 |
 |
Personally, I'd say Bob significantly misread Michael's position and was rather rude for no good reason. I think a more careful reading might lead one to conclude: - PAN leadership thinks the best way to serve our community is to get the funding required to fund research. - While PAN leadership would like the various parkinsons groups to work more closely together the priority for PAN is to get the funding, and pressuring the various organizations to merge/ align their positions, etc. will just result in more infighting. - While there are still differences, things are moving in the right direction. Seems to me PAN's got the right idea- get the funding, then straighten out the support groups. >Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 20:11:22 -0400 >From: Bob Chapman <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: PD Unity answer >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >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? He's not defending his ego, he's defending his goals and methods. I think this is appropriate to the list. Clearly some list members (such as yourself) don't understand PAN very well. >> 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. True enough, I'm guessing PAN doesn't want to stir up too much s*** right now by pointing the finger at particular leaders of the other organizations. PAN is not focused on fixing the support organizations right now. I bet if you had approached Michael reasonably he might have shared some insights as to where the ego problems lay. >> 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 see nothing paranoid about this position. He seems to be saying PAN will work with the various groups even if they don't really want to work together. >> >> 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??? No he said cooperation is better than in the past, but not yet perfect. >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? The primary obstacle was Newt & company. >> 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! I think Michael is saying once the money is allocated the scientists at the NHI will make sure the best scientists in the field will get the funds. No bull there. > > >> 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. OK Bob, so what have you done to get the Bill passed? And how does that stack up against PAN'S efforts? >> 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" And with people like you tearing down our cause I'm suprised we aren't dragged into a back alley. Let's all hope PAN keeps up the good work and that together we get this bill passed. Bob - I hope you can channel your anger into fighting our common enemy. --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------