Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation
Creator:
Tony Barr
Text:
Any reasonable intelligent person can determine that there has been a gross lack of accurate and comprehensive information passed on to the members regarding the details of the consolidation.This in itself is a motivating reason to vote 'No on the current proposal.
If members do not vote at all because of this confusion and lack of accurate information, the results are likely to be regretable for years to come. I don't think it is unreasonable to vote No until all details and financial particulars are better explained.
Clearer and more concise information needs to be dissemenated properly to its members before such an important decision can be made. Once that has been completed everyone can intelligently make their decision based on facts ,not a indivisual's interuptation of the by-laws! Perhaps as a non-professional , I can see clearer. The non professional multiple membership catagories alone is a real problem in determining who is or who may run the show.
This and other details of the by-laws should be defined clearly before any certified practitioner professional makes such a important decision.
Anthony Barr
Consumer
----------
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
> > =================================================
If members do not vote at all because of this confusion and lack of accurate information, the results are likely to be regretable for years to come. I don't think it is unreasonable to vote No until all details and financial particulars are better explained.
Clearer and more concise information needs to be dissemenated properly to its members before such an important decision can be made. Once that has been completed everyone can intelligently make their decision based on facts ,not a indivisual's interuptation of the by-laws! Perhaps as a non-professional , I can see clearer. The non professional multiple membership catagories alone is a real problem in determining who is or who may run the show.
This and other details of the by-laws should be defined clearly before any certified practitioner professional makes such a important decision.
Anthony Barr
Consumer
----------
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
Tony Barr, “Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212221.
