\nIs it or isn’t it? Look at the other issues we have now and people eat at their desks all day. Obesity. So it’s not that good either. And to stay there and sit at your desk all day and never move, that’s not good. So it’s kind of a wash, I guess. You traded one for the other. \n\nYeah, it sounds like it.  \n\nThat was pretty much the deal. And really, like I’m chewing gum now, but you couldn’t do that. You could get up and drink water and go to the bathroom. Now people always have food at their desk.\n\nWho was behind Tea Time?\n\nMac Cahal. It was to add prestige to the association.\n\nIn other words, he didn’t want to call it a coffee break; he wanted to call it Tea Time?  \n\nYes.\n\nBut still, even though his idea was the prestige, in a way it was breaking down barriers too though, wasn’t it? I mean it sounds like it.  \n\nYes, he liked things like that.\n\nWell, you had that twenty-minute time where everybody got together. And it sounds like the hierarchy was kind of put in suspension for that twenty minutes?\n\nIt wasn’t a hierarchy. I played bridge and my bridge partner was like a vice president now. So there wasn’t that class distinction where I’m not going to talk to you because you’re a hot dog. Or I can’t talk to you because…you didn’t have those class distinctions, a pecking order, no. We were equal.\n\nSo even irrespective of Tea Time or anything else, that was just... \n\nThe feeling of employees.  \n\nTea Time was really just a natural part of that?  \n\nRight. That’s one of the things that made it so nice. It wasn’t the hierarchy that oh, I’m this way and you’re beneath me, so I can’t talk to you. It just didn’t exist. The family that plays together stays together. (laughter) Kind of…and that just gradually over time. And I guess it’s more in the last four or five years than I’ve ever seen it, where there’s a class distinction.\n\nWell, you still have people with corner offices and things like that?\n\nYes, but it doesn’t matter. \n\nIt didn’t matter at all?   \n\nIt didn’t mean that they didn’t make more money and that they were our bosses. But that didn’t mean that you couldn’t at any time walk in their offices and sit down and talk to them. Anyone could. Or that they wouldn’t come out and talk to us.\n\nYou could go in? It was free flow? Instead of nowadays, somebody sends you a memo or something or an email.   \n\nOr you have to make an appointment on the internet.\n\nWhat happened to Tea Time? Why did it go away? Why isn’t it here anymore? What was its demise?\n\nI think when we moved to the 8880 building, the guy who moved us [?] wasn’t set that way. And then people got kind of out of the mode. Then we had the flexible work hours and we got computers. And some people would just rather surf the net than…so it’s a societal thing I think as well.\n\nWhen do you remember it going away?  \n\nI think it was pretty much when we moved from 1740 to 8880. That was in ’86, somewhere around then. ’86, ’87.\n\nIt just kind of went away for lack of interest? Or did somebody do away with it?\n\nOh, no.\n\nIt just kind of fell by the wayside?  \n\nRight.  \n\nStill on the buildings, what was the next building after Volker?\n\nThat was 1740.  \n\nWhat was that building like? How was it different from Volker?\n\nIt was a lot bigger, you know. We were really proud of that building. It was nice I thought and pretty functional. Nothing really stood out about it.\n\nHow long were you there?\n\nMaybe about ten years. I know it was paid for. I think in ’86 [1988] we moved over to 8880. I like that one because it was close to the shopping center, Dillard’s and…\n\nYou could take a lunch hour and go over there?  \n\nYes.  \n\nDid everybody else like it?  \n\nI think so.\n\nBecause of the location or the building itself?  \n\nBoth.\n\nWhat made the building nice?  \n\nYou just saw a lot more people. It was more open, I guess. I can’t remember when we moved out here. 1999, I believe.\n\nComparing this building with the Volker building, how are they different?  \n\nThis of course is much bigger. But the other one was like a warm, homey feeling, the way it was decorated. And this is more of a cold feeling. You walk in, it’s almost like a school. You’ve got a guard sitting at the desk, and I never thought about a guard, that we needed a guard. The receptionist was at the front desk, you know. Of course, now the schools with the metal detectors and all that. So immediately you see a guard when you walk in the building. \n\nSo a little more institutional feeling to it?   \n\nYes, very – that’s a good word, more institutional.\n\nOne of the things we wanted to ask you about too was you were here when the AAGP changed its name to now the AAFP. That was in 1971, I believe. Was that a big deal back then?  \n\nYes.  \n\nWhat was the reaction to that at the time?\n\nEverybody I think liked it because it was recognized as a specialty. So now it wasn’t general practice, and family practice was its specialty. So everything else had to flow in with it. It was a lot of work and it cost a lot of money to get all that letterhead changed and the symbols we had, the logo. Everything had to be changed. It just took a lot of work but there was positive energy behind it.\n\nEverybody was supportive?\n\nYes.\n\nWas there one driving person behind it or a board or...?\n\nFor the name change?\n\nWhat was the impetus behind that?  \n\nFor the creation of the specialty?\n\nYes.  \n\nThat had been going on for years.\n\nBut the name change itself?  \n\nThat was as a result of board certification. They had to get a bylaw amendment to change the bylaws. And when that was approved by the Congress of Delegates then the name had to be changed. It had to go before the Congress of Delegates to change the name.\n\nIt sounds like pretty much everybody in the field recognized the need for a name change. Is that accurate to say?\n\nYes.\n\nEverybody wanted to see this move in that direction?\n\nYes. There were some, a very few, that still wanted to call themselves GPs, and that was fine.\n\nThat was fine?  \n\nYes. They just chose to call themselves, but very few. And then when those of course retired, all that phased out. And now you don’t hear anything about it anymore. And it didn’t make any difference. They had this practice, general practice and general practitioners. Well, they just didn’t want to change that because that’s what their community was used to them being called.\n\nWhen did that generation phase out, would you say? When do you think the last of them...\n\nProbably in the early 80s, it was no longer an issue. But very few, once again, a minority. (inaudible) for a while they didn’t make any distinction between FP and GP.\n\nLooking back over the last thirty-six years, what do you think were some of the biggest changes within the organization? What would you say were some of the defining moments, some of the turning points? Obviously the creation of the specialty was one of them. But what else would you say, looking back over the last thirty-six years?\n\nWe established the Washington office. We used to didn’t have one there. And I think it’s been very influential. Of course, there are a lot more members now. The membership drives the organization, there’s no doubt about it. Without it, there wouldn’t be any reason to exist. And so I think maintaining the membership. Somebody has done a good job in making sure that the doctors want to join this association.\n\nYou mentioned when you first started here they had about 19,000 members and now they’re around 93,000? \n\n94,000.  \n\nObviously that’s a pretty dramatic change. When did things really take off?  \n\nAfter it became a specialty.\n\nAfter around ‘71, that’s when the membership really started to grow?  \n\nI would say about ’74. It took a while for it to catch on. Because then a lot of hospitals all of a sudden wanted them to be board-certified in family practice in order to be able to have hospital privileges.\n\nSo a lot of people came on board once that started?  \n\nYes. And there were a lot of, I called them the hippie days, whatever, when there was this whole generation that was very ---- oriented and family practice was what it was going to, when he took care of the entire person, the entire family. That era I think had something to do with it also.\n\n \n\nLate 60s, early 70s, around there?  \n\nYes, when a specialist wasn’t that well-respected anymore. Or people just preferred to do the one-stop shopping, wanted to go to one doctor. So I think a lot of those factors entered into why the membership increased. And plus, there was a physician shortage, so there were more physicians introduced ---- and a lot of money went into producing the Health Service Corps and into creating more primary care doctors. So there were a lot of factors that went into it.\n\nSomething I wanted to ask was as you know, either the last year or the year before we had the Future of Family Medicine project where they really tried to look at everything in a holistic way. What do you think of the outcome of that? Do you think that has achieved or will achieve anything?\n\nThat isn’t the first time it’s ever done that.\n\nReally?  \n\nThat’s what everybody says.\n\nWhen did they do that before?  \n\nWell, I’d have to go back…they did a future of general practice before it was even a specialty. You should have that in the archives. That was probably in the 50s. Maybe ’58. And then they had another, the Future of Family Practice, I think in 1980 or so. A lot of money went into that.\n\nYou were here for that one?  \n\nYes.  \n\nThe first one, you weren’t here. That was before your time. But the one you were there for, do you think it had an impact? Do you think it achieved anything or was it just something that was put on a shelf and forgotten about it?   \n\nMore or less. Unless it was so subtle that nobody noticed it. Or if it would have happened anyway without the project. I don’t know.\n\nWhy did they start that project, both the first one that you were here for and then the most recent one?\n\nI guess the Board approved it. I guess there were some concerns, which happens, everything goes in a cycle, that there was some decline in the interest in family medicine. (inaudible), if doing a project like this will have any impact at all. History would say maybe not. It depends on how much money and effort was behind it.\n\nBut you don’t think the one that was done previously, back in the late 70s, early 80s... \n\nI would say the early 80s.\n\nBut your perception, from your standpoint, it didn’t seem to have much impact?  \n\nNo. Not anything that they needed that big project that you couldn’t have done with little things. Like they formed a student interest group where they could have just taken a few people…that would have been kind of common sense, I would have thought.\n\nWas the thinking about that one, the one in the early 80s, that the practice was in decline and they needed to do something drastic or dramatic?\n\nYes, I think so. This one is more drastic and more dramatic and a lot more money, when they did this than that.\n\nThe Future of Family Medicine Project is more...\n\nYes. I think it’s very complex.\n\nDo you see any differences between the way they did things back in the early 80s than this Future of Family Medicine?\n\nOh yeah, there’s a lot of difference. This one is a lot bigger and more complex, you know.\n\nDo you think one, there was more of a need for it, in your opinion, or not really?  \n\nNot really, I don’t think. I think family practice will always be around. There will always be a need for one-stop shopping where one doctor can do everything, see the whole family.\n\nSo you think basically the problems are kind of cyclical and that it’s just got ebb and flow?\n\nRight. I may be wrong, but everybody’s always looking for a family doctor. Because who wants to go to an ENT person or all those different doctors? Why not just go to one who can do it all? I think most people prefer that.\n\nThat’s a good point. Especially in these days with Walmart Super Centers and all that stuff.  \n\nExactly, where you do one-stop shopping. There’s no need to go to all the…if you need to, they can refer you to a specialist. Because a lot of specialist readily admit that they specialize in ear, nose and throat, they call them subspecialists. The cardiologist isn’t going to refer you to somebody to get your ears cleaned, you know. It’s just family physicians, the primary care physicians do that.\n\nThe second part of the Interview: Today is .  \n\nTo get back to an earlier conversation we were having after the last taping, you mentioned that when you were initially hired, from your perspective you couldn’t have imagined being there for thirty-six years, right?\n\nNo. Like I said before, twenty-five years…I didn’t think well, this is the job I want and I’m going to have it for the rest of my career until I retire. It’s something you don’t even think about. But the organization changed, it kept moving and it kept me interested. So the decision changed over time and medicine changed probably more than anything else.\n\nIf you were to name one reason that kept you here for those thirty-six years, what would you think it would be?\n\nWell, it wasn’t the salary and it wasn’t the health insurance. It was more that I liked the people I worked with. It was a family atmosphere. Everybody worked together and we played together. And we were very supportive of each other. If somebody had trouble, everybody helped them out, no matter what it would be. I came from a small German community where family was valued and that’s kind of what this felt like.\n\nLet’s talk a little bit about your career and looking back. What are some of the things you can recall you being the proudest of accomplishing here and getting involved in? What are the things that stand out in your memory?\n\nNothing specific.\n\nJust the whole... \n\nThe whole process. It was just very uncomplicated and all had to work together. So I never invented anything.\n\nWhat were some of your fondest memories you’re going to leave with?\n\nProbably just the people that I’ve known through the years. The friends that I’ve met.\n\nAnybody or anything stands out in particular?\n\nNo. It’s everything. It’s a collective thing. The focus isn’t just on one thing. In thirty-six years you go through so many changes, like some equipment you used and this and that. But that’s an evolution; it’s not like a revelation. It’s just all of a sudden wow, I did this.\n\nCan you tell us a little bit about what maybe were some of your greatest disappointments? What were some of the darkest days here and why? Everybody goes through ups and downs. I’m sure you had them here.\n\nI’ve never been a person that…the bad things that have happened to me in my life, I can’t remember. I just remember the good ones. You know, there were some bad times but probably not anything that was super bad like the building burned down or this or that happened. You know, when Mike Miller died.\n\nWhen was that?  \n\nOctober of 2000, rather unexpectedly. And some of the other long-timers got very ill and passed away. Roger Tusken, he was more or less asked to leave, and a lot of us liked him real well.\n\nWas there kind of a period where there was kind of a passing of a generation? Did you see a lot of people leave during a certain period?\n\nAt one time we did. It was when Marion Labs Pharmaceutical Company just moved in here and they offered much better benefits and higher salaries. So we saw a lot of people leave for that money. There was a period when a lot of them left because the salaries were so low here and the benefits weren’t great.\n\nWhen was that period? Do you recall?  \n\nIt was still when we were at 1740. So I’d say in the early 80s. Late 70s, early 80s. And now we’re seeing it again. \n\nWhere people are leaving for greener pastures, so to speak?  \n\nYeah or that they’re not happy. The morale is a little bit low I think right now.\n\nWhy do you think that is?  \n\nI think it’s a cycle again. I think our management teams that we have now probably aren’t…I think they’re qualified. But they’re a different kind of management. A lot of the managers come in, the department already exists but they want to hire their own people. So they kind of force people that have been there for years out so they can hire their own people to fit their personality. Which in years past, wasn’t the thing to do. If there was too much turnover in one department, they would look at the manager (inaudible). Rather than get rid of ten people who did a good job, you’d get rid of the one person causing the problem.\n\nSo you’ve seen kind of a loss of institutional memory, so to speak, during this period?\n\nProbably, which is I think going to be a problem because a lot of things will fall through the loop or not get done with so many new managers and so many new people that I think they will be just kind of wandering for a while until it all comes together again.\n\nBut you mentioned this as being kind of a cyclical thing?\n\nYes.\n\nIt’s happened before; and you’ve seen it happen before?\n\nNot to this degree where whole departments all of a sudden were gone and all new people. Usually the managers hardly ever left. It would be more the clerk staff that is going to greener pastures and getting higher paying jobs. Things like that. There was one other cycle in the early 80s, late 70s when that happened. And we see it happening again. But hopefully it won’t…because this association with all the knowledge you have to have. If you just lived on doughnuts or something it’s not, you know…with all the background of knowledge and history and the flow of things…\n\nYou really need that experience, that time in service to really understand the full complexity of the organization and everything it does?  \n\nDefinitely. And why did we do this? Why do we have continuing medical education? Do you know?\n\nYeah, that was a very early and very important part of the organization. That was kind of the keystone for it.  \n\nExactly.  \n\nAnd your concern is you don’t want to see the organization reinvent the wheel for no purpose, for no reason, of just a lack of understanding?  \n\nJust no understanding of why we do it. Like one of the people in our division…you know the Congress of Delegates – he said, well you in order to save money, just get rid of the Congress of Delegates. And I said you just don’t understand. The Congress of Delegates is like the House of Representatives or the Senate. Oh, well we can’t get rid of them. I said it’s the only body that if they decided to, could say let’s dissolve the association. They could get rid of the Board, they could get rid of anybody if they voted on it. It’s a democratic process. So there’s a lot of just not understanding how these different elements, how they do fit into the big picture.\n\nDo you see that a lot more and more now?  \n\nYes. \n\nIn the last four years or so?  \n\nFour or five years. Essentially it’s gotten larger and there’s not the individual cross--lines of communication that we used to have.\n\nDo you think the Academy is in danger of losing its history through losing so many people or...\n\nNot entirely. I just think that some things will get a little, it will be expensive. There will be a lot of errors and we’ll have to go and redo things that weren’t done or, you know, the glitches.\n\nBecause they didn’t understand the perspective?  \n\nRight.  \n\nSo they’re having to relearn it all?  \n\nRight, and I think (inaudible), it’s pretty well-documented all over the place.\n\nDo you think the organization has an appreciation for the history, for the context?  Or just a case of ignorance or it’s not understanding the importance or...\n\nAll of the above. There’s just no ---- of the history. And people just don’t want to be learning. It’s available, they just need to read it or learn it or even learn the basics of the Academy. People have been here for years and they say I just don’t understand why a doctor would want to belong here. \n\nWell, we’re in trouble if they don’t.  \n\nRight.\n\nFrom your perspective, what do you think the Academy is doing well? What do you think they’re doing well now that maybe they weren’t doing as well when you started? Can you think of anything?\n\nI think there’s more information available on the web. You know, they check their website. So it’s probably the technology, I think is right up there. And also we have our own health website, FamilyDoctor.org. And they are available to anybody. You don’t even have to be a member. And not a lot of associations do that. \n\nWhat do you think the Academy could improve upon? What do you think they’re not doing as well as when you started?\n\nTheir ---- [deficit?] spending. They should never be in a deficit. I think they probably should look more closely at programs and contacts before they assign a fiscal note to it. They should think about it, does it work or do they have the money. It’s like you may like a new Cadillac. But do you think it’s necessary to take you to work? But maybe a Ford would get you there just as well. So that’s kind of an analogy.\n\nAnything else looking back? Comparing the organization, the way it is now with the way it was when you first started?\n\nI think a lot of the social things where people interacted with each other, that was important, that we don’t have anymore. The Christmas card ---- and things like that. I know it’s gotten so large but still, I think it’s important for the different divisions to know each other, even if maybe one division could have a social event or a lunch with another division or something like that. Especially with all the new people, it seems like nobody knows anybody anymore.\n\nAs you’re leaving the Academy after thirty-six years, what kind of advice do you have for the staff and the organization? If you could advise the staff or the Board or anybody, what would you recommend?\n\nRecommend for a change?\n\nWell, you mentioned more social activities, more interaction. Breaking down the barriers between the divisions.  \n\nAnd the hierarchy. Like some of them upstairs, we’ve never even seen them. So probably EVPs that had more visibility where people know who they are and that they might come walking through their area at any time and see what they’re doing firsthand rather than just what a division director tells them somebody is doing this and that.  \n\nThat’s something that was really in evidence when you first started, right?  \n\nYes, all through the years. I mean Dr. Graham, you saw him. And then Roger Tusken and Mac Cahal a lot.\n\nThey pretty much knew everybody in the organization and everybody knew them?  \n\nYes.  \n\nThey could be there at any time?  \n\nIf they couldn’t even remember their name, I mean you wouldn’t know everybody’s name probably. But people at least knew what they looked like without having to look at a picture.\n\nWhat kind of advice would you give to the new employees here, somebody who’s just starting out. Like myself, I’ve only been here three weeks now. What do you think we need to do to be successful in this organization?\n\nI found to get involved. Go to some of the GO programs. Volunteer to be on the Staff Committee or the Wellness Committee. And that’s the way to meet other people and get acquainted with other people. And once you do that…if you just isolate yourself in your own little world, you won’t meet any new people. And then if you meet friends that have been there for a while, they will automatically lead the new employee in the right direction, hopefully. It’s the isolation factor that a lot of employees have not…aren’t that dedicated or loyal anymore to their job.\n\nThat’s something you’ve seen over the years happening?  \n\nYes.\n\nYou also mentioned that you’ve seen a lot of instances where people left and then came back. \n\nYes.  \n\nWhy is that? Why do they want to come back?\n\nThis is in the earlier years and now I’m not so sure that it would be but they went out in the real world, let’s just call it the “real world,” and they expect a lot more in for-profit corporations than you’re used to. Now, I don’t know if this has changed or not over the years. And they were very good with especially support staff, secretaries and whatever. You know, you’re late two or three times and you’re fired. Well, here we wouldn’t have any people left if that happened. There’s just more flexibility (inaudible). They just liked it here because some of the other jobs they had were pretty rough. Some companies then would make them work – they expected some of the management to work seventy, eighty hours a week, where here you don’t do that.\n\nOne thing I forgot to ask: Looking back and looking forward, do you think the Academy as a whole is headed in the right direction? Do you think they’re getting off-track in any way?\n\nI would say they are staying in the right direction. You know, they use technology, electronic health records. And some of the new things they are going to try, like the [?] remains to be seen whether they will be successful or not. Probably a 50/50 chance they may or may not kind of thing.\n\nWhy do you think that is? Why do you think a 50/50 chance?  \n\nI think I’m pretty sure. I mean it’s a new concept. It’s a new idea and if you’ve been true and tried, and even Dr. Henley would say I don’t know whether it will work or not. \n\nWhat are they hoping to accomplish with this - let me ask you that?\n\nMake it so that physicians change their practice, I guess. Have a new model for the way the practice is set up. But I can honestly tell you, I don’t know what’s wrong with the way it’s set up now. So I really don’t know what the new model is going to be or realistically how many family physicians with a secretary, in a group practice or a solo practice, have already set up the office I think they want it. They may come and get new ideas or something. When they were talking about it, I didn’t really understand it. It sounded pretty complex so…but once again, if it wasn’t for failures, there wouldn’t be success.\n\nYou fail sometimes before you... \n\nExactly. All of our great inventions and all of our great people have multiple failures before they were successful. But if they had never tried, they’d never have failed. And if they never failed, they wouldn’t try again and have invented some of these great things we have now.\n\nSo in a sense, it’s kind of a pioneer adventure. It’s kind of like any adventure, there’s kind of a risk. So I can see your point, 50/50 chance. You just never know.  \n\nIt’s not guaranteed so…\n\nIs there anything we haven’t covered? Anything you’d like to address or that we haven’t asked, that maybe we’ve overlooked? Any parting thoughts?\n\nNo, I’d just say the thirty-six years went by very fast, I thought.\n\nThat’s a good sign.  That means you got to ---- yourself.  \n\nSure. Survived it. Now it’s time to do something else.   \n\nWhat are your plans right now? Are you going to move away from the area?\n\nNot right away. We’re going to build a new home up in South Dakota. We’ve got property, ten acres and a house, out in the country. So eventually, realistically as we get older we don’t want to have to mow three acres of grass and fertilize and all that. So we’ll probably sell that house and then buy a motor home. You know, do what we want to do.\n\nGet away and see some of the country?  \n\nYes.  \n\nDo you plan on keeping in touch with any of your former colleagues here?\n\nOh, sure. We’ve known each other years and years.   \n\nAre there still some people here from when you first started?\n\nThere are some that were here before I started. There’s three: Annette Hoel, Katherine Mayfield, and Donna [?]. They were here before me.\n\nIs there still a group of people here that were around when you started in the late 60s, early 70s?\n\nNo. Just some of the older ones, some of the older ones. And some that started in the later 70s, quite a few. It seems like we get these clusters of when people started and they’re still here. Some of them are right around twenty-five years, twenty-seven years, something like that. Because we had a much younger workforce when I first started also. I don’t think there was one employee when I started that was over forty. And now that’s kind of changed too.\n\nHas the workforce gotten a little older?  \n\nYes. That was a stipulation when we hired especially support staff. We didn’t hire anybody of a certain age. Which now we’d need a lawyer, it would be illegal. \n\nYeah, discrimination.  \n\nAnd they had to look a certain way. \n\nWhat about dress code? Was there a dress code back then? No casual Fridays or anything like that?\n\nNo. A suit and tie. Women, high heels. And if their hair was real long, you didn’t want it long. But if it was long, women were supposed to tie it back and put it in a bun – which wouldn’t go over now. And women had to wear makeup. He stressed on the grooming part.\n\nHe was very image conscious, wasn’t he?\n\nYes. Because it was supposed to be a professional association and we were all supposed to be professional. \n\nDo you think the Academy has gotten away from that somewhat?\n\nYes.  \n\nAs far as image goes, do you think the image has slipped over the years?  \n\nIt isn’t anymore like it to be perceived. It was a prestige organization. That prestige – you didn’t hear about that anymore. And of course the way people dressed and things like that projects a certain…you know, the unironed shirts and unironed slacks that have been laying in the dryer for two weeks and things like that just wouldn’t have been accepted. They would have gotten sent home. So I think projects a certain image about a person, you know, to somebody else. They’ll say what does it matter how I dress? It does not affect how I do my job. And my theory is if you went into a doctor’s office and the doctor who takes care of you was dressed like he’d just been out working in the field, you’d probably think I don’t know about this guy. Maybe he hadn’t shaved for a week and had dirty clothes on. So it’s just about the same way. It’s the first appearance that people form their opinion about someone. And that’s how you would groom yourself.\n\nAnd the casual idea would have been kind of unconscionable back when you started?\n\nRight, nobody did that. But that was society then. Now more and more do it, the casual thing. But I’m not quite so sure that it won’t be a cycle to where they will go back to that – high heels for the women, the fitted suits for the women and suits for the men and ties for the men.\n\nOne more question I’m just kind of curious to ask: What do you think the impact the Academy has had on society has been and vice versa? You mentioned all these changes you’ve seen. But obviously society has impacted the way the Academy is operating. But how do you think the Academy has impacted on American society, on the healthcare industry, on medicine in general?\n\nLike I said before, especially in the rural and underserved areas, family physicians provide all the health care in those areas. Most of your cardiologists going up to Lincoln, North Dakota [?] and setting up a little heart deal up there, ----. And those are the only ones that will go to those rural areas and practice medicine – are family doctors. And even in the ---- areas, it’s all family practice are the people that provide the health care. Like I said before, a lot of the subspecialists wouldn’t survive if they didn’t get referrals from family physicians. So I think it’s the type of physician that everybody wants and everybody wants one they’re comfortable with.\n\nI think we talked about just a little bit earlier, do you see that as a phenomenon that’s going to increase, the one-stop shopping you mentioned before for family medicine?\n\nI think so. Like I said before, there was an era when it was a prestige to go to a specialist. Everybody went to a specialist for everything – OB/GYN or whoever. And a lot of them then though a family doctor was just a guy with this black bag that came to your house when you had a cold.\n\n(Recorded conversation ends.)","format":"text/plain"},"target":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284064#t=0.0,3737.93697"}]}]},{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284065","type":"Canvas","label":{"en":["Media File 2 of 2 - Dolen_Phyllis_PT_2_05.wav"]},"duration":3786.67809,"width":640,"height":360,"thumbnail":[{"id":"https://d9jk7wjtjpu5g.cloudfront.net/public/images/audio-default.png","type":"Image","format":"image/png"}],"items":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284065/content/1","type":"AnnotationPage","items":[{"id":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284065/content/2/annotation/1","type":"Annotation","motivation":"painting","body":{"id":"https://aviary-p-centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.s3.wasabisys.com/collection_resource_files/resource_files/000/284/065/original/Dolen_Phyllis_PT_2_05.wav?1754506115","type":"Audio","format":"audio/wav","duration":3786.67809,"width":640,"height":360},"target":"https://centerforthehistoryoffamilymedicine.aviaryplatform.com/collections/2195/collection_resources/154890/file/284065","metadata":[]}]}],"annotations":[]}]}