US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION
Description
Collection
Title:
US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION
Date:
7/30/1999
Text:
With respect to the points made by Joe Elliott and Harold Anderson in their
email's of 7/29/99 suggesting abiding by the 2/3s requirement, the steering
committee considered just that. As the bylaws of AAOP and AOPA are silent on the
matter, we are bound by the prevailing Delaware statute. The statute was
changed, July 1, prior to the ballots being mailed out, July 10. To hold to the
2/3s requirement, the bylaws of the two organizations would have to be amended,
by fundamentally the same process we are currently engaged in or a business
meeting of the membership This takes at least 9 months. First, however, we
would have to put aside the results or the current voting process. This would
probably cause somebody or other to cry foul and file suit. . After we survived
ALL that, then we would have to repeat the current vote. Legal counsel strongly
advised that we not set aside the results of the present vote. I fully believe
that nobody considers the scenario outlined above a practical course. One way
or another lets hold the course and get it over with.
Randy MacFarland's post of the same day makes two point that perhaps bear
comment. In that email he stressed the importance of voting regardless of the
perceived politics. The word perceived is aptly chosen. Believe it or not, and
I know full well that there are those fully willing to call me a liar if I told
the sun rises in the east, the leadership has not tried to play political games
with this issue or any other issue. We have tried to develop a strategy that we
believe has the best prospect of addressing the long term needs of all involved.
We have also sought to be as open and forthcoming with all available information
as promptly as possible. We could have waited until after the deadline and said,
Oh by the way..., but we didn't. If we had we would have been guilty of gaming
the matter. Legal counsel told us as soon as he learned of the change, and
recommended that the membership needed to know about is as soon as possible.
Delay was never considered.
As I say, I know that there are those who believe none of this, but the
rest may wish to consider the following point.
The leadership has been wrestling with this matter in one way or another
since December of 1997. The furor caused by the change in Delaware law was fully
predictable, and foreseen when we met by conference call to consider how to
approach it. Having worked as long and as hard as we have over consolidation,
why would we engage in so transparent a ploy and one so manifestly likely to
jeopardize the long term success of the new association? It really doesn't
benefit anyone to work so long and hard on a long term project just to throw it
away at t he last minute by a cheap short term win.
The second point that Mr. MacFarland makes is the need to vote, and he
is absolutely right. Now more that ever everyone eligible should vote. A
close decision, yes or no, just isn't good enough. All concerned deserve a
definitive reading on the matter.
If you are opposed to consolidation, by all means, vote NO. if you favor
it, vote yes. Urge everyone you know to vote. At this point the future of the
field lies in your hands.
Charles H. Pritham, CPO, FAAOP
Immed. Past Pres. ABC
email's of 7/29/99 suggesting abiding by the 2/3s requirement, the steering
committee considered just that. As the bylaws of AAOP and AOPA are silent on the
matter, we are bound by the prevailing Delaware statute. The statute was
changed, July 1, prior to the ballots being mailed out, July 10. To hold to the
2/3s requirement, the bylaws of the two organizations would have to be amended,
by fundamentally the same process we are currently engaged in or a business
meeting of the membership This takes at least 9 months. First, however, we
would have to put aside the results or the current voting process. This would
probably cause somebody or other to cry foul and file suit. . After we survived
ALL that, then we would have to repeat the current vote. Legal counsel strongly
advised that we not set aside the results of the present vote. I fully believe
that nobody considers the scenario outlined above a practical course. One way
or another lets hold the course and get it over with.
Randy MacFarland's post of the same day makes two point that perhaps bear
comment. In that email he stressed the importance of voting regardless of the
perceived politics. The word perceived is aptly chosen. Believe it or not, and
I know full well that there are those fully willing to call me a liar if I told
the sun rises in the east, the leadership has not tried to play political games
with this issue or any other issue. We have tried to develop a strategy that we
believe has the best prospect of addressing the long term needs of all involved.
We have also sought to be as open and forthcoming with all available information
as promptly as possible. We could have waited until after the deadline and said,
Oh by the way..., but we didn't. If we had we would have been guilty of gaming
the matter. Legal counsel told us as soon as he learned of the change, and
recommended that the membership needed to know about is as soon as possible.
Delay was never considered.
As I say, I know that there are those who believe none of this, but the
rest may wish to consider the following point.
The leadership has been wrestling with this matter in one way or another
since December of 1997. The furor caused by the change in Delaware law was fully
predictable, and foreseen when we met by conference call to consider how to
approach it. Having worked as long and as hard as we have over consolidation,
why would we engage in so transparent a ploy and one so manifestly likely to
jeopardize the long term success of the new association? It really doesn't
benefit anyone to work so long and hard on a long term project just to throw it
away at t he last minute by a cheap short term win.
The second point that Mr. MacFarland makes is the need to vote, and he
is absolutely right. Now more that ever everyone eligible should vote. A
close decision, yes or no, just isn't good enough. All concerned deserve a
definitive reading on the matter.
If you are opposed to consolidation, by all means, vote NO. if you favor
it, vote yes. Urge everyone you know to vote. At this point the future of the
field lies in your hands.
Charles H. Pritham, CPO, FAAOP
Immed. Past Pres. ABC
Citation
“US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212242.
