Re: US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION
Wil Haines
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION
Creator:
Wil Haines
Date:
8/1/1999
Text:
Charlie, what you are really saying here is that the national office,
including all committee members, boards, etc., and legal counsel were not on
top of Delaware legislative changes that affect this important matter, by at
least 10 days, and perhaps many more. Given the almost instant information
available with today's computerized searching, -- particularly for
legislative matters -- it is hard to believe that a legislative change with
this importance was allowed to slide by without notice. This is especially
true after reading the attorney's letter of explanation. Evidently, a bill
was passed earlier in the year by the Delaware Senate with this legislative
change attached to it. If this is true, how could you not be aware of the
pending change? Had the legal firm been on top of this matter, there would
have been time to halt the process and take a more appropriate course. Since
that did not happen, consolidation steering committees, or whomever, were
put into a situation that should never have occurred.
Regardless of the voting outcome, it now appears that there will be more
divisions, not fewer, within the O&P community.
----- Original Message -----
From: < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 12:05 PM
Subject: US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION
> 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 wo
uld
> 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
>
including all committee members, boards, etc., and legal counsel were not on
top of Delaware legislative changes that affect this important matter, by at
least 10 days, and perhaps many more. Given the almost instant information
available with today's computerized searching, -- particularly for
legislative matters -- it is hard to believe that a legislative change with
this importance was allowed to slide by without notice. This is especially
true after reading the attorney's letter of explanation. Evidently, a bill
was passed earlier in the year by the Delaware Senate with this legislative
change attached to it. If this is true, how could you not be aware of the
pending change? Had the legal firm been on top of this matter, there would
have been time to halt the process and take a more appropriate course. Since
that did not happen, consolidation steering committees, or whomever, were
put into a situation that should never have occurred.
Regardless of the voting outcome, it now appears that there will be more
divisions, not fewer, within the O&P community.
----- Original Message -----
From: < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 12:05 PM
Subject: US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION
> 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 wo
uld
> 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
Wil Haines, “Re: US POLITICS: CONSOLIDATION,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/212695.
