Dear Editor:
The appeal by Dr. Laskin, Chair of the Committee on Arrangements, which appeared as a Letter to the Editor in Fall 1988, is another example of an unintended insensitivity toward a large constituency of the American.
The Committee on Arrangements has rediscovered the problem of poor attendance at meetings. Generally speaking the problem is manifest at meetings outside New York, when large numbers of members decide to vacation elsewhere, or to attend the IPsaA summer meetings instead, or just decide not to attend the meetings west of the Hudson River. But for the past decade or so there has been a growing problem about the New York meetings, too. The very high costs of traveling to New York, then hoteling and eating there, make attendance at the winter meetings an increasingly heavy burden for attendees. A number of us have sought out less expensive, more commodious situations than those provided by the Waldorf.
A few years ago representatives from Los Angeles raised the issue at a Council meeting. In a caricature of a serious response, the American explored possible meeting places in Albany, and shuffled us off to Buffalo. Of course these would be unacceptable meeting sites, but the argument is regularly made that corporate laws in New York State demand an annual meeting in that State. How about reincorporating elsewhere? Unthinkable?
The fact that the out-of-town membership has been essentially supporting the New York meetings has now become evident and is public information. Does the Committee feel any more respectful to the non-resident membership for their support all these years? No. It chooses to make the burden of keeping the meetings at the Waldorf one which the out-of-towners ought to assume.
May I offer another solution? Why not start a campaign among those members who reside in the metropolitan New York area, asking them, in the interests of maintaining the meetings at the Waldorf, to reserve rooms there throughout the meetings? Is this an absurd notion, making no financial sense for those who live in the area to spend for housing themselves at the hotel, or to totally give up their practices during the meetings?
If this suggestion is inadmissible, then the Committee loses its right to ask any of the visitors to stay at the headquarters hotel if, for reasons of convenience and finance, they choose not to do so. If our members in the metropolitan area wish to keep the meetings in New York each winter, I hope they will demonstrate their support for these arrangements by their financial contributions to that end, just as the out-of-towners have done year in and year out.
I would also request that the Committee on Arrangements keep me and the membership at large informed about the fate of this suggestion.
Sincerely yours,
Melvin Mandel, M.D.
Los Angeles, California
From the Editor:
The article referred to in Dr. Mone's letter was a summary of the report made by Carl Davis to the Board on Professional Standards. It does not represent the opinions of the Newsletter in general nor the Editor in particular.