Aapa election pro name change candidates

[EMEDPA]

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFFFF]President-elect[/TD]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFFFF]Lawrence Herman***[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFFFF]Secretary-Treasurer[/TD]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFFFF] Write-In (Last Name, First name)( Robert Blumm )[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFFFF]Director-at-large[/TD]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFFFF]James Piotrowski[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFFFF] Write-In (Last name, First name)( David Mittman )

 

 

ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE ENDORSED BY THE NAME/TITLE CHANGE COMMITTEE.

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[PACali]

Here is the link to vote

 

https://eballot4.votenet.com/aapa/login.cfm

 

it close on April 30 5pm EST

[jdtpac]

EMEDPA,

Well the time has finally come that the" title change committee" has been preparing for the past 2 years. I must admit I have been quite impressed with the organization of the movement including the letter endorsed by 100 top leaders of the profession, 6,200 PAs signing on to support the letter to the Academy, the discussions on Clinician 1 and PA forum, and most recently the questions directed at the candidates in the Academy elections for 2012. Although I have the utmost respect for David Mittman and Bob Blumm, and for their dedication and service to the profession, I must admit I was somewhat puzzled by the committee’s decision to endorse them as write-in candidates. Knowing that neither would meet the qualifications, as determined by existing Academy policy, I'm perplexed that the committee would still direct your supporters to vote for these to individuals “just to make a statement”. I have no doubt that you're going to see a statement being made during the House of Delegates meeting in Toronto.

 

Anyway, I commend the committee for all the hard work on your campaign for a title change and to encourage everyone to vote in the election. Good luck.

[EMEDPA]

voting for dave and bob makes the point that the election rules are unjust(especially if they win...). both have over 30 yrs of service to the pa profession. Bob was the first paragon award winner from the aapa. dave started a prominent pa journal and has been president of several state and specialty organizations. the current rules require leadership positions in the last 5 yrs which is ridiculous. that is like telling a former 1 time president of the U.S. that he is not eligible to run again because it has been too long.....I can't think of anyone more qualified than dave or bob to hold office with the aapa......

[Contrarian]

... the current rules require leadership positions in the last 5 yrs which is ridiculous.......

 

Yes... rediculous... and simply "good ole boy" protectionism...

Seem this requirement is there to insure that whoever runs... has been fully indoctrinated to the "club."

 

Silliness like this is Yet another reason why the AAPA is hemorrhaging members...

[Beorp]

the current rules require leadership positions in the last 5 yrs which is ridiculous.

 

That is crazy! Is this is the only requirement that they fail to meet?

[EMEDPA]

That is crazy! Is this is the only requirement that they fail to meet?

Yes.

Jim Piotrowski had a position with the neurosurg pa society recently so was "allowed to run" but not recommended by the nominating committee due to his pro name change stance....hope he gets 90% of the vote....that would show them something....

[jdtpac]

http://www.aapa.org/about_aapa/governance/resources/item.aspx?id=3390&terms=2012%20elections

Yes.

Jim Piotrowski had a position with the neurosurg pa society recently so was "allowed to run" but not recommended by the nominating committee due to his pro name change stance....hope he gets 90% of the vote....that would show them something....

 

EMEDPA,

Jim had all of the qualifications required according to Academy policy, however, your statement of him not being "recommended by the nominating committee due to his pro name change stance" is incorrect. He elected not to go through the nominating process and instead chose to be a self-declared candidate. Because he chose to be a self-declared candidate all the nominating work group was required to do was to make sure that he had the qualifications as outlined in the bylaws. He was not required to answer any of the nominating work groups questions nor was he interviewed by the nominating work group. This was the reason why he was not endorsed by the nominating work group and it had nothing to do with his stance on the title change issue. He did present his platform and answer to questions for the website and newsletter. I know these things because I am a member of the nominating work group.

 

This is a link to the Academy website that announced the candidates for the 2012 election. Jim is listed as a self-declared candidate on the website.

http://www.aapa.org/about_aapa/governance/resources/item.aspx?id=3390&terms=2012%20elections

[EMEDPA]

Thank you for the clarification. I heard the story second or third hand a little differently apparently.

[burnpac]

voting for dave and bob makes the point that the election rules are unjust(especially if they win...). both have over 30 yrs of service to the pa profession. Bob was the first paragon award winner from the aapa. dave started a prominent pa journal and has been president of several state and specialty organizations. the current rules require leadership positions in the last 5 yrs which is ridiculous. that is like telling a former 1 time president of the U.S. that he is not eligible to run again because it has been too long.....I can't think of anyone more qualified than dave or bob to hold office with the aapa......

 

For clarity, the AAPA Bylaws (voted on by the House of Delegates) define the minimum qualifications for the elected members of the BOD (except for house officer and student representative);

 

Section 3: Eligibility and Qualifications of Candidates for Elected Positions Other Than Student Director or Nominating Work Group Member.

 

a. A candidate must be a fellow member of the AAPA.

b. A candidate must be a member of an AAPA Chapter.

c. A candidate must have been an AAPA fellow member for the last three years.

d. A candidate must have accumulated at least three distinct years of experience in the past five years in at least two of the following major areas of professional involvement:

i. An AAPA or constituent organization officer, board member, committee, council, commission, work group, task force chair

ii. A delegate or alternate to the AAPA House of Delegates

iii. PA Foundation, Society for the Preservation of Physician Assistant History, American Academy of Physician Assistants Political Action Committee trustee or committee chair, Physician Assistant Education Association board member or committee chair, or National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants commission member.

iv. AAPA board appointees.

 

These have been the basic rules for many years, and the House has carefully and thoughtfully refined these rules a number of times over the years, in the representative democracy of the House. There are numerous opportunities to qualify to hold an elected position in the AAPA as evidenced by the above.

 

There is nothing "unjust" about the above, as I believe that relevant current experience in the operations of governing at the constituent organization level and / or within the AAPA are critical to success serving on the board and serving the profession on the national level. If you have an issue with the long standing bylaws regarding the elections process of the AAPA, it is easily remedied by working within your delegation to sponsor an amendment to the bylaws to correct what is perceived to be an injustice.

[EMEDPA]

under section D you(as a former aapa president) would be ineligible to run for office a few yrs from now unless you are doing something"official" still that I am unaware of.

doesn't it strike you as silly that someone who has been a pa for over 40 yrs, has won a pa paragon award, has been president of a state and specialty organization, and writes several articles/month on pa practice is considered "unsuitable" to run for an entry level director at large position?

under these rules I could run and Bob Blumm could not. who has more experience to contribute to the aapa?

to run for many of the specialty organization board positions you only need to be a member. you could join SEMPA today for example and run for the board next year.

compare the SEMPA elections rules to the AAPA rules above:

Nominations

The nominating process begins by December 1. Candidates may self-nominate or be nominated by another Fellow SEMPA member in good standing. Candidates must be a SEMPA Fellow member in good standing.

Nominated candidates must complete and submit:

1) Board of Directors Candidate Profile

2) Platform Statement Form with accompanying Platform Statement

3) Current CV

[burnpac]

under section D you(as a former aapa president) would be ineligible to run for office a few yrs from now unless you are doing something"official" still that I am unaware of.

doesn't it strike you as silly that someone who has been a pa for over 40 yrs, has won a pa paragon award, has been president of a state and specialty organization, and writes several articles/month on pa practice is considered "unsuitable" to run for an entry level director at large position?

under these rules I could run and Bob Blumm could not. who has more experience to contribute to the aapa?

to run for many of the specialty organization board positions you only need to be a member. you could join SEMPA today for example and run for the board next year.

compare the SEMPA elections rules to the AAPA rules above:

Nominations

The nominating process begins by December 1. Candidates may self-nominate or be nominated by another Fellow SEMPA member in good standing. Candidates must be a SEMPA Fellow member in good standing.

Nominated candidates must complete and submit:

1) Board of Directors Candidate Profile

2) Platform Statement Form with accompanying Platform Statement

3) Current CV

 

As you noted, I'm currently still eligible as I was on the BOD up until 6/2011. Don't look for me to run ever again.... :-)

 

Should I want to run again, I know the rules and could easily maintain eligibility by simply serving as a delegate or a constituent organization leader / committee member. Is this really so onerous? What I did thirty years ago is not really relevant to the current political climate of the health care system, and the AAPA sets a standard of experience that is a pretty low bar in my opinion.

 

I don't find it silly at all that a member organization takes leadership seriously and has carefully and thoughtfully deliberated on this issue over many decades and defined its rules and processes based on a representative democracy.

 

How constituent organizations run their elections is entirely up to their decision-making processes and wants, needs and preferences.

 

There is nothing "entry level" about sitting on a board governing a sizable staff, a national membership organization, and a multimillion dollar budget. You should vote for whomever you feel is the most qualified candidate. But don't call it unjust when they don't follow the published and long standing rules and are ineligible.

[EMEDPA]

if 51% of the aapa membership who voted wanted me to be president of the aapa for some reason and wrote me in wouldn't that be sufficient?

if not then what is the reason for even offering a write in category? isn't that the "work around" for dealing with a system such as this?

[EMEDPA]

you realize there are fewer restrictions to become president of the united states than a director at large for the aapa? it doesn't say you have to be a senator first or a governor or the secretary of state.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

 

what the aapa rules do is deter "new blood" from joining the leadership structure of the organization. the rules were written by folks with a vested interest in keeping out folks who weren't already part of the club....

 

starting from scratch it takes a min of 3-5 years to meet the requirements you listed above to become "board eligible". not exactly a formula for change.

[burnpac]

if 51% of the aapa membership who voted wanted me to be president of the aapa for some reason and wrote me in wouldn't that be sufficient?

if not then what is the reason for even offering a write in category? isn't that the "work around" for dealing with a system such as this?

 

Not if the candidate doesn't meet the requirements of Article XIII, Section 3., of the bylaws. Write ins are allowed in general AAPA elections, but you still must meet the minimum qualifications to be successfully elected.

 

Instead of working around the system, I would expect a future president of the AAPA to work within the system in preparation towards effectively leading the profession.

[burnpac]

what the aapa rules do is deter "new blood" from joining the leadership structure of the organization. the rules were written by folks with a vested interest in keeping out folks who weren't already part of the club....

 

starting from scratch it takes a min of 3-5 years to meet the requirements you listed above to become "board eligible". not exactly a formula for change.

 

Sorry, but these so-called folks with a vested interest are your peers, elected by your constituent organization(s), empowered by the bylaws and NC state corporations code to decide issues of policy for the AAPA. You want change? It starts with who you and your constituent organization elects to the House. All it takes is 50% plus one vote to change policy and a two / thirds majority to amend bylaws. That is the formula for policy change.

[EMEDPA]

Steve- I appreciate your involvement here on the pa forum even if we disagree on some issues. Thanks for contributing.

[burnpac]

EMEDPA - Thanks! I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues collegially, and stand ready to help you and anyone on this forum effect a positive change in our profession. Thanks for your passion and willingness to make a difference.

[bgdog]

Tried to vote, can't, I'm a student.

 

Fight the good fight boys. I'm pulling for you.

[jdtpac]

what the aapa rules do is deter "new blood" from joining the leadership structure of the organization. the rules were written by folks with a vested interest in keeping out folks who weren't already part of the club....

 

starting from scratch it takes a min of 3-5 years to meet the requirements you listed above to become "board eligible". not exactly a formula for change.

 

EMEDPA,

I'm sorry you have the opinion that the Academy does not infuse "new blood" into the leadership structure of the organization. This cannot be further from the truth. At any given HOD meeting, where Academy policy is adopted, at times there is up to 50% of the delegates are first time attendees. Most of these individuals are not “newbies” in a leadership role. Most of them come with many years’ experience as leaders in their state chapter or specialty organization. All of these individuals are encouraged to continue to be involved not only as delegates but also encouraged to apply for Academy council's and work groups, and to stay involved in their constituent organization. The Academy's leadership Development Work Group has developed tools for interested members to use to improve their leadership skills and the work group even goes as far as recruiting new leaders. http://www.aapa.org/about_aapa/governance/resources/item.aspx?id=821

 

I might be running with blinders on, because I am still having a difficult time understanding why you and several others on this forum are of the opinion that the Academy is a “good old boys club". You mentioned earlier that you may have received “second or third hand information" about Jim Piotrowski. I'm wondering if the same might be true as you have formulated your opinions of the Academy. I'm glad that Steve was able to explain Academy policy for you and hopefully you have gotten a better understanding of how the organization functions to the best interest of the Academy, its members and the future of the profession.

 

As I stated earlier, I have the highest regard for both David and Bob. It is unfortunate they did not meet qualifications, but as Steve mentioned, if you do not agree with the policies you change them by working with the organization and not through revolt. If you want to make a statement to the Academy membership and leadership (members of the House of Delegates) why don't you encourage your supporters to attend the Toronto HOD meeting and let their voices be heard. You do not have to be a seated delegate when the issue of title change is debated during the reference committee hearings. Any fellow member of the Academy is entitled to have their opinions heard during those hearings.

 

From the comments I have read by Michael, andersenpa and yourself on this and other issues debated on this forum I would strongly encourage that you consider getting involved in the Academy. You have a lot to offer please work with the Academy and not against it.