We need to hear from both sides.

[Guest guest]

Dr. Blum, OR DCs,

 

I attended the 11/18 meeting.  It became clear durting that meeting that the exisiting OCA Bylaws were focused on the combining of the CAO and ODOC Boards but were silent in regard to replacing this " interim " board when the time came.  Well, the time haas come.  I agree with Dr Blum that the proposed changes to the bylaws are generally pretty good.  They try to preserve the CAO/ODOC balance which is probably still important, but hopefully less-so as we move on as a united association.  These amendments also attempt to maintain continuity of the board as members turn over.

 

I am curious about the amendment to Section VI (6-2) that appears to make written ballots necessary for most significant issues before the Association.  This is a clear departure from the original bylaws.  It's hard for me to vote in favor of all of the proposed changes without at least having the opportunity to hear the rationale behind them and/or to consider alternatives as could happen at a general membership meeting.  For now, I'm voting " no. "    

 

The bylaws call for " at least " annual general membership meetings [sectionVI (6-3)] at which time a nominating committee is appointed. The letter from the " Unification Board of Directors " acknowledges the current nominating committee " appointed " by a vote at the 11/18 meeting.  I say let them go ahead and find candidates for the 6 positions that are (or will be, if the bylaws are approved) up for election.  Let " the founding board members (or their replacements) " select the 6 members that will remain til 2011.

 

I, for one, appreciate the work that this board, the officers and the OCA staff have done on our behalf.  The board's action with reagrd to the current marketing efforts of Ms Mazera and their decision about our lobbyist have not been fully communicated to the membership.  The decisions made by the members present at the 11/18 meeting, whether " valid " or not, were a clear message to the association leadership... " What are you guys doing? "  

 

The subsequent decison by the board to terminate our lobbyist has also not been well explained.  We " hired " the board members to look after the affairs of the OCA.  Help us understand why the board did what it did.  From the perspective of this member, the OCA is pretty darned dysfunctional.  And while I'm not in the frame of mind to " throw the rascals out, " I do think the membership deserves an explantion of the recent change of course in what otherwise looks to have been a successful lobbyist/legislative strategy on the part of the profession.

 

C Simpson

Beaverton, OR