Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation Confusion
Tony Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation Confusion
Creator:
Tony Barr
Text:
Gee Bob,no I am not a current member.However, other than ABC certified practitioners risking their image as qualified health care professionals, would consumers not be most effected as the result of this consolidation vote?
Would one of those O&P organizations consider consumers eligible to belong!!! State O&P regulation boards have consumer members!! Let me know I'll start yet another membership catagory. Would I be able to vote?
I have not recieved a package from you ,so I dont know what it says nor would most of the people that read it. I have read some of the web site info you have provided to outsiders. Not real clear,so I am glad you are gratefull for the input and questions I have presented.
Perhaps, as the executive director of the organization that is the driving force behind the consolidation effort, you might be a little clearer in your responses.I thought the OFFICE was receptive to consumer input as they were in New Orleans!
Let me know about that consumer position availability on the board.
Tony Barr
P.S feel free to address our dialoge to all members of the O&P listserve
----------
Mr. Barr,
Are you a member of any of the O&P organizations that are considering
consolidation? Did you receive a packet from us? If not, how do you know
what it says? Thank you for all of your input.
Bob Van Hook
On Tuesday, July 20, 1999 11:57 AM, Tony Barr [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
wrote:
> 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
> > > =================================================
Would one of those O&P organizations consider consumers eligible to belong!!! State O&P regulation boards have consumer members!! Let me know I'll start yet another membership catagory. Would I be able to vote?
I have not recieved a package from you ,so I dont know what it says nor would most of the people that read it. I have read some of the web site info you have provided to outsiders. Not real clear,so I am glad you are gratefull for the input and questions I have presented.
Perhaps, as the executive director of the organization that is the driving force behind the consolidation effort, you might be a little clearer in your responses.I thought the OFFICE was receptive to consumer input as they were in New Orleans!
Let me know about that consumer position availability on the board.
Tony Barr
P.S feel free to address our dialoge to all members of the O&P listserve
----------
Mr. Barr,
Are you a member of any of the O&P organizations that are considering
consolidation? Did you receive a packet from us? If not, how do you know
what it says? Thank you for all of your input.
Bob Van Hook
On Tuesday, July 20, 1999 11:57 AM, Tony Barr [SMTP: <Email Address Redacted> ]
wrote:
> 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
> > > =================================================
Citation
Tony Barr, “Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation Confusion,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212230.
