Earlier this week I attempted to send responses to messages of Joe
Carrideo and Wayne Renardson. For some reason they apparently were not
were not transmitted. I am trying to send them again via this posting.
The first message was in response to Joe Carrideo’s comment about
railroading and the second was about Renardson’s about undue influence on
ABC.
In passing I may mention that I have just returned from a meeting
of the steering committee at the National Office. This group, composed of
the presidents, presidents elect, and immediate past presidents of AAOP,
ABC, and AOPA along with representatives from NCOPE, was tasked with the
responsibility of shepherding the issue through the process of gaining
board and membership approval. We meet to review the initial draft of the
proposed bylaws and to work on the communication plan. Much remains to be
done but the goal is to get as much solid information out to people as
soon as we can. Draft bylaws are to be prepared and circulated in advance
of the AAOP meeting in New Orleans so that they can be commented on by
membership and then revised. A communications committee was drafted from
the steering committee and more should be expected on this front.
The original messages follow.
Message 1
As immediate past president of ABC, one who has participated in the
discussions about consolidation over the last year, and an advocate of it
let me state categorically that there is no intent to “railroad”
anything. The final decision about consolidation rests squarely in the
hands of the membership of AAOP and AOPA. If you have any doubts about
that, read the bylaws.
However the elected leadership has the responsibility of putting
before the membership its best recommendations for action to be taken by
the membership to insure the future health and effectiveness of the
organization(s). That is precisely what the leadership is doing.
There is duplication of effort, inefficiency, and confused lines of
authority in our present structure(s). Al Pike has described it as being
analogous to the checks and balances of the three parts of the federal
government. No one ever described the federal government as a model of
efficiency or cost effectiveness.
In the present organization of the National Office, the checks and
balance work so well that it is fair to say that a state of grid lock
prevails. Each of the various parties commands some of the resources to
address the external issues confronting us. None of them command all the
resources. To develop and implement a plan of common action can take
approval from as many as FIVE different boards of directors and their
associated executive committees. It can take as much as a year to
negotiate a common position. This is luxury we cannot afford. Unless you
have been there and participated in the process it is extremely difficult
to appreciate the true depths of the problem. I know that it requires an
act of faith to accept this as the truth but believe me, it really is so.
In the past few years AAOP and AOPa have come to focus on two
issues education and government relations. To have two organizations
doing the same thing for the same group of people (us) is inefficient and
duplicative. Particularly as neither is as effective as one organization
marshaling the resources that both command could be. Superimpose the
National Office Board of Directors on top of them and the situation gets
even worse.
The leadership of the organizations has come to the conclusion that
change is necessary. They are in the process of trying to develop a plan
that they hope will be accepted by the membership. The hope is to make
the process as open and as inclusive as possible. To that end there have
been notices about the process in the various organs available to
leadership informing people about the matter and inviting input. The
consensus conference was an open meeting with space available on a first
come first served basis. Some people accepted the invitation,
participated in the process, and offered valuable input that were well
received and much appreciated.
The goal of the meeting was to have a thorough airing of the issues and
concerns of the participants. This will be used to guide the
development of a set of bylaws describing the new organization. The goal
is to have a proposal available in March at the AAOP meeting, seek public
comment on it during the spring and summer, and to have a final proposal
completed in the fall for the AOPA meeting in Reno.
Nothing final can or will happen without the vote of the
membership. The leadership of the organizations is quite anxious to have
the thoughts of everyone involved, and more than willing to attempt to
incorporate those ideas in the final product.
Should you have any concerns or thoughts you should not hesitate to
contact any of the leadership.
Charles H. Pritham, CPO
Message 2
The issue raised relative to ABC (and NCOPE) in regards to consolidation
and potential conflicts of interest is one of autonomy. This was and is
the number one question for the ABC and NCOPE boards. When the matter
arose the ABC Board of Directors sought a legal
opinion about hoe the matter could be addressed. Suffice it say that ABC
and NCOPE can be part of the new organization as long as appropriate
protection is written into the bylaws to prevent undue interest in
matters such as certification by the parent organization’s board of
directors. This point of view received unanimous support from all present
at the consensus conference and there seems to absolutely no impediment
to drafting bylaws that provide ABC and NCOPE with the protection and
autonomy that they need. Personally I find this very heartening and I
take a great deal of personal pride that out profession/industry is so
high minded.
Remember it is in the best interests of all to protect the status
of ABC and NCOPE, they provide legitimacy and prestige to the field as a
whole. This was the very message that the AOPA governmental relations
program is pitching to Congress.
C. Pritham
