Barb,
I agree.  That's why I think that PWP need to unite and take control of
our organizations by setting a common agenda.  If they want to stick out
their tongues at each other that'S OK but they better be able to do that
while following the common agenda.

Charlie

Barbara Mallut wrote:
>
> Charlie....
>
> It seems to me that most of the PD organizations are still caught up in the
> "NYEH. NYEH, NYEH!  Sticks 'n stones will break my bones but names will never
> hurt me" (chanted with thumbs in ears and fingers waggling) stage of their
> evolution.
>
> >From my position as an observer of their shenanigans and name-calling, it
> seems they have a LONG was to go before they get to that "logical stage" that
> should come with thought and maturity.
>
> It's sure hard to respect an organization that acts so childishly most of the
> time - ESPECIALLY when so much hangs in the balance for so many!
>
> Barb Mallut
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----------
> From:   Parkinson's Information Exchange on behalf of Charles T. Meyer
> Sent:   Monday, December 01, 1997 8:53 AM
> To:     Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
> Subject:        Re: unity
>
> HI RON,
>
> At one time I was in favor of working toward merger of the
> organizations.  From what I have learned in the process of discussing
> this is that the bad feelings are too strong for that to be a viable
> goal at this time. We also don't need a new organization with the
> likelihood that it too will get polarized.  That is why I support the
> Patient Congress to be a joint effort of all the organizations.  They
> may be a lot of kicking and screaming but the Congress has the real
> possibility of unifying in purpose if not in structure.  It would be my
> hope that eventually unity would come because it is the logical thing to
> do and most people want it-  rather than create more hard feelings by
> coercion.
>
> Charlie
>
> ron barbar wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that there is wide support amoung the parkinson's
> > community for unity, the question is, how can we most effectively
> > acheive unity.  By effectively, I mean reasonably soon without
> > disrupting the contributions being made by the various parkinson's
> > organizations.  I beleive the answer comes through the application of
> > one of the most powerful forces in history.  The force- money.
> >
> > Here is what I envision.  We need to establish a set of guidelines for
> > establishing unity.  These guidelines would outline a set of steps to be
> > taken by the various parkinson's organizations towards unity.
> >
> > These steps might include:
> >
> > - Agreement that unity is a desirable goal
> > - Commitment to working toward unity
> > - Aligment of organizational goals and objectives
> > - Participation in joint planning sessions
> > - Establishment of power-sharing agreements
> > - Development of a joint charter
> > - Elimination of overlapping services
> > - Establishment of target date for unity
> > - Pool resources to acheive shared goals
> >
> > Next, we need to establish an umbrella Unity organization to facilitate
> > this process.  This organization might be an existing one, or might be
> > newly created for this purpose.  I think PAN might be a suitable
> > starting point.  Now, how do we give this organization some teeth? We
> > would divert our donations from the other organizations to the Unity
> > fund.  The Unity organization would use the Unity fund to drive the
> > various organizations together.  A percentage of the funds would go
> > towards administering the process of aligning the other organizations.
> > The remainder of the funds would be distributed to cooperating
> > parkinson's organizations in the form of incentive grants.  These grants
> > would be used to support the normal activities of the existing
> > organizations, but would be provided only if the organization continued
> > to take real steps toward unity.
> >
> > Is this a doable project- most certainly.  How quickly would unity be
> > acheived?  This would depend largely on the commitment of the community
> > to withold funds from organizations which do not cooperate.  If any one
> > of the major parkinson's organizations lost half its revenue for six
> > months, I bet there would be some rapid changes.  Are there downsides to
> > this approach? One downside would be the cost of maintaining yet another
> > beaurocracy.  I see no way around this one, but overhead costs should be
> > reasonably low- a very small organization (a few paid staff plus
> > volunteers should be able to keep the ball rolling).  Another downside
> > is the potential for disruption to existing services.  This is mitigated
> > by the incentive grants.  If an organization makes a good faith effort
> > to move towards unity, they get funds.
> >
> > The plus side:
> > - Elimination of duplicate beaurocracies
> > - Greater visibility
> > - More efficient services
> > - Stronger position relative to other special interest groups
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> --
>
> CHARLES T. MEYER, M.D.
> Middleton, WI
> [log in to unmask]

--

CHARLES T. MEYER, M.D.
Middleton, WI
[log in to unmask]