Answer Choices –	Responses –
– Yes	33.90% 20
– No	47.46% 28
– Undecided	18.64% 11
TOTAL	59

If Yes, please explain why.

Answered: 16
Skipped: 43

Most AAPM members are pathetic losers. We don't need their input. There are two kinds of medical physicists: The "deciders" and the workers. The deciders know better and therefore should decide. I am a chair, co-chair, or member of 10 different committees, I know more about AAPM than 100 of these worker blokes. The smaller the power clique, the more efficient the governance is gonna be. My vision is to have some 50 influential "deciders" populate and control all the TG committees, working groups, and the executive committees. This will make the AAPM operatw very efficiently. Now of course we need token worker fellows in all this, otherwise they would revolt. But the important change is that in this proposal, we the deciders will decide which worker fellers get in. We decide. Workers do. That's how the world works. Live with it.

8/15/2017 01:47 PM

After serving on the Board for two terms and hearing all the arguments by most colleagues that served on the highest and not so high leadership positions I am convinced it is a good step forward. I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories of some of our members that oppose change, several as a principle.

8/15/2017 12:52 PM

the reasons given by todd pawliki in the editorial he wrote for jacmp

8/15/2017 04:49 AM

Read the exchanges. The world changes, the governance structure has to change also. I am not convinced by the no's claim of a power grab. What is their proposal? Something beats nothing, in an open process.

8/14/2017 08:28 PM

Many (most) of the currently elected officers and volunteer board members have recommended that this governance change take place.

8/14/2017 12:31 PM

It is time to trim the fat

8/14/2017 11:51 AM

Despite the "sky is falling" "doom and gloom" predictions of some people against the change, I see no indication that the changes will spell disaster. Nor does it seem to be a power grab of any kind, and in general my experience with leaders in the AAPM (limited as it may be) has shown them all to be upstanding citizens in the medical physics community with no desire to "reign on high". I think medical physicists in general eschew that kind of power. Given that I have no serious reservations with the proposal, and never having been involved with the board, I have to defer to the evidence provided by what seems to be the overwhelming majority of members who have served on the board. Almost everything I have read from those who have served demonstrates that the current size of the board is unwieldy, and this leads to limited real discussion and in many cases the board becomes a rubber stamp for ExCom. If the people who are and have been involved with the board are in favor of the change, then barring any major reservations (of which I have none), I will vote in favor of the change.

8/13/2017 04:52 AM

Need a more effective organization for the future. I hope it will remain honest and in the best interest of all members

8/12/2017 10:02 PM

Q3 w

If No, please explain why.

Answered: 17
Skipped: 42

I'm uncomfortable with the changes in the nomination process. The current system of having a set number of members being able to nominate an individual for an at-large board position is one of the most democratic aspects of our election process. Changing that to voting for individuals for a council that would then nominate candidates could IMHO open the door for abuse in a most undemocratic way.

9/1/2017 02:39 PM

It is taking a voice away from the membership. We are already not being heard with respect to ABR MOC. The AAPM is our last chance for real change.

8/22/2017 05:41 PM

If AAPM would have spend so much efforts in passing CARE bill, we would have achieved something tangible. So much money and resources have been put in this autocratic and hugely unpopular, somebody needs to provide answer.

8/18/2017 06:09 PM

Presently the board is sufficiently big and diverse and hence commercial companies can't control it. When it will be small, there is concern that it will be controlled by commercial companies by sending their ex-employees to its top positions. It will also become "old boys club".

8/15/2017 01:32 PM

AAPM is going in the direction from "Will Serve" members to "Will Rule" members

8/15/2017 01:02 PM

The same people who did the phony Trump election polls are now doing AAPM polls. These are rigged, just like before. There are so many problems in the AAPM right now. I and I alone can fix this problem. And I need to be able to appoint my "people" into the Nominating Committee so I can make sure that only people who are loyal to me are in. I value loyalty above others. Again, I, and I alone, can fix this problem. Vote yes.

8/15/2017 12:52 PM

AAPM is too out of touch with the needs of clinical physicists. This vote seems like it would only place power even more into the hands of academic elites

8/14/2017 09:41 PM

Not enough evidence

8/14/2017 08:05 PM

Q4 w

If Undecided, please explain why.

Answered: 3
Skipped: 56

Seems like a bigger board may be useful in fostering the input of many people, but the idea that I would directly vote on a higher percentage of the board is appealing.

8/14/2017 12:35 PM

I believe the board should be smaller, but am unsure if this plan is the most desirable

8/12/2017 12:55 PM

I have been really busy with life stuff, haven't read anything much about it yet.

8/12/2017 06:16 AM

Invite others to add a comment