Re: US Politics: Consolidation

Re: US Politics: Consolidation

John Billock

01/30/99 - E-Mail Response
Subject: US Politics: Consolidation
From: John N. Billock, CPO
To: Ronney R. Snell, CPO, President AOPA
=======================================================


R. Snell, CPO - << Dear John,

I’d like to begin my response to your recent email with the reminder
that I hold you in the highest regard, both personally and professionally.
We have known each other a long time and I value you as a
well-respected friend. Your opinions are important to me, though we
may not always agree. >>

MY RESPONSE: Dear Ronney,

I was very pleased to openly discuss your posted concerns with you
personally over the phone yesterday. More importantly, I was pleased
to share with you the mutual personal and professional respect I, too,
have for you and your opinions! Again, I assure you, I took no offense
to any of your comments or opinions you shared in our personal
conversation or your e-mail. I truly cherish the mutual respect and
admiration we have always had for one another, regardless of our
differences of opinion.

As we discussed, and in the spirit of encouraging open dialogue, I
would respond openly to the points and issues of contention raised in
your post as follows:


R. Snell, CPO - << I was not actively seeking re-election when I ran
for President of AOPA. The majority of the individuals who
encouraged me to enter the race are your peers; the younger members
of AOPA. However, after many years as an active member, I must set
the record straight by telling you that the AOPA you describe no longer
exists, has not existed for quite some time, and perhaps never existed.
>>

MY RESPONSE: I most certainly agree..... you were drug back into
the AOPA political arena 2 years ago by a generation of concerned
“younger members” and much in the same manner that I was 6 years
ago in the Academy. I’m not sure I fit the “younger” category with my
gray and balding head....... but I’ll accept that! There is, however, no
question in my mind that the same individuals who brought you and me
back to the surface of O&P politics came from much the same group
and with the same issues of concern. Therefor, I cannot totally agree
that the AOPA I described “perhaps never existed”. I will certainly and
openly admit that following our conversation, my perspective on AOPA
and its direction have changed for the positive! Ronney, I would have
to say that’s largely due to your influence, as well as the respected
confidence I have in your word, which I feel is also shared my many
others.


R. Snell, CPO - << Professionals in the field of prosthetics and
orthotics were involved in governmental relations before AOPA was
conceived. It was the profession itself which made the decision early
on that AOPA should carry on this function. These were the same
individuals which established the Academy during this same time
frame. These were good decisions to support the growth of the
profession at that time. >>

MY RESPONSE: As we discussed, I have absolutely no argument
with AOPA being the government relations entity of our profession and
rightfully so. Although I am well aware my intentions on behalf of the
Academy were often misunderstood with respect to the Academy
getting involved in the government relations, it was never my intention
that it should compete with AOPA. The Academy does, however, have
a responsibility to be involved! That level of involvement, on my part,
was never intended to be more than a voice which would assure the
representation of professional issues of concern by its member
practitioners and in support of their ABC credentials.


R. Snell, CPO - << You are mistaken when you charge that AOPA
does not utilize all of it’s resources. The working relationship with
AAOP has continuously improved with Tom Gorsky as the E.D. The
Academy has helped us with attendance at the Annual Policy Forum.
Five young members, who I believe are all also Academy members,
have important positions on AOPA committees. This conslidation was
not initiated by AOPA, but rather by the National Office Executive
Committee where AOPA had only one vote of three and Don Holmes
was chair. This action was also recommended by two separate outside
consultant firms. >>

MY RESPONSE: Based on your clarifications and our telephone
conversation, I stand corrected on the above points. I was very pleased
to hear of the increased interactions being facilitated by the Academy’s
relatively new Executive Director in the area of government relations
over the past 2 years. I would also have to say, however, that as the
Chairman of the Academy’s Professional Issues Council and its
Sub-Committees up to December 1, 1998 (the day you took office as
AOPA President) there were no inter-active communications underway
between the Academy’s PIC and AOPA’s government relations
committees. I trust this too is changing or will begin to change soon!

I appreciate your clarification of where the initiative for consolidation
occurred and given that, it would be helpful for someone to clarify the
functions of the former O&P National Office Executive Committee and
its new counterpart. I also appreciate your verification that there were
only two (2) independent studies which recommended consolidation, as
I was only aware of 2 such studies over the past decade. The one which
led to ACPORS and the KMPG audit/study which led to the current
initiative. Possibly the results and/or outcomes of these studies could
be presented in some way acceptable to our respective members.
Possibly, even the complete Reports could somehow be made readily
available if someone wished to read “all” the details. I personally am
not aware of what level of public distribution these two documents
have already had.


R. Snell, CPO - << I’d also like to address the issue of the impact of
the “big two”. While we have more affiliates and fewer full members,
our numbers have not decreased. Our financial surplus grows in spite
of using its earnings to keep dues down. In fact, the dues of the small
independent practitioner decreased this year. The dues of the affiliates
were increased. The “big two” aren’t pulling out. They wish to stay
and are paying more to do so. One dues payment alone was for over
$75,000. >>

MY RESPONSE: I appreciate your clarification of the shift from full
membership to affiliate membership as it relates to the acquisition
trend in our profession and your assurances that AOPA is financially
sound because of the restructuring of how dues are paid during our
telephone conversation, and in support of Mike Schuch’s 1/19/99 post.
I wonder, however, how many truly understand the changes or
restructuring of membership dues? I also appreciate your assurances
and Mike’s that -- “The “big two” aren’t pulling out” -- and are
committed to supporting AOPA. I can only hope that in some way they
could do the same with the Academy, as they certainly did have an
impact on the Academy’s membership and income a few years back.
Also, I would like to clarify that it was not my intention to single out
just NovaCare or Hanger as they are only two (2) of several other larger
O&P corporate groups growing by acquisition. Singularly or
collectively, their corporate decisions obviously have an impact on all
of our national O&P organizations.


R. Snell, CPO - <<AOPA is not struggling. We frankly are quite well
organized. With our successes in government, and improved
educational efforts by the Academy, I would have to say the sum of the
whole is greater than it ‘s two parts. The cost of the meeting was
negligible for AOPA we had to have a board meeting. We merely
stayed over after the conference. >>

MY RESPONSE: I stand corrected on AOPA’s financial stability
and successes in the area of government relations, as previously stated
and confirmed in our telephone conversation. I also sincerely
appreciate your recognition of whatever role the Academy has played
in this. As, I do not want there to be any confusion on my non-support
of the consolidation concept........ I would rephrase the last part of
sentence 3 above to read: I would have to say the sum of the whole is
greater “because of” its two parts. Regarding my opinion/comment on
the overall cost of the Consolidation Consensus Conference -- I would
have to stick to my guns! However, I will concede that from the stand
point of bringing all of the organizations together to work collectively
on a major internal or external issue, maybe it was a worthwhile lesson
in cooperative interaction!! >>

R. Snell, CPO - << John, I wish you had come to the conference and
that we would have had a chance to discuss your concerns. In the
absence of attending the conference, I wish that you would have called
to personally discuss these issues before sending a statement through
email. I would have rather have discussed it differently than this. If
consolidation does or does not occur, my personal feelings for you will
not have changed. The process to this point has helped AOPA and
AAOP work together., a process beneficial to all. >>

MY RESPONSE: Ronney, I do not feel I need to defend my
reason(s) for not attending the Conference. When I became aware of
the rebirth of a consolidation effort, I did make my opinions and
objections to the process known in conversations with Don Holmes,
CPO, then Chairman of the National Office Executive Committee. I
also, shared those opinions initially with Academy President, Bill
Schumann, CPO, and, shortly thereafter, to the entire Academy Board
and our Executive Director. I expected that my comments and opinions
would be shared with our sister organizations and at the Conference
and trust that they were. If not, I am surprised that they weren’t, as I
did not indicate that they were confidential, and especially knowing
how information (private or not) gets circulated in our small profession.
I publicly apologize for not sharing them directly with you and I will
forward to you my entire post to the Academy Board. I also openly
apologize if I offended you or anyone on the AOPA Board as my
intentions are and still are to encourage open discussion. I trust that
anyone who knows me well enough or as well as you do..... will always
know where I stand on an issue. I would like to feel I am always open
to criticism and willing to change or accept any errors in judgment.


R. Snell, CPO - << I am not asking that you change your position. I
know that your choices are made from your heart. But, I do ask that
you re-evaluate your position on AOPA. It, too, is life’s blood for the
profession of Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Ronney >>

MY RESPONSE: I apologize if I have misled anyone to think that I
do not value the role of AOPA within the O&P profession, as I truly
respect AOPA’s significance and importance to the survival of the
profession. AOPA’s role however is distinctly different from that of
the Academy’s! Both are in my opinion, equally important!! AOPA’s
certainly may be more tangible from a regulatory and financial
perspective. The Academy’s, however, is equally important from the
stand point of assuring that the professional, clinical and technical
needs of practitioners are being met and are consistent with the level of
need in today’s practice of Orthotics and Prosthetics.

I feel very strongly the Academy, to many ABC practitioners, is more
about the “warm and fuzzy” things of being recognized as a true
professional. It provides an emotional bond to this wonderful
profession of ours and has become a special link between us and the
individuals who seek out the quality of care that is the hallmark of the
ABC practitioner. Unfortunately, as we see many of the positive
aspects of our profession shrink away to cold and uncaring regulations
of managed care, the Academy provides individual practitioners one of
the few positive aspects of being an O&P practitioner practicing in the
US today. Beyond everything else I stated in my original post of
1/17/99, I say, let’s not take that away!

Let’s not divide the profession with the complexities of consolidation
and work towards more cooperative initiatives between our national
organizations. If the operation of our O&P national office
administrative structure is broken and not functioning, lets direct our
attentions to that end and, again, not the complexities of all the issues
and emotions surrounding consolidation. If consolidation is to occur.....
let it happen by evolution and not revolution...... we will all appreciate
it better! If there is a true crisis leading us to do this.... then someone
please define it!!

Ronney, I really don’t know what else to say, other than, again, I
appreciate your response to my post. I can only hope that others will
come forward with constructive opinions, Board members included,
which will better define their opinions “for” or “against” consolidation
and not simply attack what you, I or anyone else has said.

With my sincerest regards!!.......... John

========================================================

In a message dated 1/28/99 10:20:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, RonnySnell
writes:

<< Subj: (no subject)
 Date: 1/28/99 10:20:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
 From: RonnySnell
 To: JNBillock
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (Mike Schuch)
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (Bill DeToro)
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (Tom Watson)
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (Dave Schultz)
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (Jeff Kingsley)
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (Ivan Sabel)
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (BillTeague)
 CC: <Email Address Redacted> (Bob VanHook)

 File: AOPALE~2.DOC (25088 bytes)
 DL Time (32000 bps): < 1 minute >>


January 27, 1999

Dear John,

I’d like to begin my response to your recent email with the reminder that I
hold you in the highest regard, both personally and professionally. We have
known each other a long time and I value you as a well-respected friend.
Your opinions are important to me, though we may not always agree.

I was not actively seeking re-election when I ran for President of AOPA. The
majority of the individuals who encouraged me to enter the race are your
peers; the younger members of AOPA. However, after many years as an active
member, I must set the record straight by telling you that the AOPA you
describe no longer exists, has not existed for quite some time, and perhaps
never existed.

Professionals in the field of prosthetics and orthotics were involved in
governmental relations before AOPA was conceived. It was the profession
itself which made the decision early on that AOPA should carry on this
function. These were the same individuals which established the Academy
during this same time frame. These were good decisions to support the growth
of the profession at that time.

You are mistaken when you charge that AOPA does not utilize all of it’s
resources. The working relationship with AAOP has continuously improved with
Tom Gorsky as the E.D. The Academy has helped us with attendance at the
Annual Policy Forum. Five young members, who I believe are all also Academy
members, have important positions on AOPA committees. This conslidation was
not initiated by AOPA, but rather by the National Office Executive Committee
where AOPA had only one vote of three and Don Holmes was chair. This action
was also recommended by two separate outside consultant firms.

I’d also like to address the issue of the impact of the “big two”. While we
have more affiliates and fewer full members, our numbers have not decreased.
Our financial surplus grows in spite of using its earnings to keep dues down.
In fact, the dues of the small independent practitioner decreased this year.
The dues of the affiliates were increased. The “big two” aren’t pulling out.
They wish to stay and are paying more to do so. One dues payment alone was for
over $75,000.

AOPA is not struggling. We frankly are quite well organized. With our
successes in government, and improved educational efforts by the Academy, I
would have to say the sum of the whole is greater than it ‘s two parts. The
cost of the meeting was negligible for AOPA we had to have a board meeting. We
merely stayed over after the conference.

John, I wish you had come to the conference and that we would have had a
chance to discuss your concerns. In the absence of attending the conference,
I wish that you would have called to personally discuss these issues before
sending a statement through email. I would have rather have discussed it
differently than this. If consolidation does or does not occur, my personal
feelings for you will not have changed. The process to this point has helped
AOPA and AAOP work together., a process beneficial to all.

I am not asking that you change your position. I know that your choices are
made from your heart. But, I do ask that you re-evaluate your position on
AOPA. It, too, is life’s blood for the profession of Prosthetics and
Orthotics.

Ronney >>
-----------------