 |
 |
Hi, Carl: I don't think that any of us in the organizations would argue against a merger--quite the contrary. About 5 years ago, APDA, NPF, PDF, UPF and the Parkinson's Institute all sat down at the same table and negotiated hard to accomplish a merger. Sadly, it fell apart at the last minute. No one was worried about losing jobs, but there are some real issues involved having to do with focus and finances as I understand it. (I wasn't at the Institute at that time.) Anyway, it's good to see this issue brought up again--the synergies created by a merger would be incredible! Carole Cassidy -----Original Message----- From: Carl Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 9:36 AM To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN Subject: Michael J. Fox - Should he be exclusively NPF's spokesman? Why not resolve this problem once and for all. We have need for only one Parkinson's organization. NPF and APDA and any other organization should merge for the good of fighting the disease instead of bickering among themselves, or worse, causing conflict in the Parkinson community. The way it is now each research institution is lined up with either NPF or APDA but not both. This is not good. I know that some people in these organizations will lose jobs in a merger i.e., one president instead of 3 or 4. one office and associated overhead instead of 3 or 4, etc.; but darn it every business merger goes through this and bites the bullet. If jobs are lost in such a merger, so be it. Our contributions and fundraising will do far more good in one org than in several. Carl Miller Atlanta, GA