 |
 |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D2C8C4E3B44C8766051FB585 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mr.Claeys I would like to respond to how your letter (attached) comes across to me. [log in to unmask] wrote: > From Michael Claeys-PAN > --------------------------------------------- > Mrs. Flinterman, > > We received a copy of your email from Barbara Schirloff. I don't > want > to spend too much time on this because (1) there is too much > important > work to do in support of the Udall bill, Why, then have you waste all of this band width defending your ego? Shouldn't this posting be directed to the individual (Camilla Flinterman) rather than to the entire list? > and (2) continued focus on these issues tends to make the situation > worse rather than better. But > you specifically asked is this was something PAN was working on, so > I wanted to respond. > > First of all, I strongly argue that disagreements between the > organizations are much more the result of differences of opinion and > > differing priorities than "ego problems." It is important to get > the > facts on these disagreements and to know where each party stands and > > why, and evaluate to logic and reasonableness of each position, > rather > than just paint all the parties as equally at fault just for failing > to > agree. What are the facts, as you see them and where do you stand and why? with all of the rhetoric you have espoused and I fail to see where you answer these questions. > All this does is punish people for trying to do things the best > way, and encourages agreeing just for the sake of agreeing to things > > that don't make the most sense. sounds like a touch of paranoia to me. > > I also would argue that currently the cooperation among the national > > organizations is a good if not better than it's ever been. I agree > it's > not perfect, but things are definitely improving, and the Udall bill > is > one important reason. Further, while greater cooperation among the > groups and greater commitment of resources by the APDA and NPF would > certainly improve the chances of passing the Udall bill, I do not > think > it is accurate to say that the lack of cooperation has been a big > obstacle to passage. Hmnnn! I thought you were trying to say that there was no lack of cooperation between the organizations??? What was the obstacle, do you know? Could it be that we didn't have people who were committed to our cause enough to find a way around the Politics, which will always be there? > We came very, very close last year, and I think > impartial evaluation of the events of last year would show the lack > of > action on the Udall bill in the House had more to do with election > year > politics and other political issues beyond the control of the > Parkinson's community rather than whatever internal problems we may > have > been experiencing. > > I want to take especially strong exception to the remark that "even > when > (the Udall bill) passes there will be struggles over who gets what > money." THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE! The Udall bill authorizes > additional money be made available to scientists and Parkinson's > researchers. All the grant requests will go through NIH's rigorous > peer-review process and will be out of the control, or even > influence, > of any of the Parkinson's organizations. Will some of the money go > to > researchers aligned with one national group or another? Of course, > but > only after going through the proper NIH grant submission and review > process. This is just the type of misinformation that exasperates > problems rather than helping solve them. More bureaucratic bull! > > > Please be assured that we too are frustrated by the lack of > cooperation, > communication and commitment to the Udall bill effort demonstrated > within our community. And well you should be frustrated, you are probably part of the cause. > At the same time, we are committed to not let > this matters distract of dissuade us from doing everything we can to > > achieve the goals of Udall bill passage and greatly increased > research > funding for Parkinson's disease -- this year! We greatly appreciate > all > the hard work by advocates, and will continue to inform, coordinate > and > support your efforts. > > Remember, Network President Joan Samuelson and other members of the > PAN > Board of Directors have Parkinson's; they are highly motivated, very > > skilled and extremely hard working, and have little patience for > anything that does not further the cause of finding the most > immediate > cure for this disease. > > Thank you again for your input and for your desire to achieve our > common > goal. Please don't ever hesitate to contact us with any questions, > comments or requests you may have. > > Sincerely, > > Michael Claeys > Parkinson Action Network > Community Outreach Coordinator > 800-850-4726 > 707-544-2363 Fax > [log in to unmask] If you choose to respond to my evaluation of your Bureaucratic Crap please do so privately, the only reason I have responded through the list is to encourage others to state their opinions. Frankly with people who have your apparent attitude promoting our cause it not hard to understand why we have been " put on the back burner" --------------D2C8C4E3B44C8766051FB585 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Bob Chapman Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Bob Chapman n:Chapman;Bob org:Sun Lakes Homeowners Assn II email;internet:[log in to unmask] title:Facilities Director x-mozilla-cpt:;0 x-mozilla-html:TRUE end:vcard --------------D2C8C4E3B44C8766051FB585--