"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association.


Dave wrote:
Doug, I get the ABA Journal, as well as its separate business lawyer's
glossy magazine.

So?

... I also get the AARP rags.

Are you 55 or older?

Both the President and the CEO of AARP are. Which is what I said. In fact,
they are both grandparents. In other words, they are members of the group
they represent. Your problem with that is.... what, exactly?

Harry Belefonte was their man of the year in 2006. They should have printed
that nice shot of him with Hugo Chavez in the AARP magazine.

I'm not either. It's a standard on public library shelves. Meanwhile, the
president of the AMA (as well as all but two or three of their board and
council members) are practicing (or formerly practicing) physicians.

Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA,
are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional
organizations.


Max

Maxprop wrote:
Harry Belefonte was their man of the year in 2006. They should have printed
that nice shot of him with Hugo Chavez in the AARP magazine.


They have to do something to "balance" their strong support
of the Medicare Reform (ie Pharm Industry Bribe) program and
their further support thru 3 elections.

But hey, what have they done for President Bush lately?



I'm not either. It's a standard on public library shelves. Meanwhile, the
president of the AMA (as well as all but two or three of their board and
council members) are practicing (or formerly practicing) physicians.


Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA,
are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional
organizations.


Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either.

So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and
professional interest organizations are crooked shills
pushing an ultra-left-wing agenda? What a cheerful (and
realistic) view of the world.

DSK

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:

Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA,
are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional
organizations.


Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either.

We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that run
the organizations, both financially and functionally. They do the
legislative liason footwork, make the legislative contacts, plan the agendas
of the organizations, and execute the decisions made by the organization
officers. The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice
versa. They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists.

So you agree with Dave that *all* charities and civic and professional
interest organizations are crooked shills pushing an ultra-left-wing
agenda? What a cheerful (and realistic) view of the world.

I agree that you'll always see it that way. It's your secular progressive
nature.

Max

Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the AOA,
are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run professional
organizations.


Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either.


Maxprop wrote:
We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that run
the organizations, both financially and functionally.

You mean putting little circles & arrows on the calendar,
sweeping the office, balancing the checkbook, calling the
roofing guy.


... They do the
legislative liason footwork, make the legislative contacts,

Sure

plan the agendas

Not if the organizations are headed by members of the group
they represent. Doctors as officers of the AMA for example.
*They* set the agenda, not the office employees.

Ever heard of policy-making as opposed to manning the desk?



and execute the decisions made by the organization
officers.

Sure.

... The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice
versa.

That's exactly backwards from the way it should be, and is
backwards from every such organization *I* have experience with.

For example, if your sailing club has a hired manager, does
he decide who gets the big perpetual trophies?



They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists.


My secretary isn't either. But he doesn't make engineering
decisions.

One could say that your company is run by & for the office
manager; after all he makes a lot of decisions right? But if
he is setting basic policy then you are abdicating from your
role. Some presidents & boards do, most don't (IMHO of
course). Something about self-interest...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Right. But the executives that run the AMA and my organization, the
AOA, are not physicians or optometrists--they are pros that run
professional organizations.


Well, duh. My secretary isn't an engineer, either.


Maxprop wrote:
We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that
run the organizations, both financially and functionally.

You mean putting little circles & arrows on the calendar, sweeping the
office, balancing the checkbook, calling the roofing guy.

Not even close. They are executive directors, people who plan and execute
the agendas of the organizations. They are very well compensated for their
expertise and performance.

... They do the legislative liason footwork, make the legislative
contacts,

Sure

plan the agendas

Not if the organizations are headed by members of the group they
represent. Doctors as officers of the AMA for example. *They* set the
agenda, not the office employees.

How naive you are. If I referred to the executive director of our state
professional organization as "an office employee," he'd laugh.

Ever heard of policy-making as opposed to manning the desk?

Sure. The doctors consult their executive directors and ask them for
policy-making direction and guidance. Doctors, as a rule, are great
clinicians but lousy policy makers and planners. Executive directors are
the movers and shakers of professional organizations--they help keep the
membership on the right track.

and execute the decisions made by the organization officers.

Sure.

... The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice versa.

That's exactly backwards from the way it should be, and is backwards from
every such organization *I* have experience with.

It's reality, like it or not. Your experience may not have been as close to
the action as you might wish to believe.

For example, if your sailing club has a hired manager, does he decide who
gets the big perpetual trophies?

Um, there generally isn't much competition nor trophies involved with
professional organizations, Doug.

They are not coffee making, skirt-swishing typists.


My secretary isn't either. But he doesn't make engineering decisions.

Yeah, but does he have nice legs? Wait--don't answer that. I don't want to
know.


One could say that your company is run by & for the office manager; after
all he makes a lot of decisions right? But if he is setting basic policy
then you are abdicating from your role. Some presidents & boards do, most
don't (IMHO of course). Something about self-interest...

When did we begin talking about my company??? We were discussing
professional organizations, and some not-so-professional, like the AARP.

Nice attempt at obfuscation, but no cigar.

Max

We're not talking about your secretary, Doug. These are the people that
run the organizations, both financially and functionally.


You mean putting little circles & arrows on the calendar, sweeping the
office, balancing the checkbook, calling the roofing guy.


Maxprop wrote:
Not even close. They are executive directors, people who plan and execute
the agendas of the organizations.

Depends very much on the organization

They are very well compensated for their
expertise and performance.


And (in most cases I know about) their political connections.




How naive you are.

Yeah sure.

That's not calling names, is it? Of course not, but it
doesn't really prove much.


... If I referred to the executive director of our state
professional organization as "an office employee," he'd laugh.


If he's setting the basic policy & long-term agenda of the
organization, then he should laugh... and hand you a jar of
Vaseline.




Sure. The doctors consult their executive directors and ask them for
policy-making direction and guidance.

You don't work with doctors very much, do you?

.... Doctors, as a rule, are great
clinicians but lousy policy makers and planners.

But they are the ones who know what a doctor's professional
concerns & issues are.



... The organization officers consult them for guidance, not vice versa.


That's exactly backwards from the way it should be, and is backwards from
every such organization *I* have experience with.


It's reality, like it or not.

Actually, it isn't.

Your say-so doesn't mean much, and you have done very little
(other than call names) to prove your point.

... Your experience may not have been as close to
the action as you might wish to believe.


Yeah maybe not. When I, along with a group of colleagues,
say to each other "we should have this-or-that" and it
starts happening, that doesn't mean much does it.





My secretary isn't either. But he doesn't make engineering decisions.


Yeah, but does he have nice legs? Wait--don't answer that. I don't want to
know.


Yes you do.


When did we begin talking about my company??? We were discussing
professional organizations, and some not-so-professional, like the AARP.


You just hate-hate-hate the AARP because they didn't roll
over for Bush/Cheney's looting of Social Security, the way
they did for every other Bush/Cheney plan.

And we began talking about your company because it is a
parallel situation to the organizations under discussion...
you claim they are run by & for the professional managers,
but somehow *you* get a different deal.


Nice attempt at obfuscation, but no cigar.

I don't want a cigar, thanks.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

.... Doctors, as a rule, are great clinicians but lousy policy makers and
planners.

But they are the ones who know what a doctor's professional concerns &
issues are.

True, but the mechanics of legislative interaction, agenda planning, and the
business surrounding such issues is best left to the pros whose expertise
affords them the greatest chance for success: the executive directors.

Your say-so doesn't mean much, and you have done very little (other than
call names) to prove your point.

Becoming a little sensitive, Doug? Odd, coming from the insensitive,
name-calling jerk you've been in virtually every Usenet conversation we've
had heretofore.


You just hate-hate-hate the AARP because they didn't roll over for
Bush/Cheney's looting of Social Security, the way they did for every other
Bush/Cheney plan.

Not even close. They've been prejudicial toward my profession for years.
They've promoted a secular-progressive agenda, but have attempted to pass
themselves off as a non-partisan organization benefitting the elderly. And
take a look at their balance sheet--it doesn't exactly look like a
non-profit organization.

Max