Re: thoughts re: what should have happened
Jeff Yakovich
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: thoughts re: what should have happened
Creator:
Jeff Yakovich
Date:
3/10/2004
Text:
Ralph,
Your comments are appreciated. In a nutshell, the negociating teams for
both ABC and BOC met in Baltimore on Jan. 12 to discuss points of
unification. A second meeting was also set for Jan. 19. The Jan. 12
meeting went so well that the second meeting was cancelled. During the Jan.
12 meeting, a number of points were mutually agreed upon and a number of
points needed further discussion. We were extremely encouraged after the
first meeting because points that we felt were critical were agreed upon.
This is what opened the door for further discussion.
During subsequent written correspondence, the BOC negociating team refused
to stand behind the points they originally agreed to. We gave them numerous
chances to reconsider and follow through with what they originally agreed
to. There is a long history of these exact type of actions. With a lack of
agreement on what we felt were CRITICAL issues, negociations were suspended
by the ABC. Our decision was put to a board vote and the vote was unanimous
to discontinue negociations and procede with our alternate plan for
unification. Unification of our field was and is our ultimate goal.
Thaanks for your thoughts.
Jeffrey J. Yakovich, CO
ABC Secretary Treasurer
----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph W. Nobbe < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:30 AM
Subject: [OANDP-L] thoughts re: what should have happened
> Dear List,
> Ted and Sam both hit it on the head. Serving on any volunteer board is a
> thankless task. The ABC board made a difficult and unpopular decision
> knowing full well that they would be subject to repercussions and flak
from
> friends an colleagues.
>
> I wholeheartedly support(ed) the ABC/BOC unification. There is too thick
of
> an alphabet soup. This field is too small and under-represented to have as
> many organizations as we do. None can be clearly differentiated by the
> regulatory agencies. They come out ahead when we battle amongst ourselves.
>
> The energy spent on this one divisive issue could have been much better
> spent in other areas. The physical therapists in California have again
today
> (03/09/04) introduced expanded scope of practice legislation which
includes
> some orthotic services. COPA beat them the last time not sure what this
new
> bill entails currently in legislative review at COPA.
> (I think they are reading/subscribing to this list serve as well-be REALLY
> stupid not to - the timing of this PT bill is really interesting).
>
> My request from the ABC board is only that they provide timely information
> out to the constituency. I received my BOC invitation the day after I
> received the ABC announcement. The BOC letter also spelled out and
detailed
> the areas of disagreement according to the BOC. Since I saw no other
> communiqué from the ABC I could only assume that they concur. Had I not
> watched this list serve and waded through all these emails, I would still
be
> wondering what the h### happened here? Still have yet to receive any other
> info from the ABC or details other than what has been posted here on this
> list serve.
>
> I do support the ABC board decision, I can only assume they had
information
> that we have not and as Ted and Sam both stated made the decision based
upon
> rational evaluation of that information with the knowledge that they would
> probably get tarred and feathered. Not an easy position and not an
enviable
> one... but necessary.
>
> My thanks to the board for making what I hope is the right decision on
> behalf of this field to benefit patient care.
>
> How about more communication outward and what are the future steps re:
> National licensing? state licensing? Qualified provider status?
>
> Respectfully,
> Ralph W. Nobbe, CPO
>
>
>
> **********CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT**********
>
> This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may
be
> legally privileged. It is intended for the use of the individual or
entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or agent responsible
for
> delivering or copying of this communication, you are hereby notified that
> any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error,
then
> delete it. Thank you
>
>
Your comments are appreciated. In a nutshell, the negociating teams for
both ABC and BOC met in Baltimore on Jan. 12 to discuss points of
unification. A second meeting was also set for Jan. 19. The Jan. 12
meeting went so well that the second meeting was cancelled. During the Jan.
12 meeting, a number of points were mutually agreed upon and a number of
points needed further discussion. We were extremely encouraged after the
first meeting because points that we felt were critical were agreed upon.
This is what opened the door for further discussion.
During subsequent written correspondence, the BOC negociating team refused
to stand behind the points they originally agreed to. We gave them numerous
chances to reconsider and follow through with what they originally agreed
to. There is a long history of these exact type of actions. With a lack of
agreement on what we felt were CRITICAL issues, negociations were suspended
by the ABC. Our decision was put to a board vote and the vote was unanimous
to discontinue negociations and procede with our alternate plan for
unification. Unification of our field was and is our ultimate goal.
Thaanks for your thoughts.
Jeffrey J. Yakovich, CO
ABC Secretary Treasurer
----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph W. Nobbe < <Email Address Redacted> >
To: < <Email Address Redacted> >
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:30 AM
Subject: [OANDP-L] thoughts re: what should have happened
> Dear List,
> Ted and Sam both hit it on the head. Serving on any volunteer board is a
> thankless task. The ABC board made a difficult and unpopular decision
> knowing full well that they would be subject to repercussions and flak
from
> friends an colleagues.
>
> I wholeheartedly support(ed) the ABC/BOC unification. There is too thick
of
> an alphabet soup. This field is too small and under-represented to have as
> many organizations as we do. None can be clearly differentiated by the
> regulatory agencies. They come out ahead when we battle amongst ourselves.
>
> The energy spent on this one divisive issue could have been much better
> spent in other areas. The physical therapists in California have again
today
> (03/09/04) introduced expanded scope of practice legislation which
includes
> some orthotic services. COPA beat them the last time not sure what this
new
> bill entails currently in legislative review at COPA.
> (I think they are reading/subscribing to this list serve as well-be REALLY
> stupid not to - the timing of this PT bill is really interesting).
>
> My request from the ABC board is only that they provide timely information
> out to the constituency. I received my BOC invitation the day after I
> received the ABC announcement. The BOC letter also spelled out and
detailed
> the areas of disagreement according to the BOC. Since I saw no other
> communiqué from the ABC I could only assume that they concur. Had I not
> watched this list serve and waded through all these emails, I would still
be
> wondering what the h### happened here? Still have yet to receive any other
> info from the ABC or details other than what has been posted here on this
> list serve.
>
> I do support the ABC board decision, I can only assume they had
information
> that we have not and as Ted and Sam both stated made the decision based
upon
> rational evaluation of that information with the knowledge that they would
> probably get tarred and feathered. Not an easy position and not an
enviable
> one... but necessary.
>
> My thanks to the board for making what I hope is the right decision on
> behalf of this field to benefit patient care.
>
> How about more communication outward and what are the future steps re:
> National licensing? state licensing? Qualified provider status?
>
> Respectfully,
> Ralph W. Nobbe, CPO
>
>
>
> **********CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT**********
>
> This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may
be
> legally privileged. It is intended for the use of the individual or
entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or agent responsible
for
> delivering or copying of this communication, you are hereby notified that
> any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error,
then
> delete it. Thank you
>
>
Citation
Jeff Yakovich, “Re: thoughts re: what should have happened,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 25, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/222826.
