Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!
Bobvanhook
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!
Creator:
Bobvanhook
Text:
In a message dated 98-03-03 21:19:02 EST, you write:
<< At 02:50 PM 3/3/98 EST, you wrote:
><< In an earlier message, I wrote: AOPA currently has a Structure
Commission
>that is looking into these and other membership issues, such as: Shouldn't
>the Big Three pay a larger percentage of the total AOPA dues? Shouldn't
they
>also have more votes? We're not talking control here - we're talking basic
>value and fairness. >>
>
AOPA is structured like the Senate, not the House. I for one believe that
the big three already essentially control AOPA. They do this by subsidizing
their staff members to hold office in the organization. Few small practices
could afford the time and expense of holding those offices. By virtue of
controlling the administrative decision making process the big three set the
agenda and control to direction of AOPA without ever needing to cast a vote.
You are right about AOPA being structured more like the Senate than the House.
Although, I would argue it is like a combination of the two. AOPA has about
850 voting members and just over 1900 facilities (including suppliers). The
board is composed of 10 people, so that's one rep for every 85 votes or one
rep for every 190 facilities. How many more representatives would the Board
need to have to be more like the House?
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.
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.
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. And, just for the record, can you give me an example
of one policy decision that the AOPA board has made that has be contrary to
the interests of small O&P facilities?
We are already divided into two organizations. The NAAOP offers an
energetic alternative to AOPA. I currently belong to both but if you
increase the power of the national corporations I will leave AOPA promptly
and feel comfortable that I will never be missed.
You are wrong there. AOPA would miss you and the energy that you give to the
association. Don't give up.
>Maybe we haven't communicated well with the field about what our priorities
>are, although I think we are doing a better job recently of telling our
>members and others what we are doing.
I've been communicated to until I'm ready to puke. The problem is it's
all volume and no data. Frankly I'm not very interested in being told what
a good job you're doing for me. Just tell me what you have done and let me
decide if it's good or not.
In that vein, the Almanac is a laughing stock. O&P Business News out
classes you for content and timeliness both. If you have any doubts take a
look at your classified revenues. I'm very tired of hearing about all the
awards that it has won. All that tells me is that someone is spending a lot
of time on my nickel nominating themselves for meaningless (to me) awards.
But they are building themselves a very nice resume.
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.
>
>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.
> 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.
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?
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
>>
<< At 02:50 PM 3/3/98 EST, you wrote:
><< In an earlier message, I wrote: AOPA currently has a Structure
Commission
>that is looking into these and other membership issues, such as: Shouldn't
>the Big Three pay a larger percentage of the total AOPA dues? Shouldn't
they
>also have more votes? We're not talking control here - we're talking basic
>value and fairness. >>
>
AOPA is structured like the Senate, not the House. I for one believe that
the big three already essentially control AOPA. They do this by subsidizing
their staff members to hold office in the organization. Few small practices
could afford the time and expense of holding those offices. By virtue of
controlling the administrative decision making process the big three set the
agenda and control to direction of AOPA without ever needing to cast a vote.
You are right about AOPA being structured more like the Senate than the House.
Although, I would argue it is like a combination of the two. AOPA has about
850 voting members and just over 1900 facilities (including suppliers). The
board is composed of 10 people, so that's one rep for every 85 votes or one
rep for every 190 facilities. How many more representatives would the Board
need to have to be more like the House?
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.
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.
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. And, just for the record, can you give me an example
of one policy decision that the AOPA board has made that has be contrary to
the interests of small O&P facilities?
We are already divided into two organizations. The NAAOP offers an
energetic alternative to AOPA. I currently belong to both but if you
increase the power of the national corporations I will leave AOPA promptly
and feel comfortable that I will never be missed.
You are wrong there. AOPA would miss you and the energy that you give to the
association. Don't give up.
>Maybe we haven't communicated well with the field about what our priorities
>are, although I think we are doing a better job recently of telling our
>members and others what we are doing.
I've been communicated to until I'm ready to puke. The problem is it's
all volume and no data. Frankly I'm not very interested in being told what
a good job you're doing for me. Just tell me what you have done and let me
decide if it's good or not.
In that vein, the Almanac is a laughing stock. O&P Business News out
classes you for content and timeliness both. If you have any doubts take a
look at your classified revenues. I'm very tired of hearing about all the
awards that it has won. All that tells me is that someone is spending a lot
of time on my nickel nominating themselves for meaningless (to me) awards.
But they are building themselves a very nice resume.
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.
>
>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.
> 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.
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?
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
Bobvanhook, “Re: The Big 3 have more votes? NOT!!,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 4, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/210503.
