US Politics Consolidation
Description
Collection
Title:
US Politics Consolidation
Date:
1/18/1999
Text:
In a message Joe Corideo States:
I still haven't received answers to my very simple questions - who
prompted the discussion again begin on consolidation? When did this
person (and it has to boil down to one person) decide it was best for
everybody to consolidate? And how much is this all going to cost the
organizations?
Perhaps the best response I can give is to review the chronology
and process by how we have arrived at the present position.
For several years prior to 1997, dissatisfaction had been growing
among the boards of directors of AAOP, ABC, and AOPA about the National
Office function (NOF). This applies to the NOF as distinct to the
individual organizations themselves (AAOP, ABC, etc.). This
dissatisfaction related to growth of staff (the NOF has been the fastest
growing entity in the national office), increased expense of the NOF, and
quality of service by the NOF to the constituent organizations. Concern
was also growing about a lack of responsiveness and accountability. These
issues center on some very touchy matters with dangerous legal
implications, so I would prefer not to elaborate.
Matters finally came to a head at the AOPA meeting in 1997
(Charlotte NC) and it was decided to conduct a service audit of the NOF.
Plans for this audit were refined at a consensus conference conducted in
December of 1997. Present were the executive committees of AAOP, ABC,
AOPA, and NCOPE. It was agreed that this was to be a far ranging, no
holds barred inquiry. A consultant from KPMG Peat Marwick, one of the
large accounting/consulting firms, was retained to conduct the audit.
The report of the consultant was received by the audit committee at
the AAOP meeting in Miami in March of 1998. The recommendations of this
committee (composed of members from ALL the organizations) were forwarded
to ALL the boards of directors of ALL the organizations. The boards
individually reviewed the recommendations and instructed their
representatives to the National Office board of directors on how they
wished to proceed. They ALL agreed that while short term fixes were
needed in the NOF, they ALL wished to pursue the matter of consolidation.
An announcement to this affect was made at the AAOP business meeting by
the president Bob Brown and subsequently published.
It might be mentioned in passing that the consultant's
recommendation was to consolidate, the fourth such consultant over the
years that has so recommended.
From Miami until the AOPA meeting in Chicago, the attention of the
organizations' executive directors and Don Holmes, chairman of the
National Office board of directors, was consumed with addressing the
problems unearthed in the NOF. Again, there are tricky issues involved.
The boards of the various organizations met separately in Chicago
at the AOPA meeting and reviewed the situation. They then met
collectively to formulate a common position. At that Meeting the majority
of ALL the board members of ALL the organizations voted to continue to
pursue consolidation. It was agreed to hold a consensus conference in
December of 1998.
That meeting has already been alluded to but ALL the board members
(do you begin to sense a pattern here?) of ALL the organizations were
invited. Only one or two were not able to attend. The meeting was an open
one and an invitation for concerned individuals to attend was issued.
Some individuals elected to participate. Unfortunately, a number if
individuals whose opinion would have been valuable choose not to
participate.
The purpose of the meeting was to give everybody a chance to air
their concerns and issues and to similarly hear the concerns and issues
of all the other participants. The feeling was that this airing of
concerns would be a good representation of the concerns of the membership
at large and that the information gathered would be valuable in drafting
the bylaws and structure of any new organization. The MAJORITY in
attendance voted in favor of continuing with consolidation.
That pretty well brings us up to the present. The steering
committee, comprised of the presidents and immediate past presidents of
ALL the organizations met in the National Office last week to review the
draft bylaws formulated by the executive directors of AAOP, ABC, AOPA,
and NCOPE. This draft is being revised and will be reviewed again by the
steering committee. Once this process is completed the results will be
communicated to the membership.
While I personally don't know all the details, it is my
understanding that open debate and discussion about the matter will occur
at the AAOP meeting in New Orleans. If the decision is made there to
proceed then the plan calls for in person presentations at CECs, state
and regional meeting, and any other venues possible. Plans also call for
informational articles and other means to disseminate information about
the matter. A committee to assist Robin Seabrook, Exec Director of NCOPE,
in this communication effort was named last week.
The membership of AAOP and AOPA will vote on the issue in the late
summer early fall.
In short, the duly elected leadership of AAOP, ABC, and ABC decided
to pursue consolidation. It was a collective decision, not the decision
of one person. Again I remind you that in doing so the leadership is
pursuing its responsibility to draft recommendations that is feel best
address the problems confronting the field. The final decision rests with
the membership of AAOP and AOPA, not the leadership.
I don't have a definitive answer as to how much this is costing us.
Thus far though, most meetings about the matter have occurred at
regularly scheduled meetings of the organizations (Miami, Chicago, etc.).
C. Pritham
I still haven't received answers to my very simple questions - who
prompted the discussion again begin on consolidation? When did this
person (and it has to boil down to one person) decide it was best for
everybody to consolidate? And how much is this all going to cost the
organizations?
Perhaps the best response I can give is to review the chronology
and process by how we have arrived at the present position.
For several years prior to 1997, dissatisfaction had been growing
among the boards of directors of AAOP, ABC, and AOPA about the National
Office function (NOF). This applies to the NOF as distinct to the
individual organizations themselves (AAOP, ABC, etc.). This
dissatisfaction related to growth of staff (the NOF has been the fastest
growing entity in the national office), increased expense of the NOF, and
quality of service by the NOF to the constituent organizations. Concern
was also growing about a lack of responsiveness and accountability. These
issues center on some very touchy matters with dangerous legal
implications, so I would prefer not to elaborate.
Matters finally came to a head at the AOPA meeting in 1997
(Charlotte NC) and it was decided to conduct a service audit of the NOF.
Plans for this audit were refined at a consensus conference conducted in
December of 1997. Present were the executive committees of AAOP, ABC,
AOPA, and NCOPE. It was agreed that this was to be a far ranging, no
holds barred inquiry. A consultant from KPMG Peat Marwick, one of the
large accounting/consulting firms, was retained to conduct the audit.
The report of the consultant was received by the audit committee at
the AAOP meeting in Miami in March of 1998. The recommendations of this
committee (composed of members from ALL the organizations) were forwarded
to ALL the boards of directors of ALL the organizations. The boards
individually reviewed the recommendations and instructed their
representatives to the National Office board of directors on how they
wished to proceed. They ALL agreed that while short term fixes were
needed in the NOF, they ALL wished to pursue the matter of consolidation.
An announcement to this affect was made at the AAOP business meeting by
the president Bob Brown and subsequently published.
It might be mentioned in passing that the consultant's
recommendation was to consolidate, the fourth such consultant over the
years that has so recommended.
From Miami until the AOPA meeting in Chicago, the attention of the
organizations' executive directors and Don Holmes, chairman of the
National Office board of directors, was consumed with addressing the
problems unearthed in the NOF. Again, there are tricky issues involved.
The boards of the various organizations met separately in Chicago
at the AOPA meeting and reviewed the situation. They then met
collectively to formulate a common position. At that Meeting the majority
of ALL the board members of ALL the organizations voted to continue to
pursue consolidation. It was agreed to hold a consensus conference in
December of 1998.
That meeting has already been alluded to but ALL the board members
(do you begin to sense a pattern here?) of ALL the organizations were
invited. Only one or two were not able to attend. The meeting was an open
one and an invitation for concerned individuals to attend was issued.
Some individuals elected to participate. Unfortunately, a number if
individuals whose opinion would have been valuable choose not to
participate.
The purpose of the meeting was to give everybody a chance to air
their concerns and issues and to similarly hear the concerns and issues
of all the other participants. The feeling was that this airing of
concerns would be a good representation of the concerns of the membership
at large and that the information gathered would be valuable in drafting
the bylaws and structure of any new organization. The MAJORITY in
attendance voted in favor of continuing with consolidation.
That pretty well brings us up to the present. The steering
committee, comprised of the presidents and immediate past presidents of
ALL the organizations met in the National Office last week to review the
draft bylaws formulated by the executive directors of AAOP, ABC, AOPA,
and NCOPE. This draft is being revised and will be reviewed again by the
steering committee. Once this process is completed the results will be
communicated to the membership.
While I personally don't know all the details, it is my
understanding that open debate and discussion about the matter will occur
at the AAOP meeting in New Orleans. If the decision is made there to
proceed then the plan calls for in person presentations at CECs, state
and regional meeting, and any other venues possible. Plans also call for
informational articles and other means to disseminate information about
the matter. A committee to assist Robin Seabrook, Exec Director of NCOPE,
in this communication effort was named last week.
The membership of AAOP and AOPA will vote on the issue in the late
summer early fall.
In short, the duly elected leadership of AAOP, ABC, and ABC decided
to pursue consolidation. It was a collective decision, not the decision
of one person. Again I remind you that in doing so the leadership is
pursuing its responsibility to draft recommendations that is feel best
address the problems confronting the field. The final decision rests with
the membership of AAOP and AOPA, not the leadership.
I don't have a definitive answer as to how much this is costing us.
Thus far though, most meetings about the matter have occurred at
regularly scheduled meetings of the organizations (Miami, Chicago, etc.).
C. Pritham
Citation
“US Politics Consolidation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/211183.
