Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Editor's Note: Ad-Hoc Committee on AOA-POA Voting Procedures Report Available

During the POA House of Delegates on Saturday, May 21, 2011, the Ad-Hoc Committee on AOA-POA Voting Procedures presented its report on the duties of the president and current voting procedures at POA and AOA House of Delegates sessions.

Dr. Anthony Diecidue, chair, presented the report on behalf of the committee, which was appointed by then-President Dr. Gregory Caldwell following a motion passed by the 2010 POA House of Delegates to "... examine the current voting policy of the POA delegation as pertaining to the casting of votes at the House of Delegates of the AOA and that the committee be charged with reporting its findings at the next meeting of the POA House of Delegates."

The committee's PowerPoint presentation is available on POA's website in the About the POA section.

May 2011: AOA House of Delegates Voting Procedure

Editor:

I have followed the issue of votes cast by our POA president, then, regarding ABO. Perhaps I have been silent too long. I too brought delegate votes from our Northwest Society members which were to be largely cast against the ABO ideology.

I too, not polled and when I brought it up I was told point blank and to my face that it did not matter "no split vote would be cast by Pennsylvania because I will cast all votes for."

I personally discussed it with the then POA president and the incoming president, both of whom informed me that the decision was already made. Two other delegates left the room in disgust saying they too "were not being listened to may as well leave." They did. I remained and was in fact present when the number of votes did not reflect those offered by POA membership. Is that how the delegate process is supposed to function? Damage done, hopefully will change. My regards, to those who care.

Dan Casamento, O.D.
Bradford

Sunday, April 3, 2011

April 2011: Board Certification

Editor:

I would like to clarify an inaccuracy in Greg Knight’s article in the November/December 2010 Keystoner in his first sentence: “...Pennsylvania joined an overwhelming number of states to support certification by the recently established American Board of Optometry (ABO).”

ABO establishment received a majority of votes in 30 jurisdictions and there were 23 against. An interesting aspect of it is that of the jurisdictions that split their vote (e.g. not a block vote) 3 were a majority Yes, 7 were a majority No. That said, it is a bit misleading to count states/jurisdictions. For instance, you have Ohio, with 118 votes of No, offset by Maine with 2 votes Yes, or AOSA with 3 votes Yes. More revealing is that if California, which voted 191 in favor, had voted in accord with its membership survey, which was 76% against and 24% in favor, instead of as a block, the vote goes Against ABO establishment by a vote of 1032 to 971. The California block vote alone was enough to have the ABO established.The final vote count is listed on the AOA website at http://www.aoa.org/x12522.xml.


David R. McPhillips, O.D., F.A.A.O.
Horsham

April 2011: AOA House of Delegates Voting Procedure {1}

Editor's Note:  For background and clarity, Letters to the Editor received on this topic that were printed in previous issues of the Keystoner will be posted along with the two that were published in the April 2011 issue.

Editor:

Regarding Dr. Diecidue’s Letter to the Editor in the November/December 2010 Keystoner, I would like to state unequivocally that it is absolutely a false statement that "POA’s votes at the AOA House of Delegates were indeed determined by polling the delegates on every question..." All delegates were NOT polled on the ABO issue, (I and Dr. Bennett being 2), and when asked why he did not poll all the delegates, the then POA president stated, "The POA board has already decided we are in favor of this." I have no doubt that Dr. Diecidue was absolutely polled on this issue. The backlash from the lack of a vote given to some delegates, who felt their time was not well served as a POA representative, on an issue that had already been decided on by the POA board, is what created the formation of the Ad Hoc AOA Voting Committee in the first place. It is important that a POA delegate be advised and understand their role, if they have one at all, as a representative of POA at the AOA House of Delegates. Otherwise these meetings can and should just be attended by state association presidents.


David R. McPhillips, O.D., F.A.A.O.
Past President Pennsylvania Optometric Association
Horsham

April 2011: AOA House of Delegates Voting Procedure {2}

Editor:

I had hoped that this issue of voting at the POA delegate strength at AOA meetings had been put to bed so I was surprised that Dr. Tony Diecidue wrote in the November/December 2010 issue of the Keystoner that he had been polled by the POA president for his vote at the 2009 AOA meeting.

Dr. Diecidue may have been “polled” but others were not, particularly, at least, not I or three young ODs from Eastern Pennsylvania who were standing in the first caucus next to me.  I was not polled and when I objected to that process I was told by the President that he would handle this matter “his way,” whatever that means.

Just not democratic!

Irving Bennett, O.D.
Beaver Falls

November/December 2010: AOA House of Delegates Voting Procedure

Editor:

As chairman of the Ad Hoc AOA Voting Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Dr. Bennett’s letter to the editor in the September/October 2010 issue of the Keystoner and clarify some points he made regarding the 2009 AOA meeting. But, before I do, I would like to state unequivocally that every member of POA has a voice in how we vote at the AOA House of Delegates.

I attended both the 2009 and 2010 AOA House of Delegates and was present as a delegate when our votes were cast. At the POA House of Delegates prior to the 2009 AOA meeting, a motion was made to direct POA’s vote regarding board certification. Delegates discussed the motion at length and it was defeated. POA’s votes at the AOA House of Delegates were indeed determined by polling the delegates (I being one) on every question, and POA cast its votes according to the majority rule of polled delegates.

The purpose of the Ad Hoc AOA Voting Committee is to “Examine the current voting policy of the POA delegation as pertaining to the casting of POA votes at the HOD of the AOA and that the committee be charged with reporting its findings at the next meeting of the POA House of Delegates.” I, along with the other members of the committee, have begun this process and will report our findings, as charged, at the next POA House of Delegates.

Dr. Bennett states, “I hope that the appointed committee members study this issue thoroughly and not be guided by politics as usual.” There is and never was a political agenda and I will not allow anything but what is best for our members to guide this committee. He and other members may take the opportunity to suggest a new voting policy if, after our report, they feel the current one is flawed.

Anthony S. Diecidue, O.D., M.S.
Chair, Ad Hoc AOA Voting Committee
Stroudsburg

September/October 2010: AOA House of Delegates Voting Procedure

Editor:

It was 101 years ago that the AOA saw the wisdom of changing its procedure of voting at annual meetings.  Through the convention of 1910, each member of the Association had one vote at the national House of Delegates. It became apparent to the AOA leadership then that the optometrists who resided or practiced in the area where the convention was held had a disproportionate influence on national issues. The matter was corrected in 1910 when AOA-assigned delegates for each state based on paid membership in the state.  AOA left to the various state associations how their votes were cast.

Pennsylvania does not have a written policy on how its delegate strength is voted. Heretofore, the leader of the delegation, early in the meeting, customarily polled the delegates present to see how the votes should be cast.  Sometimes they were cast proportionately to the number of delegates voting; sometime the unit rule was approved wherein the prevailing side captured all the delegate votes; and sometimes there were unique divisions of the votes. I personally have attended 56 AOA annual meetings, the first being in Pittsburgh in 1946, my very first year of practice. And I have been fortunate to be appointed a delegate at all of the AOA meetings I attended. So I know from personal experience how things were done and I saw firsthand  at the 2009 AOA congress the discouragement of some POA delegates, when the delegates were not polled to see how the votes should be cast.

At Optometry’s Meeting in Orlando in June 2010, I took it upon myself to ask the leaders of eight different state associations about how they split their votes. It was a mixed bag – some divided the votes proportionately the way the present delegates voted and others used the unit rule. However, all of the delegations to which I talked had a policy on how the votes would be cast at the conventions.

It was gratifying to learn that our POA, at its recent convention, created a committee to study the voting procedure used by our delegates to the annual meetings of the American Optometric Association. I hope that the appointed committee members study this issue thoroughly and not be guided by politics as usual. Instead I hope that any new policy that is suggested makes positively clear that each member’s vote is important and each member is treated with courtesy, respect and dignity.

Irving Bennett, O.D.
Beaver Falls

April 2010: AOA House of Delegates Voting Procedure

Editor:

On March 11, 2010, the Bucks-Montgomery Optometric Society sent a formal proposal to amend the POA Constitution to our Executive Director, Charlie Stuckey, O.D. The resolution was then forwarded to the By-Laws Committee and the Board of Directors. The proposal will formally be presented to the House of Delegates for a vote at the Spring Conference at Seven Springs Resort.

Passage into law requires a 2/3 majority vote.

Pennsylvania has the fifth largest voting delegation (88 votes) at the AOA House of Delegates. The POA does not specify how these votes can be used. In the past, POA Presidents voted at their discretion, directing all or none or any division of votes as they felt necessary.

The BMOS represents ten percent of the POA, or 9 delegate votes. We strongly wanted these 9 votes to represent the feeling of our members. Unfortunately, even with two of our members sitting at the POA House of Delegates table at the AOA National Convention in Washington D.C., our voice was not heard.

The resolution presented will clarify the voting rights of a local society. Please inform your society leaders about your feelings on this issue.

Respectfully submitted,
Scott Goldberg, O.D.
President, Bucks-Montgomery Optometric Society
Conshohocken

November/December 2009: AOA House of Delegates Voting Procedure

Editor:

I purposely waited until now to write this letter dealing with POA’s voting its delegate strength at Optometry’s Meeting so that this important issue would not get confused with the actual voting at the last congress on Board Certification. The subjects are totally unrelated but the BC issue did trigger and expose a problem that, in my opinion at least, needs full discussion and solving.

In my 64 years of membership in POA and AOA, I have been privileged to attend at least 55 AOA congresses, being a delegate at most. It has been standard operating procedure for the POA delegation to decide as the very first order of business at the very first caucus how the state’s delegate vote would be cast.

As usual, our state at Optometry’s Meeting in Washington in June had more delegate strength than it had members attending as official delegates. Unfortunately, no determination was made on how to divide the vote fairly and equitably. There are a number of options and it is up to each state to decide for itself what option to use.  This is no different from national elections for the President of the United States.

Option one is for members of the delegation present to vote in the caucus and the prevailing side captures all of the votes (this is called the unit rule); option two has the delegates vote in the caucus and the vote count of the association is divided in the percentage that is reflected by that vote; and option three, called the Van Essen modification, has the delegates vote in the caucus and the prevailing side of that vote captures all of the unvoted delegates. Both options two and three make sure that no one is disenfranchised and every vote is recorded.

Personally, I prefer option two particularly after the last congress when at least two delegates said to me that it was patently unfair not to be asked to vote in the caucus so their feelings could be registered.

In these days where democracy is threatened around the world and where voting is a right as well as a privilege we must not in our own organization quash dissent by restricting voting. However, having said that I would ask the POA to establish a rule governing the voting of delegates at Optometry’s Meeting or, at least, require the delegation at the meetings to determine as the first order of business the rules that will govern the casting of the POA delegate vote.

The status quo is not acceptable.

Irving Bennett, O.D.
Beaver Falls