Re: Consolidation
Robert VanHook
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Consolidation
Creator:
Robert VanHook
Date:
7/19/1999
Text:
Morris Gallo wrote: I didn't see a proposed major reduction in staff.
There will continue to be four separate Boards, each meeting independently
with their members being reimbursed for travel and expenses.
There wasn't a major reduction in staff for two reasons: 1. Members are
requesting more and better service for their dues dollars, and staff is
here to make it happen. 2. Several functions are already consolidated in
the current National Office structure like accounting, payroll, MIS, office
administration, phones, customer service, etc. Therefore, there are fewer
easy staff reductions to be gained by consolidation. What we can do
through consolidation is improve the services and streamline their
delivery, resulting in more accountability in administrative systems and
better services for our members.
Your second comment about there being four boards envisioned by
consolidation is incorrect. Currently AAOP, ABC, AOPA, NCOPE , the
Athletic Fund and the National Office have boards. Under consolidation,
there would be only one board that would replace the Academy, AOPA and N.O.
boards.
By the way, the ABC board has non-practitioners on it today. Consolidation
makes very little (perhaps, no) change in the composition of the ABC
board/commission.
Bob
Robert T. Van Hook, CAE
Executive Director
American Orthotic and Prosthetic Association
1650 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703/836-7116
Fax: 703/836-0838
Email: <Email Address Redacted>
Webpage: www.opoffice.org
On Sunday, July 18, 1999 1:17 AM, Morris Gallo [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
wrote:
> ATTENTION ABC CERTIFIED PRACTITIONERS
>
> If you are a member of AAOP or AOPA you have a chance to vote against
> consolidation. If on the other hand you are only a lowly practitioner
> member of ABC you don't get a vote! ABC's Board knows what's best for
> you.
>
> Those in power have spent a tremendous amount of money and effort to
> convince those who can vote that consolidation is best for the
> profession. I am not convinced, and the fact the national organization
> is trying sooo hard makes me suspicious.
>
> Consolidation will blur the distinction between practitioner and
> manufacturers, making us all members of a trade association rather
> then of a professional society. Supposedly ABC and NCOPE will be
> autonomous, but the proposed bylaws do not demonstrate this to be so.
> ABC and NCOPE's Board of Commissioners may not consist of only ABC
> certified practitioners, but instead will be able to include non
> certified and even those certified by competing organizations. These
> board's makeup will determine the future of the education and training
> required for ABC certification. Commissioners who have never practiced
> or those who opted for other then ABC certification as the easy way out
> will probably not deem education and training as essential to quality of
> care, especially if it interferes with corporate profits.
>
> The national organization says consolidation will make the national
> office more efficient and economical. They have presented no factual
> evidence to show they will reduce staff and/or expenditures, nor have
> they proposed any information to support the potential for a successful
> outcome.
>
> The national office say consolidation will increase our voice and
> presence in federal and state government. HUH? Consolidation will not
> make new members miraculously appear, unless the new commissioners
> either lower the standards for certification or allow inclusion of
> practitioners from other certifying bodies such as BOC or NARD.
> Additionally, the perception that there are four independent
> organizations, with different memberships, representing different
> aspects of the P&O field will now longer exist. The goals of AAOP and
> AOPA are not always similar and may in fact be in opposition. This
> diversity will be lost with consolidation, there will only be the party
> line.
>
> The national office hired some bean counters to evaluate how to make
> the organization more efficient and financially sound. If you assume
> there are four groups with equal purposes and representing essentially
> the same people then consolidation would make sense. You could fire at
> least 50% of the paid staff and dispense with the redundant directors.
> This is not what the bylaws propose. I didn't see a proposed major
> reduction in staff. There will continue to be four separate Boards,
> each meeting independently with their members being reimbursed for
> travel and expenses. How will consolidation save money. Even if it
> could be shown that consolidation would substantially reduce expenses
> the underlying assumption of four groups of equal purpose is flawed, so
> the consolidation into a single entity with four disparate purposes is
> impossible.
>
> If you want to be considered as a tradesman vote for consolidation, if
> you consider yourself an allied health professional with the attendant
> rights and responsibilities you should vote AGAINST consolidation. If
> you can't vote because you are not a member of AAOP or AOPA but know of
> practitioners who may, voice your concerns.
>
> I have attached an email by John Billock and a comprehensive evaluation
> of the original proposed bylaws for added information.
>
> Morris Gallo, CPO
> << File: ATT00018.html >> << File: Billock.txt >> << File: Bylaw
analysis.txt >>
There will continue to be four separate Boards, each meeting independently
with their members being reimbursed for travel and expenses.
There wasn't a major reduction in staff for two reasons: 1. Members are
requesting more and better service for their dues dollars, and staff is
here to make it happen. 2. Several functions are already consolidated in
the current National Office structure like accounting, payroll, MIS, office
administration, phones, customer service, etc. Therefore, there are fewer
easy staff reductions to be gained by consolidation. What we can do
through consolidation is improve the services and streamline their
delivery, resulting in more accountability in administrative systems and
better services for our members.
Your second comment about there being four boards envisioned by
consolidation is incorrect. Currently AAOP, ABC, AOPA, NCOPE , the
Athletic Fund and the National Office have boards. Under consolidation,
there would be only one board that would replace the Academy, AOPA and N.O.
boards.
By the way, the ABC board has non-practitioners on it today. Consolidation
makes very little (perhaps, no) change in the composition of the ABC
board/commission.
Bob
Robert T. Van Hook, CAE
Executive Director
American Orthotic and Prosthetic Association
1650 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703/836-7116
Fax: 703/836-0838
Email: <Email Address Redacted>
Webpage: www.opoffice.org
On Sunday, July 18, 1999 1:17 AM, Morris Gallo [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
wrote:
> ATTENTION ABC CERTIFIED PRACTITIONERS
>
> If you are a member of AAOP or AOPA you have a chance to vote against
> consolidation. If on the other hand you are only a lowly practitioner
> member of ABC you don't get a vote! ABC's Board knows what's best for
> you.
>
> Those in power have spent a tremendous amount of money and effort to
> convince those who can vote that consolidation is best for the
> profession. I am not convinced, and the fact the national organization
> is trying sooo hard makes me suspicious.
>
> Consolidation will blur the distinction between practitioner and
> manufacturers, making us all members of a trade association rather
> then of a professional society. Supposedly ABC and NCOPE will be
> autonomous, but the proposed bylaws do not demonstrate this to be so.
> ABC and NCOPE's Board of Commissioners may not consist of only ABC
> certified practitioners, but instead will be able to include non
> certified and even those certified by competing organizations. These
> board's makeup will determine the future of the education and training
> required for ABC certification. Commissioners who have never practiced
> or those who opted for other then ABC certification as the easy way out
> will probably not deem education and training as essential to quality of
> care, especially if it interferes with corporate profits.
>
> The national organization says consolidation will make the national
> office more efficient and economical. They have presented no factual
> evidence to show they will reduce staff and/or expenditures, nor have
> they proposed any information to support the potential for a successful
> outcome.
>
> The national office say consolidation will increase our voice and
> presence in federal and state government. HUH? Consolidation will not
> make new members miraculously appear, unless the new commissioners
> either lower the standards for certification or allow inclusion of
> practitioners from other certifying bodies such as BOC or NARD.
> Additionally, the perception that there are four independent
> organizations, with different memberships, representing different
> aspects of the P&O field will now longer exist. The goals of AAOP and
> AOPA are not always similar and may in fact be in opposition. This
> diversity will be lost with consolidation, there will only be the party
> line.
>
> The national office hired some bean counters to evaluate how to make
> the organization more efficient and financially sound. If you assume
> there are four groups with equal purposes and representing essentially
> the same people then consolidation would make sense. You could fire at
> least 50% of the paid staff and dispense with the redundant directors.
> This is not what the bylaws propose. I didn't see a proposed major
> reduction in staff. There will continue to be four separate Boards,
> each meeting independently with their members being reimbursed for
> travel and expenses. How will consolidation save money. Even if it
> could be shown that consolidation would substantially reduce expenses
> the underlying assumption of four groups of equal purpose is flawed, so
> the consolidation into a single entity with four disparate purposes is
> impossible.
>
> If you want to be considered as a tradesman vote for consolidation, if
> you consider yourself an allied health professional with the attendant
> rights and responsibilities you should vote AGAINST consolidation. If
> you can't vote because you are not a member of AAOP or AOPA but know of
> practitioners who may, voice your concerns.
>
> I have attached an email by John Billock and a comprehensive evaluation
> of the original proposed bylaws for added information.
>
> Morris Gallo, CPO
> << File: ATT00018.html >> << File: Billock.txt >> << File: Bylaw
analysis.txt >>
Citation
Robert VanHook, “Re: Consolidation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 27, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212001.
