Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation
Robert VanHook
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation
Creator:
Robert VanHook
Date:
7/26/1999
Text:
Morris Gallo wrote: There are eight categories of membership, only one
requires ABC
certification. Seven to one is far from 'slim and none'.
In the proposed consolidation, there are eight categories of membership.
Only three have voting privileges: Active Individual members
(ABC-certified orthotists or prosthetists and ABC-Registered Associates);
Active Company members (firms principally engaged in O&P care); and Active
Supplier members (firms principally engaged in providing services or
products to the O&P industry). Currently, there are 1,884 people in the
Academy membership that would meet the Active Individual membership
criteria and 759 AOPA members meeting the Active Company or Supplier member
criteria.
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 25, 1999 11:23 PM, Morris Gallo
[SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ] wrote:
> Zymurgy's First Law---Once you open a can of worms, the only way to
re-can
> them is to use a larger can.
>
> Mr. VanHook
> If you equate non ABC certified practitioners with 'bad guys' so be it,
these
> are your thoughts not mine. As to who will comprise the majority of
voting
> members, that is unknown at this time, but the possibility of non
certified
> persons being in the leadership and being in great numbers is far from
slim
> and none. There are eight categories of membership, only one requires
ABC
> certification. Seven to one is far from slim and none. Either the
proposers
> of the other seven non ABC categories just want to fill the proposed
bylaws
> with useless prose or, they hope that by opening up the membership to non
> certified practitioners and others the new AAOP will be awash in non ABC
> membership dues. Is this how the leadership plans to make O&P's voice
more
> significant, increasing the numbers even if it means diluting the
significance
> of the certification.
>
> As to the bylaws. You made an assertion not supported by the bylaws you
and
> others in leadership have proposed. Is it nit-picking to use the
bylaws you
> are trying to sell the membership as evidence against your statements?
Or is
> it your assertion that you know the bylaws are flawed and nowhere near
perfect,
> so we should not hold them against you or statements you make. If this
is the
> case, why go through the trouble of printing them.
>
> Just so you don't think I am totally against your positions, I heartily
agree
> with your last comment Common sense should rule.. My common sense
tells
> me consolidation does not offer the certified practitioner any benefit
so I am
> voting against.
>
> Remember Nancy Reagan, Just say NO
>
> Morris Gallo, CPO
>
> Robert VanHook wrote:
>
> > All I can say in response to Mr. Gallo is that he should check who will
> > have the overwhelming majority of votes -- certified practitioners and
> > businesses employing them. The chances of one of the bad guys
getting
> > elected is slim and none and slim just left the building.
> >
> > Bylaws are the easiest thing in the world to nit-pick. The bylaws for
the
> > consolidated organization are no worse than any of the existing bylaws.
> > There are always holes and the purpose of having amendment sections is
to
> > fix them. If we are looking for perfection, we need to look somewhere
> > else. Common sense should rule.
> >
> > Bob Van Hook
> >
> > On Monday, July 19, 1999 8:58 PM, Morris Gallo
[SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
> > wrote:
> > > Mr. Van Hook
> > > I believe you are mistaken.
> > >
> > > An Individual Member by definition in Article II (3)(a) is any
member
> > > of
> > > the four categories -- Active (CP/CO/Reg. Associates), Affiliate
> > > Practitioners (BOC, NARD, licensed P/O, foreign P/O, and Emeritus
> > > members),
> > > Affiliate Non Practitioners (honorary members and P/O educators), or
> > > Student/Resident/Candidate members. This means the Individual
Member
> > > of
> > > the new AAOP Board may definitely be non certified.
> > >
> > > You are further mistaken in that there are no Company Members. By
> > > definition, Article II (3)(a + b), the classes of membership are
> > > individual
> > > and business. I believe the Bylaws are also flawed with this
mistake,
> > > see
> > > Article IV (2).
> > >
> > > The Business members of the Board may be from any of the four
> > > categories,
> > > see Article II (3)(b) -- the Active Company (patient care facility
> > > employing at least one ABC certified practitioner, but the
> > > representative
> > > does not need to be certified), the Allied Company (patient care
> > > facility
> > > which may have a practitioner certified by BOC/NARD or no certified
> > > practitioners of any type), Active Suppliers (any firm which sells
> > > parts/supplies/or services to P/O industry, or Company Affiliate (a
> > > division/affiliate/subsidary of any of the above business
categories).
> > >
> > > Additionally, of the four Business Board members each company with
> > > over 200
> > > facilities may EACH elect one Business Board member.
> > >
> > > As to the ABC and NCOPE commissions:
> > > Article I (2)(l) - commission members ...may or may NOT be part of
the
> > > membership....
> > >
> > > Article VII (5) - ABC commission members ... shall be certified, or
> > > registered with ABC in good standing OR a representative of ABC
> > > accredited
> > > organization...
> > >
> > > Article VIII - NCOPE commission members, the wording is the same as
> > > above.
> > >
> > > This means the commission members don't even have to me members of
the
> > > new
> > > AAOP if they represent a member company, and there is certainly no
> > > requirement that commission members be ABC certified.
> > >
> > > The only place ABC certification is required is for Active
individual
> > > membership.
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert VanHook wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ian, et. al.,
> > > >
> > > > Unless I am mistaken, a board member of the consolidated
association
> > must
> > > > be either Individual member (i.e., certified practitioner) or
Company
> > > > members (i.e., owner or employer of an O&P business). ABC and
NCOPE
> > may
> > > > have consumer members of their boards, as is currently the case.
> > > >
> > > > 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 Monday, July 19, 1999 1:56 AM, Ian Gregson
> > > > [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ] wrote:
> > > > > Fellow OandP'ers:
> > > > >
> > > > > Someone mentioned to me in private email that one of the many
reasons
> > > > > for opposition to consolidation is the issue of the board then
being
> > > > > open to non-prosthetist positions.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example a client/amputee could be directly involved in the
> > > > > decision making process via the new consolidated board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this true?
> > > > > =================================================
> > > > > Ian Gregson ( <Email Address Redacted> )
> > > > > Amputee WEB Site <> AMPUTATION Online Magazine
> > > > > <URL Redacted>
> > > > > Moderator Amputee & D-Sport Listservs
> > > > > icq # 27356900
> > > > > =================================================
requires ABC
certification. Seven to one is far from 'slim and none'.
In the proposed consolidation, there are eight categories of membership.
Only three have voting privileges: Active Individual members
(ABC-certified orthotists or prosthetists and ABC-Registered Associates);
Active Company members (firms principally engaged in O&P care); and Active
Supplier members (firms principally engaged in providing services or
products to the O&P industry). Currently, there are 1,884 people in the
Academy membership that would meet the Active Individual membership
criteria and 759 AOPA members meeting the Active Company or Supplier member
criteria.
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 25, 1999 11:23 PM, Morris Gallo
[SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ] wrote:
> Zymurgy's First Law---Once you open a can of worms, the only way to
re-can
> them is to use a larger can.
>
> Mr. VanHook
> If you equate non ABC certified practitioners with 'bad guys' so be it,
these
> are your thoughts not mine. As to who will comprise the majority of
voting
> members, that is unknown at this time, but the possibility of non
certified
> persons being in the leadership and being in great numbers is far from
slim
> and none. There are eight categories of membership, only one requires
ABC
> certification. Seven to one is far from slim and none. Either the
proposers
> of the other seven non ABC categories just want to fill the proposed
bylaws
> with useless prose or, they hope that by opening up the membership to non
> certified practitioners and others the new AAOP will be awash in non ABC
> membership dues. Is this how the leadership plans to make O&P's voice
more
> significant, increasing the numbers even if it means diluting the
significance
> of the certification.
>
> As to the bylaws. You made an assertion not supported by the bylaws you
and
> others in leadership have proposed. Is it nit-picking to use the
bylaws you
> are trying to sell the membership as evidence against your statements?
Or is
> it your assertion that you know the bylaws are flawed and nowhere near
perfect,
> so we should not hold them against you or statements you make. If this
is the
> case, why go through the trouble of printing them.
>
> Just so you don't think I am totally against your positions, I heartily
agree
> with your last comment Common sense should rule.. My common sense
tells
> me consolidation does not offer the certified practitioner any benefit
so I am
> voting against.
>
> Remember Nancy Reagan, Just say NO
>
> Morris Gallo, CPO
>
> Robert VanHook wrote:
>
> > All I can say in response to Mr. Gallo is that he should check who will
> > have the overwhelming majority of votes -- certified practitioners and
> > businesses employing them. The chances of one of the bad guys
getting
> > elected is slim and none and slim just left the building.
> >
> > Bylaws are the easiest thing in the world to nit-pick. The bylaws for
the
> > consolidated organization are no worse than any of the existing bylaws.
> > There are always holes and the purpose of having amendment sections is
to
> > fix them. If we are looking for perfection, we need to look somewhere
> > else. Common sense should rule.
> >
> > Bob Van Hook
> >
> > On Monday, July 19, 1999 8:58 PM, Morris Gallo
[SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
> > wrote:
> > > Mr. Van Hook
> > > I believe you are mistaken.
> > >
> > > An Individual Member by definition in Article II (3)(a) is any
member
> > > of
> > > the four categories -- Active (CP/CO/Reg. Associates), Affiliate
> > > Practitioners (BOC, NARD, licensed P/O, foreign P/O, and Emeritus
> > > members),
> > > Affiliate Non Practitioners (honorary members and P/O educators), or
> > > Student/Resident/Candidate members. This means the Individual
Member
> > > of
> > > the new AAOP Board may definitely be non certified.
> > >
> > > You are further mistaken in that there are no Company Members. By
> > > definition, Article II (3)(a + b), the classes of membership are
> > > individual
> > > and business. I believe the Bylaws are also flawed with this
mistake,
> > > see
> > > Article IV (2).
> > >
> > > The Business members of the Board may be from any of the four
> > > categories,
> > > see Article II (3)(b) -- the Active Company (patient care facility
> > > employing at least one ABC certified practitioner, but the
> > > representative
> > > does not need to be certified), the Allied Company (patient care
> > > facility
> > > which may have a practitioner certified by BOC/NARD or no certified
> > > practitioners of any type), Active Suppliers (any firm which sells
> > > parts/supplies/or services to P/O industry, or Company Affiliate (a
> > > division/affiliate/subsidary of any of the above business
categories).
> > >
> > > Additionally, of the four Business Board members each company with
> > > over 200
> > > facilities may EACH elect one Business Board member.
> > >
> > > As to the ABC and NCOPE commissions:
> > > Article I (2)(l) - commission members ...may or may NOT be part of
the
> > > membership....
> > >
> > > Article VII (5) - ABC commission members ... shall be certified, or
> > > registered with ABC in good standing OR a representative of ABC
> > > accredited
> > > organization...
> > >
> > > Article VIII - NCOPE commission members, the wording is the same as
> > > above.
> > >
> > > This means the commission members don't even have to me members of
the
> > > new
> > > AAOP if they represent a member company, and there is certainly no
> > > requirement that commission members be ABC certified.
> > >
> > > The only place ABC certification is required is for Active
individual
> > > membership.
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert VanHook wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ian, et. al.,
> > > >
> > > > Unless I am mistaken, a board member of the consolidated
association
> > must
> > > > be either Individual member (i.e., certified practitioner) or
Company
> > > > members (i.e., owner or employer of an O&P business). ABC and
NCOPE
> > may
> > > > have consumer members of their boards, as is currently the case.
> > > >
> > > > 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 Monday, July 19, 1999 1:56 AM, Ian Gregson
> > > > [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ] wrote:
> > > > > Fellow OandP'ers:
> > > > >
> > > > > Someone mentioned to me in private email that one of the many
reasons
> > > > > for opposition to consolidation is the issue of the board then
being
> > > > > open to non-prosthetist positions.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example a client/amputee could be directly involved in the
> > > > > decision making process via the new consolidated board.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this true?
> > > > > =================================================
> > > > > Ian Gregson ( <Email Address Redacted> )
> > > > > Amputee WEB Site <> AMPUTATION Online Magazine
> > > > > <URL Redacted>
> > > > > Moderator Amputee & D-Sport Listservs
> > > > > icq # 27356900
> > > > > =================================================
Citation
Robert VanHook, “Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212217.
