Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation
Morris Gallo
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation
Creator:
Morris Gallo
Date:
7/25/1999
Text:
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
> > > > =================================================
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
Morris Gallo, “Re: US POLITICS - Consolidation,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 5, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212244.
