Re: consolidation

Re: consolidation

Wade;

As for reducing redundancy, the current system is cumbersome at best. It is
not the national office staff or management system that brings me to this
conclusion. It is the divided boards, objectives and missions. When it is
necessary for these groups to work together the structure makes it nearly
impossible to act decisively or promptly. Each group must return to its board
for approval of every project or portion of a multifaceted project. In some
cases individual boards have OWNERSHIP of a project and are reluctant to
share strategies, personnel or finances. All these resources come out of one
source the practitioners, suppliers and practitioner/owners of our profession.
Common sense tells me the best and brightest of each generation and each
segment of our divided memberships ought to be able to design a professional
organization which is inclusive and focused upon the best interests and
combined needs of our professionals, businesses and manufacturers.

On cost reduction, it would be all rosie and peachy, for those who believe
consolidation is the best way to approach the future in O&P, to say cost will
be Greatly Reduced. However, I believe this is the wrong way to view the
significance of consolidation. In my opinion, costs to Academy and current
AOPA members will be slightly reduced. Costs to the average ABC certifee will
be controlled by ABC, and those practitioners will need to choose whether or
not they want to be a part of this new combined organization. Despite our
best efforts 30-40% of eligible ABC practitioners never saw the value in being
an Academy member. I suspect (though I hope otherwise) that number will
remain constant. Ultimately, costs will rise just as they will under the
current structure or under separate but associated or separate and alienated
organizations. I suspect the rise will be slowed within a consolidated
structure and will be offset by inherent value realized by combining and
focusing our efforts. However, that is my personal opinion.

Thanks for your time.

Bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a message dated 1/31/99 3:42:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, <Email Address Redacted>
writes:

<<

Comment: It seems that the primary reason for this initiative is to make the
system more efficient by reducing the redundancy of the current management
design. Keep in mind this is the same premise that brought the world -
COMMUNISM - which was a profound failure. I'm not suggesting that our
decision will have the same consequences of a change to a societies political
system, just that in many, many instances, the best laid plans of very wise
men have had implications that were never anticipated. Usually these
implications turn out to be for the worse.

 Question: I am a member of AAOP, and AOPA, and ABC... with the extra
 efficiency that the national office will experience, will this be reflected
in
 the reduction of the cost of my overall dues?? Or will the lack of
 competition actually create an environment of inefficiency that over time
 will lead to a cost increase??
  >>