I am not one of the “insiders” at the national office. I can certainly
understand the scenario that Mr. Lunsford has put forth. I am a rank and file
member of the profession, and a dues paying member of all 3 national groups.
I feel that each paid executive has a right to be proud of the work they do,
and the group they individually represent. That same independence or “ego”
that Mr. Lunsford describes, will work in each organizations benefit when
they work independently of each other. The way I see it, let them compete,
let them have issues of difference, let them have issues in common, but let
them stand for individual sector of the industry they represent.
It reminds me of the joke about the brain, the heart and the A-hole, (I think
we have all heard that one), the point is, that they are each important. They
each have their respective place in this industry body!
This is long overdue….
Question to anyone: if the ego’s were so lofty and combative, than why did
they push to consolidate? If consolidation had passed, who would have won the
ego battle and been left in charge? was there a “winner take all” mentality
in our individual executives or would the ego’s have been appeased, and a new
friendly atmosphere been created? I don’t know if anyone has a definitive
answer on these questions, but it is my feeling that two of the three would
have walked. If that happened, we, as an industry, would be left with one
really big ego, industry and profession in hand. That would be a very bad
situation for most of us.
Sincerely,
Wade Bader, LPO
Tampa, FL
