2022 Atlanta Board of Trustees Meeting

material is laid out, the decision of who gives what lecture, how much time is allotted and how audience participation is utilized among other things. It could be suggested that the quality of the conference is likely more of a product of the latter concept, a superior managerial execution. The most common COI that faces an educational presenter is one involving material in the presentation that conflicts with another loyalty the presenter has. The classic example is when a presenter has a position at a pharmaceutical company and then gives a presentation on the product produced by the pharmaceutical company. Usually, in such a presentation, this conflict of interest is mitigated by announcing such COI to the audience at the start of the presentation and the person or people who receive the information are then allowed to make a judgement as to the veracity of the information being given in the presentation given the knowledge of the COI. This situation is different though. Dr. Bays did announce, informally, that he would be speaking at TOS to the OMA board. However, there was no formal or public process in place. Even if someone on the board had doubts as to whether something was amiss and some action should be taken, there is not a forum to voice this concern. Indeed, the lack of an ability to have a voice and the concept of the BOT as a group going along with the flow of a suggestion has caused problems for the organization in the past. In the end, the concern with this complaint is the perception that there is a loss of intellectual property from one organization to the next. It should be recognized that the complainant thought that this was a “slam dunk”. It was felt that there was no thought needed, Dr. Bays should not present at TOS. It is important in this case to separate the idealism and passion of the complainant and find where this case could potentially cause problems for the organization in the future. It is worthwhile noting that the passion and idealism of a single individual may not in actuality be singular. If there were similarly strong feelings with other members of the organization, it could be suggested that possibly the greatest harm to the organization would exist in this plurality of perception for what may be shared misplaced judgement. If there are others who feel similarly, then this shared feeling of wrongdoing is likely what would harm the organization to a greater extent than the loss of perceived intellectual property given in this example. This whole line of thought does beg the question of whether a formalization of the process may be needed. Could we imagine a scenario in the future where there might be a perceived loss of intellectual property and that an “edge” is lost to a competitor? Or is it possible that there could be a group think within the membership of the organization that we have lost an edge because we did not have a process in place to mitigate such a loss. It is suggested either is possible, but the latter is more probable. There have been similar problems in the past where the incorrect group think of the BOT was placed against a competing opinion of the membership. It would be difficult for a person who is a member of two organizations to decide where their loyalty lies. It has been a long-term goal for OMA and TOS to have normalized relations. OMA is actively seeking to work closely with other organizations as well and this is being actively encouraged. It is felt and likely rightly so that such alliances are in the best interest of the OMA. Since there is an ongoing effort to create relationships with organizations that may have similar missions for the purpose of propagating a singular message, it may be wise to have a process in place to assure that such an intermingling does not create a negative effect for the OMA.

Page | 3