Guest guest Posted May 2, 2000 Report Share Posted May 2, 2000 , Also, I would add... Jake has offered to mitigate. He would be a great go-between for the assembly because, as you know, he is incredibly sensible and reasonable. For a non-chiropractor, Jake also has an exceptional understanding of our local history, our employee problems of the past, where we rest in the bigger scheme of things, and for reasons unclear he seems to sincerely care and have an interest in our predicament. This whole issue ODOC brings-up about differing views on philosophy and one's practice approach is, for all practical purposes, immaterial. has said over and over again that it doesn't matter how a person practices, but rather it's imperative that we unite for a common goal. I am certain that if a division is maintained that it will ultimately undermine our opportunities. The legislature forever has told us to "go home until you can reach an agreement amongst yourselves." So why should we expect that it will be any different come January? The CAO has openly presented ODOC with a merger proposition, which I believe most everyone is aware they declined. I met with Schmidt and Stearns in the fall of last year and laid the goods out on the table. Although I'm convinced that saw the pearl that was before him, the collective response from the group was a thumbs down. ODOC has their cerebral reasons for not joining, but the fact is we did what we said we were going to do and that was to go back in there and take care of our employee problems and let the lobbyist go. With this accomplished, the next step was to get the bigger group back together again. But that's when things went south. ODOC chose to take a new position. It, in effect, left the previous merger criteria as defungito. Everything is set in place for unification to naturally occur. Its a bit shocking to see just how perfect all the elements have lined up: we have a man who is respected and admired by both sides who is willing to mitigate, we have a wonderful infrastructure within the CAO that has been meticulously overhauled, we have a new PAC fund, we have a new Journal, we have a new lobbyist, we have a new legislative chair, we have a new website, we have chiropractors unparalleled in their qualifications and ability to testify in committee, we have politicians, that for the first time in a decade, are actually listening to us we have a revitalized and profitable CE/convention program, we have a reinvigorated and very supportive vendor community we have 2 open Board positions within the CAO with 4 coming up vacant in the next year... ....so what additional configuration of "the stars" could one ask for to favor unification? Everything is in place for a joining of hands and reconstituting our family and power and rightful place within Oregon's political process. We even have a nationwide anti-HMO/MC sentiment brewing that lawmakers are going to have to fess-up to--to some degree or another--even in Oregon! (the "progressive" state?) But somebody's got to figure out why ODOC has taken the position they have and figure out a solution that will lead us to the desired end. I'm stumped at this point. The only thing I can figure is that they have fear and mistrust which, if that's the case, is really sad because most of the CAO leadership have friends within ODOC going way back. What they don't realize is that the battleship is primed and ready to roll, and that it needs to roll and soon! They just need to fill equal seats in the command center and make the merger happen. I think that they think the CAO is something that it quite frankly is not... that we, for example, all get together and worship some oversized, gilded ultrasound head or something; or that it is an organization that sympathizes with managed care. The CAO is a political organization, not a technique or a managed care or a philosophy organization. Doctors within the CAO are free to practice within the boundaries of the law. It's not the purpose of the organization to force feed belief systems or coerce their members to be one way or another. The purpose of the CAO is to: "...Support its members and to enhance their ability to succeed in the healthcare marketplace." This mission statement was composed as a part of the organization's revamping in 1998 to re-establish the organization and its role to serve once again as a traditional "trade" organization. I am a straight chiropractor. I have a good friend and colleague in the CAO that is a mixer. So what? What difference does that make? The bickering over practice approaches has really become quite nauseating, because it's not going to mean a hill of beans when it comes down to being effective in the realm of politics. We'll just keep losing more and more of the pie, and instead of advancing the profession--or even holding even ground--chiropractic in Oregon will continue on its declining path of legislative loss after legislative loss, big bills, small bills, amendment after amendment. One anemic decade (1990's) will lead to another anemic decade and then to what? ...all chiropractors losing their primary provider status and having to charge 20 dollars a visit and having to see over a 150 people a day to make ends meet? Holy arthritis! If such a decline takes place, it will be because no body cared, or rather, no body knew the importance of why they should care or what proactive steps were necessary to demonstrate that they did care. I know this sounds confusing, but it is a serious problem we face. As a past CAO Board member and one in charge of marketing the organization, I have pulled my hair-out over the challenges we face with a disinterested target group. Too many doctors are either sitting on their hands or they're being indecisive; and, if they keep it up, we're going to take another licking. That's the long and short of it. Your proposition that, if the two organizations did successfully merge, that this unity would create a previously unseen attractiveness casted before the unaffiliated I believe is a very powerful idea. I have talked about this in the past. I even proposed that the merger could actually place an unseen social pressure upon the unaffiliated that would make them feel less than worthy if they didn't belong. The Oregon Bar is fortunate because they mandate participation in their trade association. They have 100 percent participation! Now there's a successful trade organization! And I would add that, the CAO Board pursued this legal structure as an option only to discovery that what is legal for attorneys isn't necessarily legal for everyone else. And take the teachers union for an example. Here's a group of individuals that earn, on the average, 38K per year who are required to contribute to (what is the equivalent of) their trade association $50 per month; as a result, they are one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Salem. Yet we have over half of all Oregon chiropractors whose average annual income is 80,000+ dollars per year who contribute nothing to the State association. As it is today, many of the doctors maintain a Dick platform of "there's power in not participating." You know, the "protest vote" of not voting or the crazy concept of the power of omission. And if you look at the two organizations over the last ten years, who can blame them? But things have changed. The environment is different now. And so is the CAO. And a lot is at stake. We have a wonderful opportunity to get some of what we lost back and a legitimate opportunity to finally stop the managed care momentum once and for all. People have had it. They're just as fed up as the providers are. This is America and the expansion of socialized medicine stops here, in January 2001, in Salem, Oregon. If neither protecting our market share or defending our practice act is important to ODOC, or if they think that they can effectively expand or protect our piece of the pie or our rights as physicians through non-conventional political methods, then it is all just as well for naught. We have seen where the unorthodox approaches of dealing with Salem have got us. Opportunities that we currently have before us--many of them--likely will fall short with an absence of unification. Now is the time. We can expect nothing less than a re-assembly of the old, larger group at this time. The doctors from the ground up must demand it. S. Unity and ODOC Dear Colleagues, In the last ODOC newsletter, there was an article on why ODOC declined to talk to the CAO about unifying the two organizations. ly, I didn't understand the rationale for not continuing with some kind of dialogue. Now before I go on, I want to make it clear that at one time I belonged to ODOC (1991-93) when I felt that they were the only organization that was interested in doing something about the political situation in Oregon besides paying a lobbyist and executive director exorbitant salaries ($2 would have been exorbitant for the quality of work produced by the two to whom I am referring, in my opinion). There are numerous docs who I consider friends in ODOC currently, and I have personal knowledge that many of them are fine doctors. Having said that, WHAT THE HEY, GUYS ( & GALS)? I know that you all feel that strong philosophical differences makes you stand out from the CAO, but can't we at least talk about some alternatives? A unified front from the DCs of Oregon would be so much healthier and stronger for the profession than the divided house that we currently present. Total participation in both groups is <50% of the docs in the state. I can't blame them for not getting involved just for the fact that they have to choose between the two groups! Why can't we have two large delegates (10+ folks - or as many as want to participate) meet and have some dialogue. That way, if someone from either group says that they don't want to unite, they can give their rationale and actually be questioned about their reasoning. We can hire a disinterested third party to act as moderator. I don't consider ODOCs frankly insulting offer that everyone can "just join ODOC" as a genuine offer to bring about unity; it is just as insulting if the CAO said the same thing to ODOC members. Unity discussions are not an opportunity to proselytize, they are a chance to make history! I was personally able to participate in a discussion, along with other CAO members, with Gene Derfler, the probable next president of the House, regarding changing worker's compensation rules. He was surprisingly amenable to listening to problem-solving suggestions for the WC system and how it treats chiropractic patients. This kind of doctor-legislator interaction is exactly what we talked about doing in ODOC eight years ago. I think that we are a lot closer in both philosophy and goals than either group thinks. But we'll never find out unless we talk. And if the leadership won't talk, then some of the rank and file need to get together. Waddya say? D Freeman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2000 Report Share Posted May 3, 2000 Dear : The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC group, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership. Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we would still be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor the agenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances and its own agenda. This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions, but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it would move in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead of just a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the same level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, both would save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is that someones motto? Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower the individual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association. Willard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2000 Report Share Posted May 3, 2000 Dear Willard, " Unity without uniformity, " I like it!! Vern Saboe, Jr., D.C. Re: Unity and ODOC >Dear : > >The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority >chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and >nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent >majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC >group, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership. >Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we would >still be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor the >agenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances and >its own agenda. > >This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions, >but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it would >move in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead of >just a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the same >level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, both >would save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is that >someones motto? > >Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower the >individual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association. > >Willard > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Get paid for the stuff you know! >Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site! >1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957335848/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2000 Report Share Posted May 3, 2000 OK, Willard. You have expressed a problem that ODOC has with unifying with the CAO. That's great - it's wonderful - it's a start. Just based on what you have written below, you and I could sit down and in 30 minutes devise a plan that we could at least talk to more people about - couldn't we? You have just said more than I have heard from ODOC on this issue ever, other than " absolutely not. " What I would like to hear from ODOC is what they need to have for a merger. And if anyone tells me that the CAO has to join ODOC, they can jump in a lake, because no majority or minority has the right to tyrannize another (why should anyone in ODOC insist on doing to the CAO what they are afraid the CAO will do to them? I have been in the meetings where everyone gets all pugnacious and riles everyone up and gets a standing o for saying what a bunch of creeps the other guys are - to what end? It's like making a really good point in an argument with your spouse - you feel good for about 3 milliseconds, and then you realize that someone has to start to compromise or you are going to be mad at each other forever.) How about we start talking about what would be fair and desirable to all? Why can't we dream big, and make it happen? Re: Unity and ODOC > : > > The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority > chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and > nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent > majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC > group with a share of the dues based upon their membership. Then they > would vote their money into CAO programs or not and we would still be > 'unified', but the majority would not rule the cash, nor the agenda. > This new structure would move slowly, but together. CAO agenda would > still be funded at the same level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the > same level it is now, both would save on administration costs. Unity > without uniformity? IS that someones motto? > > Willard > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2000 Report Share Posted May 3, 2000 Folks: How about the " umbrella idea " .....our yearly license fee buys us membership into the whole of " oregon chiropractors " .....and from that, each sub-group is allocated a percentage of power-money-whatever based on their membership....ie, CAO gets some kind of credit for their whatever %-age, ODOC also, etc, and non-member chiros have their portion assigned to the " oregon chiropractors " as a whole.... This way each sideshow at leasts all fits under the same tent, and each sideshow has at least nominal connections (which it does anyway) to the " oregon chiropractors " as a whole.... Issues of philosophy, techniques, etc must come after the broad laws that define our profession in this state...then we don't have to fight each other we can clunk forward as the whole circus train itself with separate cars, all heading toward the destination....providing chiropractic care for those members of society at large who choose to come to the chiropractic big-top....as it were. Comments? Jack Pedersen, DC Sweet Home, Oregon Re: Unity and ODOC >Dear : > >The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority >chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and >nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent >majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC >group, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership. >Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we would >still be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor the >agenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances and >its own agenda. > >This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions, >but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it would >move in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead of >just a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the same >level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, both >would save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is that >someones motto? > >Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower the >individual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association. > >Willard > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Get paid for the stuff you know! >Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site! >1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957335848/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2000 Report Share Posted May 4, 2000 Dear Willard, I appreciate the fact that everybody is trying to come-up with a solution to the merger problem, but given your analogy, I think a circus is exactly what we would get if we employed your "umbrella" model. I know you are fully and intimately aware of the grunt session we went through between 1997-98 implementing the Carver system and junking the old Delegate system. This was a crucial step in the process of giving power back to the Doctors. Ralph Schmidt back in 1990 knew how flawed the OCPA's system was as he demanded and was instrumental in setting-up ODOC's new structure. With the old framework, the OCPA/CAO Board didn't have any power. Board members were constantly at the whim of the Delegate wing and all the politiking and end-arounds that could occur with this type of a constitutional arrangement. In effect, the Board was powerless. Consequently, we had an embarrassing turn-over rate of Governors, not to mention that the Delegate system was ideally suited for a strong CEO. The problem was that we would have successful chiropractors elected to fill terms (who had full intention of giving voluntarily to the process of leading an organization) who would quickly discover--because the Board had no power--that they were waisting their time. From 1996-1997, at least 8 Board members prematurely gave their resignation. I'm sure that these individuals realized that the opportunity to be innovative, create change, and to responsibly govern was virtually impossible. So they resigned. Who could blame them? Carver himself states generally that organizations either have a weak Board/strong CEO, or a strong Board/weak CEO. ODOC was basically formed because the OCPA was of the former configuration. It was wholey unsatisfactory and unacceptable as it was very difficult to pin-down accountability for decision making with Board members being precluded from the decision making process. The rebuilding of the CAO in 1997-98 began with the instituting of Carver's model. Fundamentally, this allowed the Board to regain its role as the seat of power within the organization. Now many observers might say, IT SHOULD BE! That is to say, that such a framework should be an accepted standard within an organization, particularly amongst a group of Doctors. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't and it hadn't been for years. For over a decade the Doctors were, to a great extent, powerless and were being governed circuitously and, not necessarily at the fault of the employees but rather by fault of the system. Of course, we all know that this was the big beef of early ODOC developers, myself included. Being a charter member of ODOC and its first editor, I coined the phrase "An Organization by Doctors for Doctors." So you can see, as expressed within this promotional motto itself, one can clearly discern the emphasis and effort early-on by ODOC to boldly declare to the Field that the governance structure had changed. Kind of. The problem with ODOC's current structure brings us back to the issue of accountability. It is never clear who leads or who is responsible for what. ODOC's governing body is sometimes referred to in their newsletter simply as "the editorial board" and sometimes they refer to their decision making body as "the leadership." Articles in their Journal commonly go without a cited author, which is consistent with this criticism of an absence of accountability. This, in my opinion, gets to the real crux of why we have had the major downfalls and losses within our profession politically over the last 15 years, with both organizations. It's been a bad habit on the part of Oregon chiropractic leadership and this, in my opinion, has to change. ODOC's intentions early-on in the 1990's--relative to the creation of a new form of governance--was progressive; but over time they ended up with a governance model that has a definitive degree of informality to it. Now this is good in terms of maintaining control and I am sure that "the leadership" is very happy with this system and the membership, too, may be happy with the system. Yet an informal leadership model like this is nothing more than a recapitulation of the Delegate system. Both allow for liberality in governance and permit divergence or decentralization of power. The demand coefficient for accountability can be kept low with such an informal structure. It's of particular importance when the going gets rough that a more formal governance structure be the rule. Such a structure, such as Carver, demands a level of accountability from leadership in comparison to less formal or more convoluted systems (Delegate). It is my belief that it is this very lack of formality over the years that has permited leadership to avoid the big task of carrying the burden of accountability on the "big" issues. I have always believed that it was the absence of such a structure ten years ago that led to so much loss by our profession regionally. Take the infamous SB1197 fiasco. This story always cracks me up because, no matter who you talk to that was involved in process at that time, you get a different story. No one has fully or clearly accepted accountability for that fateful night, either as a group or as individuals. The proverbial question has been, of course, who agreed and approved the 12/30 compromise? Being a reporter that covered the stories surrounding this historic event, I did a fair amount of research and investigation into the events surrounding and leading up to the special session. Some OCPA Board members say one thing happened, some say another. Based on my records, one thing did happened, and and is that the Board did not meet nor did they take a formal vote. Today, within the CAO, this would be a major violation of Carver policy and a President would be ousted and other Board members too could be removed if they we're involved in a process of making a major decision without following Board process. Do you see my point? Members of an organization must elect their governors to sit on their Board. With the Carver model, the Board then elects a President whose sole responsibility is "to maintain the integrity of the process." If he doesn't, he's voted out. The beauty of this system is that it not only allows the Board to be the center of power, but it demands accountability from the Board as a group as well as each individual member. They have a responsibility to their membership and to their profession. This is exactly the type of system that our profession in Oregon so desperately needed and currently needs to maintain. Without it, we have the Wild West all over again. Why would we change or move away from the Carver model now when it has done so much for the organization? And when it holds so much promise for our immediate future? With 5 Board seats coming up vacant in the next year, this is a perfect opportunity to work out a merger deal with Tanzer as arbeiter to give ODOC it's fair share of seats. That way our system of accountability remains intact. I'm sure many chiropractors in Oregon would agree with me, there's fewer things that an Oregon DC desires than to make sure that when a big piece of legislation comes down the pike, doctors know exactly how the events transpired and who was responsible and who was involved in the decision making process. The Carver model currently in place in the CAO is configurated in this manner: the Board has complete and unbridled power over all major decisions, the membership elects its Board members, and minutes and internet voting records are kept. No end runs, no tap dancing, no deals behind closed doors, no uncertainty about how things unfolded or who held the cards in the final hour. Everyone will know who the leadership is and who the final decision rests with. I would suggest that without this type of structure, particularly entering into the upcoming legislative session--where big issues may be encountered--the process could get messy and downright scary. Nobody wants May of 1990 all over again. We need this process to move forward in a formal and structured manner, or mayhem could result. Everybody having their own factions with their own monies under one big umbrella sounds to me like pandemonium. It's the last thing chiropractic needs in Oregon. If both organizations do join together, the budget likely will exceed 400+ thousand per year and it will be the Board's continued responsibility to manage the business, keep it profitable, and determine the legislative direction. That's a budget that could do a great deal of good for all of us. Shephard Re: Unity and ODOC>Dear :>>The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority>chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and>nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent>majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC>group, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership.>Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we would>still be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor the>agenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances and>its own agenda.>>This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions,>but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it would>move in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead of>just a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the same>level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, both>would save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is that>someones motto?>>Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower the>individual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association.>>Willard>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------>Get paid for the stuff you know!>Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the site!>1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957335848/>------------------------------------------------------------------------>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. - or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!1/3820/2/_/141981/_/957362982/------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2000 Report Share Posted May 4, 2000 Dear Dr. : Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed review of the curretn structure of the CAO. As you may know, I integrated an intitiative amendment to the previous CAO charter. Since I am no longer a member of teh CAO, I cannot say if this initiative process still exists under the new charter. Regardless, I am pleased that you have such a thorough understanding of the model of governance presently employed. Merger is generally regarded as a compromise where all sides giveup something in their postition. It sounds like the CAO is willing to give up board seats, theoretically, since they would first have to merge, then vote. This probably is not a strong position for merger, although it does sound positive. All of the mergers in the history of Oregon have been formed at the constitutional level, not at the board level. I would suggest this may give you an idea of where you will probably have to go to get merger discussion underway. The idea of a strong executive board is practical and would probably remain intact. The problem of minority splintering still remains, as does the problem of fallen away disinterested former members. Since the obviuos solution is already in play with 2 associations, why not start from where we really are, instead of fictionalizing some perfect world? We have 2 groups, we have always had 2 or 3 groups, I believe we always will. Why not just formalize this "arrangement" and make one organization that allows for that. Your CAO could retain its very fabric and rhetoric, while the ODOC could maintain its status quo, and you might even encourage a couple of other splinter groups to from as well. Each group plays with its own money and resources just like we do now. The only difference would be that they would meet together and be encouraged to pool their resources where they shared common interests. Each of us has had our precious interests crushed by the majority a time or two. The easiest thing is to step away from an unwinnable adversary. This is called splintering or fallen away members (or mindless apathy by those less interested in solutions). What if every doctor's membership was given a guarantee of respect and privilege, namely, that their dues could be withheld from the majority? What if the doctors could form a coalition that would leave the majority with a sizable cash flow defecit? This might seem radical, but stop and realize that this, too, is already in play. We can see that we have formed multiple associations and we have nonplayers who used to be active members, even board members. After all, we are highly respected doctors and we have no need to expect to be the cash cows for organizational actions we disagree with. Every time the majority votes, you create a new minority. You keep chipping away until the minorities become larger and coalesce into a new association, or a nonaffiliated group of nonmembers. Strong leadership will not remedy this, although it may slow the process down. Still, the rights of the minority must be respected if you want to keep them within your association. Until we learn to implement this we will repeat teh same mistakes. One good thing is that the size of the CAO and ODOC are still large enough to sustain legislative agendas, but then look at the initiative measure of Dr. Megeehee, a one man association with a legislative agenda, maybe we need to rethink the whole thing. The best design is usually an enhancement of the naturally occurring design, at least that works for the human body. I wonder if it might apply to a collection of humans? Sincerely,, Willard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2000 Report Share Posted May 5, 2000 Willard, FYI: All bylaw and constitution documents of The CAO were scrapped in 1998. In my personal opinion, that's all they were worth: the junk pile. As for the merger and the issue of compromise, it is my thought that ODOC should be simply granted "X" number of Board seats based on their total membership number, vs. the CAO total dues paying tally. So this would be like a congressional system. ODOC could do whatever they wish in terms of determining who would be appointed or elected to the seats. If they want the CAO to compromise by allowing the organization to adopt a two party system ( Schmidt's idea), I think that's great. I understand that relationships succeed based on compromise. I'm just anxious for all of us to get back together again. The emphasis on our differences is really tiresome. I had a great time within ODOC for two years. I look forward for all Oregon chiropractors being back together again. Per your comment about maintaining two organizations with two legislative agendas, your dead wrong. This is legislative death. Unless we have one common voice directed towards Salem, we all lose. Legislators have no interest and zero tollerance in hearing from two separate bodies representing one interest. History has demonstrated this to us over and over. We've got to figure this one out because it's insane to go on like we do. It's real simple... chiropractic needs to be defended and all chiropractors need to get behind one front. The CAO is not the CAO of 1990, or 1994 or 1997. Go the website and see the profile of the new organization (cspine.org). ODOC I believe is maintaining a perception of what the old organization was. ODOC has to break the ice by agreeing to meet with Tanzer with all of us in a locked room. We just have to start the process. No harm done with trying. Shephard Re: Unity and ODOC Dear Dr. : Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed review of the curretn structure of the CAO. As you may know, I integrated an intitiative amendment to the previous CAO charter. Since I am no longer a member of teh CAO, I cannot say if this initiative process still exists under the new charter. Regardless, I am pleased that you have such a thorough understanding of the model of governance presently employed. Merger is generally regarded as a compromise where all sides giveup something in their postition. It sounds like the CAO is willing to give up board seats, theoretically, since they would first have to merge, then vote. This probably is not a strong position for merger, although it does sound positive. All of the mergers in the history of Oregon have been formed at the constitutional level, not at the board level. I would suggest this may give you an idea of where you will probably have to go to get merger discussion underway. The idea of a strong executive board is practical and would probably remain intact. The problem of minority splintering still remains, as does the problem of fallen away disinterested former members. Since the obviuos solution is already in play with 2 associations, why not start from where we really are, instead of fictionalizing some perfect world? We have 2 groups, we have always had 2 or 3 groups, I believe we always will. Why not just formalize this "arrangement" and make one organization that allows for that. Your CAO could retain its very fabric and rhetoric, while the ODOC could maintain its status quo, and you might even encourage a couple of other splinter groups to from as well. Each group plays with its own money and resources just like we do now. The only difference would be that they would meet together and be encouraged to pool their resources where they shared common interests. Each of us has had our precious interests crushed by the majority a time or two. The easiest thing is to step away from an unwinnable adversary. This is called splintering or fallen away members (or mindless apathy by those less interested in solutions). What if every doctor's membership was given a guarantee of respect and privilege, namely, that their dues could be withheld from the majority? What if the doctors could form a coalition that would leave the majority with a sizable cash flow defecit? This might seem radical, but stop and realize that this, too, is already in play. We can see that we have formed multiple associations and we have nonplayers who used to be active members, even board members. After all, we are highly respected doctors and we have no need to expect to be the cash cows for organizational actions we disagree with. Every time the majority votes, you create a new minority. You keep chipping away until the minorities become larger and coalesce into a new association, or a nonaffiliated group of nonmembers. Strong leadership will not remedy this, although it may slow the process down. Still, the rights of the minority must be respected if you want to keep them within your association. Until we learn to implement this we will repeat teh same mistakes. One good thing is that the size of the CAO and ODOC are still large enough to sustain legislative agendas, but then look at the initiative measure of Dr. Megeehee, a one man association with a legislative agenda, maybe we need to rethink the whole thing. The best design is usually an enhancement of the naturally occurring design, at least that works for the human body. I wonder if it might apply to a collection of humans? Sincerely,, Willard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2000 Report Share Posted May 6, 2000 Willard- Sounds like an incrediable idea in theory. Is there a working model of this that we can learn from? JK Re: Unity and ODOC Dear : The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC group, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership. Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we would still be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor the agenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances and its own agenda. This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions, but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it would move in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead of just a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the same level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, both would save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is that someones motto? Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower the individual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association. Willard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get paid for the stuff you know! Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the site! 1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957335848/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2000 Report Share Posted May 6, 2000 - YES! Lets dream big: one united chiropractic front for all of Oregon as a model for the rest of the country and the world! Showing a unified front to the outside and strong enough to contain all the differences of opinion on the inside. With our common interests as a foundation to hold enough respect for every member's views. With this type of organization how many new members could we attract, how high of a percentage of the state chiros could we contain. My Chiropractic Sisters and Brothers, I ask you to dream big and share your visions of unity!!! JK Re: Unity and ODOC > : > > The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority > chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and > nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent > majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC > group with a share of the dues based upon their membership. Then they > would vote their money into CAO programs or not and we would still be > 'unified', but the majority would not rule the cash, nor the agenda. > This new structure would move slowly, but together. CAO agenda would > still be funded at the same level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the > same level it is now, both would save on administration costs. Unity > without uniformity? IS that someones motto? > > Willard > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get paid for the stuff you know! Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the site! 1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957361293/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2000 Report Share Posted May 6, 2000 Jack- I like your idea and great metaphor also. Again I ask is there a working political or social model where very diverse values and opinions can function as a unified whole. How about our 2 party political system and the US Congress. It is Questionable whether that is a good working model but it is a start so that we don't have to completely re-invent the wheel. JK Re: Unity and ODOC > > > >Dear : > > > >The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority > >chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and > >nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent > >majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC > >group, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership. > >Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we would > >still be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor the > >agenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances and > >its own agenda. > > > >This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions, > >but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it would > >move in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead of > >just a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the same > >level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, both > >would save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is that > >someones motto? > > > >Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower the > >individual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association. > > > >Willard > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Get paid for the stuff you know! > >Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the site! > >1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957335848/ > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. - > or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which > fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls! > 1/3820/2/_/141981/_/957362982/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2000 Report Share Posted May 6, 2000 Dear colleagues: Rather than flap our individual wings ineffectively and let out mutual goose plummet into the hostile waters all about us, we must rise to the challanges we are professionally blessed with: the most unique, widest-scope Chiropractic Practice Act in the world. Let us arise and trust our chiropractic brethren to minister to their own patients as they see properly fit within our legal scope of practice. Let us appreciate what a diverse and lush broth we can offer to sustain the halt, the lame, the subluxated..... Let us go into our coherant future with our sympathetic and parasympathetic wings of dogma and cherished professional fantasies intact, unifying together to raise the dikes in our own beleagured Holland-by-the-sea; let us go now, into our offices with the notion we can better serve the patient by working to increase health and fully functioning humans educated in the principles of chiropractic awareness; Let us go forth and rededicate our efforts to make our services available more widely and teach our patients how to prosper in an ocean of misguided, misinformed, erroneous and banal misrepresentation that health is something you can buy in a bottle, tube, capsule or ointment. Let us help our patients grapple with the truth that health, like disease, is a process not an entity; let us help them understand how our bodies can work more effectively to express our individual innate intelligence. Let us not be worn down by outrageous fortune that makes it difficult to focus on the real enemies of chiropractic; let us arise in a new age of wonder. Let us go forth into our new millennium dedicated to generating more light for a suffering humanity. Let us accept the honest efforts of our colleagues in the journey we all share. yours in health, J. Pedersen, DC Sweet Home, Oregon Re: Unity and ODOC >- YES! Lets dream big: one united chiropractic front for all of >Oregon as a model for the rest of the country and the world! Showing a >unified front to the outside and strong enough to contain all the >differences >of opinion on the inside. With our common interests as a foundation to hold >enough respect for every member's views. With this type of organization how >many new members could we attract, how high of a percentage of the state >chiros could we contain. >My Chiropractic Sisters and Brothers, I ask you to dream big and share your >visions of unity!!! JK > > Re: Unity and ODOC > > >> : >> >> The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority >> chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and >> nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent >> majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC >> group with a share of the dues based upon their membership. Then they >> would vote their money into CAO programs or not and we would still be >> 'unified', but the majority would not rule the cash, nor the agenda. >> This new structure would move slowly, but together. CAO agenda would >> still be funded at the same level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the >> same level it is now, both would save on administration costs. Unity >> without uniformity? IS that someones motto? >> >> Willard >> >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Get paid for the stuff you know! >Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the site! >1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957361293/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com: >1/3555/3/_/141981/_/957643657/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2000 Report Share Posted May 6, 2000 I'd also be interested to know what Jake Tanzer would think of this idea. scott s. Re: Unity and ODOCDear :The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minoritychiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups andnonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferentmajority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOCgroup, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership.Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we wouldstill be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor theagenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances andits own agenda.This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions,but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it wouldmove in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead ofjust a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the samelevel it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, bothwould save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is thatsomeones motto?Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower theindividual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association.Willard------------------------------------------------------------------------Get paid for the stuff you know!Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the site!1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957335848/------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2000 Report Share Posted May 6, 2000 JK, i like Schmidt's 2 party idea. Again we just need to get together in a room with Jake and see what comes of it. Nothing will be harmed by trying. At least we can say that both sides gave it their best shot. scott shephard Re: Unity and ODOC>>> >Dear :> >> >The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority> >chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and> >nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an indifferent> >majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the ODOC> >group, with control a share of the dues based upon their membership.> >Then they would vote their money into CAO programs, or not, and we would> >still be 'unified'; but, the majority would not rule the cash, nor the> >agenda. Still each suborganization would conrol its own finances and> >its own agenda.> >> >This new structure would move slowly, sometimes in different directions,> >but when it moved together it would be very strong. Ultimately it would> >move in a direction where every chiropractor would benefit, instead of> >just a core majority. CAO agenda would still be funded at the same> >level it is now, ODOC would be funded at the same level it is now, both> >would save on administration costs. Unity without uniformity? Is that> >someones motto?> >> >Majority rule amongst DC's is outdated. The sooner we empower the> >individual chiropractor, the sooner we will have a strong association.> >> >Willard> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------> >Get paid for the stuff you know!> >Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the site!> >1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957335848/> >------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> >> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> How about a flat, no-fee long distance rate of 6.7¢ per min. -> or less? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you rates which> fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls!> 1/3820/2/_/141981/_/957362982/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2000 Report Share Posted May 8, 2000 Geez Jack, Well said. You sound more like a " chiropractic evangelist " ... On Sat, 6 May 2000 15:27:18 -0700 " zzz " <chirodoc@...> writes: >Dear colleagues: > >Rather than flap our individual wings ineffectively and let out mutual >goose >plummet into the hostile waters all about us, we must rise to the >challanges >we are professionally blessed with: the most unique, widest-scope >Chiropractic Practice Act in the world. Let us arise and trust our >chiropractic brethren to minister to their own patients as they see >properly >fit within our legal scope of practice. Let us appreciate what a >diverse >and lush broth we can offer to sustain the halt, the lame, the >subluxated..... > >Let us go into our coherant future with our sympathetic and >parasympathetic >wings of dogma and cherished professional fantasies intact, unifying >together to raise the dikes in our own beleagured Holland-by-the-sea; > >let us go now, into our offices with the notion we can better serve >the >patient by working to increase health and fully functioning humans >educated >in the principles of chiropractic awareness; > >Let us go forth and rededicate our efforts to make our services >available >more widely and teach our patients how to prosper in an ocean of >misguided, >misinformed, erroneous and banal misrepresentation that health is >something you can buy in a bottle, tube, capsule or ointment. > >Let us help our patients grapple with the truth that health, like >disease, >is a process not an entity; let us help them understand how our bodies >can >work more effectively to express our individual innate intelligence. > >Let us not be worn down by outrageous fortune that makes it difficult >to >focus on the real enemies of chiropractic; let us arise in a new age >of >wonder. Let us go forth into our new millennium dedicated to >generating >more light for a suffering humanity. Let us accept the honest efforts >of >our colleagues in the journey we all share. > >yours in health, > >J. Pedersen, DC >Sweet Home, Oregon > Re: Unity and ODOC > > >>- YES! Lets dream big: one united chiropractic front for all >of >>Oregon as a model for the rest of the country and the world! Showing >a >>unified front to the outside and strong enough to contain all the >>differences >>of opinion on the inside. With our common interests as a foundation >to hold >>enough respect for every member's views. With this type of >organization how >>many new members could we attract, how high of a percentage of the >state >>chiros could we contain. >>My Chiropractic Sisters and Brothers, I ask you to dream big and >share your >>visions of unity!!! JK >> >> Re: Unity and ODOC >> >> >>> : >>> >>> The simple truth is that CAO is not designed to treat the minority >>> chiropractors fairly. Thus you will always have splinter groups and >>> nonmembers who would rather be outside than absorbed into an >indifferent >>> majority rule. CAO should allow suborganizations within, like the >ODOC >>> group with a share of the dues based upon their membership. Then >they >>> would vote their money into CAO programs or not and we would still >be >>> 'unified', but the majority would not rule the cash, nor the >agenda. >>> This new structure would move slowly, but together. CAO agenda >would >>> still be funded at the same level it is now, ODOC would be funded >at the >>> same level it is now, both would save on administration costs. >Unity >>> without uniformity? IS that someones motto? >>> >>> Willard >>> >>> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>Get paid for the stuff you know! >>Get answers for the stuff you don't. And get $10 to spend on the >site! >>1/2200/2/_/141981/_/957361293/ >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com: >>1/3555/3/_/141981/_/957643657/ >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >72% off on Name brand Watches! >Come and buy today and get free shipping! >1/4011/3/_/141981/_/957652018/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2000 Report Share Posted May 8, 2000 , I'll help...what can I do? Holzapfel On Sun, 7 May 2000 08:35:59 -0700 " Dr. D. Freeman " <drmfreeman@...> writes: >, >Thanks for the encouragement. I am happy to hear that some ODOC >members are >in agreement that unity is something from which we would all benefit. >I >agree that we need to be careful of the tyranny of the majority, but >an >eventual unity should be based on a charter that the *majority* of all >parties can agree on. I am concerned that the leadership may not be >representing the majority of ODOC members when they tell the CAO that >they >won't even talk about unity. In other words, is unity being held up >because >a minority of docs in ODOC hold the reins of the organization and are >also >virulently anti-unity? For example, if, as a part of a new charter, we >agreed that DCs should work to improve their status in worker's comp, >most >docs would agree with this. What if the leadership of ODOC is of an >all > " cash practice " philosophy, and don't see improvement in WC as a >benefit to >their practice philosophy, or where they think the profession should >go? If >they are in a position to shut down any discussion of unity, how does >that >serve their members who may see patients in the WC system? This isn't >an >indictment of ODOC leadership as much as an observation of what >happens >frequently in organizations. >How about this proposal: the CAO and ODOC should agree to poll their >members >with identical questionnaires regarding unity. We can even include >arguments >for and against, like a voter's pamphlet. Both groups would have input >to >the questionnaire. I would be happy to put together the questions in >an >unbiased fashion, so that they don't favor one side or another with >their >design, as I have a fair amount of experience with questionnaire >design, >however, I also understand that I may be seen as having personal bias >in >favor of unity and may not be acceptable to both sides for such a >role. I >would be happy to work with anyone from either group in the design of >the >survey instrument, however. >Both groups would have to agree to not lobby in favor of one side or >another >of the debate outside of the questionnaire. Once we have the results >of the >survey, we can report to the entire profession, and can make our next >steps >based on the feelings of the group membership. >If ODOC's leadership doesn't want to even find out what their members >think >(which I can't imagine is the case - these folks are our friends and >colleagues, not the enemy), then the CAO can independently survey the >entire >state population and report the findings. I will help in either >instance. >Any interest in this proposal? > > D Freeman > > Re: Unity and ODOC > > >> - YES! Lets dream big: one united chiropractic front for all >of >> Oregon as a model for the rest of the country and the world! Showing >a >> unified front to the outside and strong enough to contain all the >> differences >> of opinion on the inside. With our common interests as a foundation >to >hold >> enough respect for every member's views. With this type of >organization >how >> many new members could we attract, how high of a percentage of the >state >> chiros could we contain. >> My Chiropractic Sisters and Brothers, I ask you to dream big and >share >your >> visions of unity!!! JK >> > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com: >1/3555/3/_/141981/_/957713918/ >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2000 Report Share Posted May 8, 2000 I would think it possible to work together, pool resources, and present a united front on certain mutually agreeable issues, like allies in a war, while allowing and maintaining the very real differences that exist.The continuation of two separate and distinct organizations does not have to negate the possibility of many ad hoc ventures, does it? Terry in Ashland Re: Unity and ODOC >Dear Doctor: > >I know the leadership of both organizations and I would believe they are >chiropractors with a mission. The missions are different and so the >groups have formed according to their differences. To dissolve their >differences would dissolve their missions. Are anger, disppointment, or >bad memories a part of this? perhaps, but not the root. > >Unity without uniformity. > >P.S. There was little interest in Dr. Mageehee's initiative at ODOC. I >think anyone who has worked with the profession will not be surprised, >but still I think those who get signatures will enjoy the pursuit of a >voice in a sea of indifference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.