Wade,
Pardon me for bringing facts into this discussion of recollections on AOPA, ABC, and AAOP.
I have a copy of the Agreement that formed the National Office. It is a three page document and I think anyone can have a copy if they like. (There is also a two page supplemental Agreement dated 17th day of January 1991, when the lease for 1650 King St. was executed.) The original was dated and signed the 5th(fifth) day of February, 1989. The original agreement has three columns and three corresponding lines. I doubt the e-mail format will carry through so I will attempt to put it in line by line;
The first set of numbers will be AOPA ; then ABC ; and ACADEMY, each will be followed by a (%)
Rent $39,446 (53.13) ; $ 17,663 (23.79) ; $17,135 (23.08)
(11.50 psf)
Salaries $584,552 (53.13) ; $261,720 (23.79) ; $253,875 (23.08)
Other $36,965 (50.34) ; $18,520 (25.22) ; $17,949 (24.44)
It is signed by: AOPA President Larry R. Bradshaw
ABC President Gregory S. Gruman, CP
AAOP President John W. Michael, CPO
O&P Nat. Office, Chairman of the Board, Bradley C. Rosenberger, CPO
O&P Nat. Office, Exec. Director, Dr. Ian R. Horen
Now you can draw what you like from this excerpt.
I take it to mean ( from the parenthetical reference to psf / per square foot ) that AOPA took up the most space at 717 Pendleton street. You will also note that ABC’s percentage was a whopping .71% larger than AAOP on the first two lines and .78% on the third. So AOPA saw fit to help the credentialing body and the professional organization. I’m just wondering what the ledger looked like prior to the formation of the National Office, how did the AAOP exists from 1970 to 1989?, they must have been generating some money to be allowed to pay 23.08 to 24.44 % similar to ABC. I’m sure they collected dues, and since 1974 held an annual meeting.
If you like, I will check the minutes of the Academy and see if the board ever discussed a change in the allocation, and voted it down due to financial reasons, or otherwise. I think I have AAOP minutes from 1993 to the present.
I hope these historical facts have been helpful.
Sincerely,
Gary A. Lamb, C.O.
C.O.P.E.
Comprehensive Orthotic – Prosthetic Enterprises
Abilene, Texas
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: THE ACADEMY IS SUBSIDIZED BY AOPA????
Wade,
As a past Secretary/treasurer of ABC I can affirm the veracity of Bob
Brown’s statement about AOPA and ABC subsidizing AAOP. This was done
quite deliberately several years ago to assist AAOP in its growth phase
and has persisted to this day. It was never intended to last forever.
The mechanism by which this is accomplished is to adjust in AAOP’s favor
the formula by which National Office, shared, expenses are allocated
among the three constituent organizations (AAOP, AOPA, and ABC). This is
commonly referred to as the “allocation formula”.
From time to time the formula is adjusted. However due to inadequacies
in the accounting system it has not been possible to do this as
accurately as the leadership would wish. I doubt if anyone could give you
truly satisfactory data on the matter, but I can assure you that what
data that has been available has been interpreted in AAOP’s favor, The
organizations have transitioned to a functional accounting system, and
after this year we will be able to allocate expenses much more accurately
than ever before. At that point it should be possible to give a truly
satisfactory picture of the situation.
The situation is also affected by the fact that a number of functions
formerly shared are going to be borne in the future solely by one
organization or another. For instance AOPA will assume sole
responsibility, expense, and potential profit/loss of publishing The
Almanac. AAOP will assume a similar role with respect to JPO. This change
will occur in Fiscal Year 2000.
When all organizations are confronted by increased demands upon their
resources and increased resistance to raising dues/fees, subsidization of
one organization by another becomes problematic.
C. Pritham
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________ Subject: THE ACADEMY IS SUBSIDIZED BY
AOPA????
Author: [email protected] at internet Date: 3/15/99 1:47 PM
Dear Bob,
The impression that I get from your reply on the political impact of
consolidation is that the academy operates out of the good grace of
AOPA.. Is that the case??? If this is true, than my whole mindset of
consolidation is wrong… I didn’t realize that AOPA subsidized the
ACADEMY…
If the academy cannot be a viable operation without the charitable
contributions from affiliated organizations than by all means we have no
choice but to merge… If what your saying is true, the academy will
fail without the support of AOPA. So we really do have a problem…
either watch the academy whither and die, or merge…. I didn’t realize
this was the case…
I somehow have a problem swallowing such a scenario… As treasurer of
FAOP, I know what it takes to run an association, and I cant imagine that
the academy is not financially viable.. Would it be possible for you to
provide documentation on the amount of subsidy that has been provided to
the academy over the years???
I am looking foreword to see the exact figures on that…
Thanks for your input and concern..
Wade Bader, CPO
Tampa, FL
