Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!
Ted A. Trower
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!
Creator:
Ted A. Trower
Date:
3/4/1998
Text:
Bob - While I have no intention of silencing this thread just yet, our
friend from Brisbane was correct that my tone was a little rude, my
apologies in that regard.
At 08:53 AM 3/4/98 EST, you wrote:
>
>Your comment regarding the control of AOPA by the larger members raises a
>problem that all representative democracies share. Look at the composition of
>the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and you will see that most of
>them are wealthy. If you don't believe that, you can at least agree that
>there aren't many working people in their ranks. I would hold that AOPA's
>board does a better job at being representative of its members than most
>organizations. Of the ten board members, 5 are from smaller firms, 1 from a
>large firm, 1 from a university based O&P company, 2 from medium sized firms,
>and one supplier. The commitments that these men make in taking on the job of
>being a volunteer leader is enormous. While AOPA pays their expenses, they
>incur opportunity costs every time they spend time working on AOPA issues --
>regardless of their company size. I will grant you that the larger companies
>can afford it easier than the very small ones, but it is still a significant
>cost and commitment.
>
There would be two representative of large firms, but for the grassroots
uprising that put Ronney Snell on the board. Out of 650 members that would
be a overlarge percentage for the big three. Of the 650 how many are
supplier firms?
>I can say without equivocation that the people on this board are the most
>committed people I have ever seen on a board of directors. This shouldn't
>strike me as unusual, though, because I find more genuine commitment in the
>O&P field than I've seen in any other part of the health care industry. All
>of these men are there because they feel an obligation to give something back
>to the field that has been so good to them and their families. I hear this
>over and over.
>
I'm in agreement here. It is not my wish to make a blanket complaint
regarding the actions of the board members. My concern is that the large
firms are in a position to exert influence beyond their board positions and
you have raised to possibility of expanding that influence.
>Responsibility in a democracy is a two-way street. Leaders have to listen and
>members have to talk. It has to be a dialogue. I challenge you and your
>colleagues to call your AOPA regional representative or any of the officers
>and tell them about something that concerns you. Or contact me if you prefer.
>I guarantee you that your concern won't fall on deaf ears. We may not be able
>to fix the problem, but at least your concern will be in the mix of ideas with
>the others that we hear.
Actually I am an AOPA regional board member. Truth is that the AOPA regions
seem to have a very small role in AOPA activities.
>Point well taken. The Almanac is a magazine, and serves a very different
>purpose from O&P Business News. I wish I had been here before O&P Business
>News existed. It filled a void that shouldn't have existed if AOPA had had
>its ear to the ground. Actually, I feel that the same is true with NAAOP.
>What I'm trying to say here is that we are trying to earn your confidence
>back. It will take time, but at least you can be sure that we're working on
>it.
>
Confidence is like trust it is given freely only once. After it is lost
earning it back is very difficult.
One suggestion regarding the Almanac, Cut your costs and time by doing away
with the custom artwork on the cover. A Readers Digest type cover with the
contents clearly displayed would be a big improvement. This would also send
the message that the content is what is important, not the style in which it
is delivered.
> >How would you feel if you were a bigger member company paying 20 times the
> >dues of a smaller independent company, but had only one vote?
>
> How do those dues compare as a percentage of retained earnings? I think
> maybe I should start demanding votes commensurate with my sacrifice.
>
> A good point on retained earnings. Maybe we can look into it. Sacrifice,
>you have to tell me how we'd implement that criterion.
Sacrifice in terms of what percentage of my income do I surrender as dues.
I suspect that my percentage is a lot higher than that of the big three even
though they pay a much higher dollar figure.
>
> > And remember
> >that the three larger companies are fierce competitors. There is little
> >reason to think they would vote as a block.
>
> Are you really that naive? I doubt it.
>
>Sticks and stones.... Yes, if that's naive, I am. I really believe that Ivan
>Sabel, CPO (HOG's CEO) has less in common with NovaCare than with Ronney
>Snell, CPO. Like I said before. I think the differences among the various
>O&P firms is more one of culture than size.
>
Not intended as an insult, just an expression of doubt that the big three
would not see some issues alike.
It is true that the corporate culture of Hanger is much different than that
of Novacare. Yet they both need large numbers of employees and prefer lower
salaries. Any action that empowers the labor pool to open their own
practice would be opposed by both. I don't doubt that Mr Sable has more in
common with Ronney than with John Foster. Just remember how Ronney got on
the board in the first place. I can't see a similar movement occurring to
support a Hanger candidate.
> No one is suggesting a change in
> >the fundamental balance of power in voting -- just leveling the playing
>field
> >a bit and adding a little democracy.
> >
>
> Lets see....I'm rich so I get more votes.....Yup that's a democracy alright!
>
>Is it democratic to have one vote for one facility and one vote for 300
>facilities?
>
When AOPA was established as an organization of companies no one could have
imagined a single company with 300 facilities. Let's ask it another way.
Would the dynamic strength and creativity of AOPA be enhanced by giving 800
votes to the big three and maybe 1000 to the rest of us? I doubt it. It
would be devisive beyond tolerance for many of our members. The branch
facilities take their orders from the corporate office. They would likewise
get their instructions on how to vote on AOPA matters. Is it rational to
invite 1150 puppet votes to the meeting? Holding AOPA together requires
that both parties have a voice. To increase the voting power of the
corporate giants would leave many independents feeling powerless.
Ted A. Trower C.P.
A-S-C Orthotics & Prosthetics
Jackson, Michigan, USA
<Email Address Redacted>
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is today
friend from Brisbane was correct that my tone was a little rude, my
apologies in that regard.
At 08:53 AM 3/4/98 EST, you wrote:
>
>Your comment regarding the control of AOPA by the larger members raises a
>problem that all representative democracies share. Look at the composition of
>the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and you will see that most of
>them are wealthy. If you don't believe that, you can at least agree that
>there aren't many working people in their ranks. I would hold that AOPA's
>board does a better job at being representative of its members than most
>organizations. Of the ten board members, 5 are from smaller firms, 1 from a
>large firm, 1 from a university based O&P company, 2 from medium sized firms,
>and one supplier. The commitments that these men make in taking on the job of
>being a volunteer leader is enormous. While AOPA pays their expenses, they
>incur opportunity costs every time they spend time working on AOPA issues --
>regardless of their company size. I will grant you that the larger companies
>can afford it easier than the very small ones, but it is still a significant
>cost and commitment.
>
There would be two representative of large firms, but for the grassroots
uprising that put Ronney Snell on the board. Out of 650 members that would
be a overlarge percentage for the big three. Of the 650 how many are
supplier firms?
>I can say without equivocation that the people on this board are the most
>committed people I have ever seen on a board of directors. This shouldn't
>strike me as unusual, though, because I find more genuine commitment in the
>O&P field than I've seen in any other part of the health care industry. All
>of these men are there because they feel an obligation to give something back
>to the field that has been so good to them and their families. I hear this
>over and over.
>
I'm in agreement here. It is not my wish to make a blanket complaint
regarding the actions of the board members. My concern is that the large
firms are in a position to exert influence beyond their board positions and
you have raised to possibility of expanding that influence.
>Responsibility in a democracy is a two-way street. Leaders have to listen and
>members have to talk. It has to be a dialogue. I challenge you and your
>colleagues to call your AOPA regional representative or any of the officers
>and tell them about something that concerns you. Or contact me if you prefer.
>I guarantee you that your concern won't fall on deaf ears. We may not be able
>to fix the problem, but at least your concern will be in the mix of ideas with
>the others that we hear.
Actually I am an AOPA regional board member. Truth is that the AOPA regions
seem to have a very small role in AOPA activities.
>Point well taken. The Almanac is a magazine, and serves a very different
>purpose from O&P Business News. I wish I had been here before O&P Business
>News existed. It filled a void that shouldn't have existed if AOPA had had
>its ear to the ground. Actually, I feel that the same is true with NAAOP.
>What I'm trying to say here is that we are trying to earn your confidence
>back. It will take time, but at least you can be sure that we're working on
>it.
>
Confidence is like trust it is given freely only once. After it is lost
earning it back is very difficult.
One suggestion regarding the Almanac, Cut your costs and time by doing away
with the custom artwork on the cover. A Readers Digest type cover with the
contents clearly displayed would be a big improvement. This would also send
the message that the content is what is important, not the style in which it
is delivered.
> >How would you feel if you were a bigger member company paying 20 times the
> >dues of a smaller independent company, but had only one vote?
>
> How do those dues compare as a percentage of retained earnings? I think
> maybe I should start demanding votes commensurate with my sacrifice.
>
> A good point on retained earnings. Maybe we can look into it. Sacrifice,
>you have to tell me how we'd implement that criterion.
Sacrifice in terms of what percentage of my income do I surrender as dues.
I suspect that my percentage is a lot higher than that of the big three even
though they pay a much higher dollar figure.
>
> > And remember
> >that the three larger companies are fierce competitors. There is little
> >reason to think they would vote as a block.
>
> Are you really that naive? I doubt it.
>
>Sticks and stones.... Yes, if that's naive, I am. I really believe that Ivan
>Sabel, CPO (HOG's CEO) has less in common with NovaCare than with Ronney
>Snell, CPO. Like I said before. I think the differences among the various
>O&P firms is more one of culture than size.
>
Not intended as an insult, just an expression of doubt that the big three
would not see some issues alike.
It is true that the corporate culture of Hanger is much different than that
of Novacare. Yet they both need large numbers of employees and prefer lower
salaries. Any action that empowers the labor pool to open their own
practice would be opposed by both. I don't doubt that Mr Sable has more in
common with Ronney than with John Foster. Just remember how Ronney got on
the board in the first place. I can't see a similar movement occurring to
support a Hanger candidate.
> No one is suggesting a change in
> >the fundamental balance of power in voting -- just leveling the playing
>field
> >a bit and adding a little democracy.
> >
>
> Lets see....I'm rich so I get more votes.....Yup that's a democracy alright!
>
>Is it democratic to have one vote for one facility and one vote for 300
>facilities?
>
When AOPA was established as an organization of companies no one could have
imagined a single company with 300 facilities. Let's ask it another way.
Would the dynamic strength and creativity of AOPA be enhanced by giving 800
votes to the big three and maybe 1000 to the rest of us? I doubt it. It
would be devisive beyond tolerance for many of our members. The branch
facilities take their orders from the corporate office. They would likewise
get their instructions on how to vote on AOPA matters. Is it rational to
invite 1150 puppet votes to the meeting? Holding AOPA together requires
that both parties have a voice. To increase the voting power of the
corporate giants would leave many independents feeling powerless.
Ted A. Trower C.P.
A-S-C Orthotics & Prosthetics
Jackson, Michigan, USA
<Email Address Redacted>
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is today
Citation
Ted A. Trower, “Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/210501.
