 |
 |
Carl- You make too much sense. A year or 2 ago I posted the same question/idea. I actually got a phone call from an attorney representing one of the organizations gently trying to convince me that it wasn't a good idea. That call convinced me even more that I was right. Then the issues regarding the development of the (patient) alliance came up. I floated the idea that it could be sponsored by all the organizations. That triggered a lot of hard feeling in spite of overwhelming support by the list. The issues appear to me to be turf, power and control as well as financial. I personally would favor a movement to insist that the major groups work out a merger or if they don't bargain in good faith we boycott- but if I did make such a suggestion I likely would get calls from 4 or 5 lawyers!! Charlie Carl Miller wrote: > 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 -- ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************