Re: U.S. Politics Consolidation
Robert VanHook
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: U.S. Politics Consolidation
Creator:
Robert VanHook
Date:
7/29/1999
Text:
I really empathize with the feelings people are expressing about the change
in the law. It caught everyone by surprise. I think everyone's assumption
was that if 2/3 of the membership of the Academy and AOPA thought
consolidation was a good idea, it probably was. It may still be a good
idea if only a simple majority of those eligible give their consent, but it
would clearly be less of a consensus. Looked at another way, if slightly
less than half of the members think consolidation is a good idea, they are
going to be disappointed when it doesn't happen. Either way, we are all
going to have to find ways to make whatever decision comes out of the
process work for the betterment of the profession and the people served by
it.
For clarification on the effects of the change in Delaware law, I would
again urge you to look at the attorney's letter to the three presidents at
<URL Redacted>. The AOPA
and Academy bylaws are silent on the issue of dissolution. Because the
bylaws are silent on this matter, Delaware law is the rule. We asked the
attorney specifically whether the boards were required to act on the wishes
of the membership if it the consent process meets the letter of the law.
He said that the boards would have no choice but to do so. We asked
specifically if the organizations could impose a 2/3 requirement, and he
said the they could not.
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 Wednesday, July 28, 1999 6:49 PM, R. Okumura
[SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ] wrote:
> Just because the law ONLY requires a simple majority, we as a profession
> do not have to accept this. If it is sucn an important change, doesn't
it
> sit better with all persons involved to make sure that at least 2/3 of
the
> people impacted are moving in the same direction?
>
> what do our respective bylaws require? how was the vote framed: that
only
> the law be satisfied? or that our profession support this change?
>
> Ramona M. Okumura, CP
> Lecturer, Division Prosthetics Orthotics
> Dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, #356490
> School of Medicine
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA 98195-6490 USA
> <Email Address Redacted>
> FAX (206) 598-4761
in the law. It caught everyone by surprise. I think everyone's assumption
was that if 2/3 of the membership of the Academy and AOPA thought
consolidation was a good idea, it probably was. It may still be a good
idea if only a simple majority of those eligible give their consent, but it
would clearly be less of a consensus. Looked at another way, if slightly
less than half of the members think consolidation is a good idea, they are
going to be disappointed when it doesn't happen. Either way, we are all
going to have to find ways to make whatever decision comes out of the
process work for the betterment of the profession and the people served by
it.
For clarification on the effects of the change in Delaware law, I would
again urge you to look at the attorney's letter to the three presidents at
<URL Redacted>. The AOPA
and Academy bylaws are silent on the issue of dissolution. Because the
bylaws are silent on this matter, Delaware law is the rule. We asked the
attorney specifically whether the boards were required to act on the wishes
of the membership if it the consent process meets the letter of the law.
He said that the boards would have no choice but to do so. We asked
specifically if the organizations could impose a 2/3 requirement, and he
said the they could not.
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 Wednesday, July 28, 1999 6:49 PM, R. Okumura
[SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ] wrote:
> Just because the law ONLY requires a simple majority, we as a profession
> do not have to accept this. If it is sucn an important change, doesn't
it
> sit better with all persons involved to make sure that at least 2/3 of
the
> people impacted are moving in the same direction?
>
> what do our respective bylaws require? how was the vote framed: that
only
> the law be satisfied? or that our profession support this change?
>
> Ramona M. Okumura, CP
> Lecturer, Division Prosthetics Orthotics
> Dept. of Rehabilitation Medicine, #356490
> School of Medicine
> University of Washington
> Seattle, WA 98195-6490 USA
> <Email Address Redacted>
> FAX (206) 598-4761
Citation
Robert VanHook, “Re: U.S. Politics Consolidation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 6, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212198.
