First of all, I'm agree with Jean Claude in the sense that we can't lock ourselves in a prison so due that the Society is quiet young we need to proceed depending in our growth and necessities. This is a main point to help us growth in a healthy way.
Right now the piramidal organization' s proposition of Manolo has sense, in fact we need experts consultants who help us with another point of view.
I'm also agree with Stefano with young people, where i obviously include myself :-), we need to learn moooore about how all these work... and this means time and dedication, which is a lack for all. But I also remark that although we are young we have ideas which should be listened and answered, I think this is what JC wants to enphazies with 6/6, so I will include at least another member in the 3 members.
About founders,as Fabio said, we need to include all , in my opinion we can't exclude anyone because all are important.
Criterias for:
- been an active member: both looks great but all of us we are first clinics and secondly we are "researchers".. isn't it? so time is a huge problem...however is reasonable to force us.
- years in the board for each representation: I'm agree in two for the president (as Stefano proposed), and also all the rest.
- It's true that the board should also evaluate who is in each Committee but in some committees we have no help, as you well know FAbio, so if someone wants to very wellcome!!!
-I'm agree about the importance of Newsletter and Web C. but we need more imput and people working on it!! I just suggest to joint both Committees to increase the team. What do you think JC and the rest of the Board???)

Monica 2009-12-12


Some suggestions :

- I think that the statutes must be separated from the Internal Rules.
The statutes are simple and accessible to all on internet.
The Internal Rules can be more detailed  and more discreet.
We should not lock ourselves into a prison.
The board need to be balanced  between 6 ancient and 6 young people, the president can have double vote to decide.
- We can facilitate, those who participate regularly in meetings.
- It is necessary to give to each one the possibility of renewing his mandate if he wishes it.
Do not forget the delegate of the patients...

Jean Claude 2009-12-7

I think that in the past we had short periods of very rich discussion but sometimes we were not able to drawn a final picture with those ideas. I suggest now to stablish a two weeks period for collecting ideas and discussion. After that I will try to put it everything together in a new version of the statutes and then I will send this new version to the members of the board for a second round of discussion. Once aproved by the board the secretary should send the new version of the statutes to all the members and it should then aproved by all the active members in Montreal. A part of this I have some suggestions to improve the efficiency of the SOSORT as a society that may be you all would like to consider:
I think that the board could be more efficient with seven fix members like Stefano suggesst. I think that the key points are:
1. Web site
2. Newsletter
3. Committees
4. Journal
5. Meeting
This give us 5 essential tasks. Every essential task could be responsibility of one of the board members (5) a part of the President (the face of the society in front the world) and the Treasurer (bussy enough with this task). Every task can not be aforded with one or two years but with longer time so the chairs of every of these five points can be members of the society but not necessarily members of the board ( In fact, this is now the situation in some of the committees). Until now we have the right person taking caring of each of these strategic areas. There is a responsible of the web site, two guys working on the Newsletter, a chair for each committee, an editor-in-chief for the journal and a meeting president for the three next years (Rivard= Montreal; Rigo= Barcelona and Negrini= Milano). A part of the meeting, changing every year, the rest of the strategic points need somebody caring of it for a quite long term, I think.
We could stablish a period of time long enough for each one, obviously not perenial but long term, let say 4-6 years before the responsible of each area change to somebody who already worked on this area with the main risponsable. The chair of each area could stablish a direct comunication with one particular member of the board ( and just one) who inform the other members of the board about his/her particular area in order to get suggestions to be transmitted to the risponsables of each area and make decisions that have to be also trasmited to the risponsables of each area. The main idea is to stablish a piramidal organization with the consulting board (founders and past-presidents) being in the top as a hidden group in permanent interaction with the current President. Please have a look at the attached schema which will give you an idea of my proposition ( it is a pp. so you can use it and change things at your convenience). As some of us have different responsibilities, we should use a code to indicate that any particular contact is made under a particular area. For example: when, as a member of the Consulting Board I rise a point for discussion I should clearly state that I contact you as a member of the Consulting Board and the discussion should not reach anybody out of such a board but the President of the SOSORT board who has to contact the other members of the SOSORT board once the Consulting Board finish discussion. In agreement with Stefano I think that President should be for longer than one year, two years for example, so past-President and Elected-President would be also, while Secretary and Treasurer could be for longer time 3 to 5 years and members also for two years like President. At this time, a meeting per year I think was a great idea. Initially I though that every two years was better but I must recognize that the real motor of the society until now has been the meeting and with a meeting every two years the society would move less, so at the moment I believe annual meeting is a perfect point.
I would appreciate so much your input. In any case I will write a new version of the statutes by the end of the year and I would like to have a final aproved version by February. This give us time enough to send it to all the members an vote in Montreal.



Manuel 2009-12-06

My friends, until now only founders agreed on my proposal. I would like to hear something also from the other members of the Board: we are in conflict of interest.
About Past Presidents I agree with Tomasz to become members of the consulting board. My other questions are:
1- are we enough people for one year Presidency only? We could run out of candidates quite quickly and too young people would have difficulties when facing the Srs and the rest of the world. Presidents need to be authorities, in a way. I have no position here, I just raise the question.
2- there are other key positions that should be at last present at the board meetings and are:
. Newsletter responsible
. Web site responsible
If they know what is going on they can write it down and communicate with efficiency
3- from all this it can also come out a reduction of the Board to 7 people with others with the right to be present, give advice, understand what is going on but not vote:
. President
. Past president
. President Elect
. Secretary
. Treasurer
. Member
. Member

In this way all those that are in the 'Information-Science' category (Journal, Meeting, Site, Newsletter) do not have too many rights for too long time, they are present, give advice, but do not vote. What do you think ?
4- is one year enough for the next meeting president to be part of the board and understand our behaviours? If he does not vote he could be there for two years: we vote the site three years in advance... Again, I open discussion. But Statutes are too important to be well done...

Stefano 2009-12-06

Yes, I agree. I think Stefano was suggesting about one year automathic board's membership for the next Meeting President elected by the board when he gave such a suggestion, rather than the need to vote board every year. Totally right about the six founder members. I hope we will be still working for a long time but we are not inmortal, that's clear.

Manuel 2009-12-06

I support the ideas of Stefano and recommend preparing the necessary changes for the Montreal General Assembly to vote the changes. The points to discuss:

(1) The next Meeting President (local host) may be the Board Member for one year or maybe a person invited to the Board to participate to the activity of the Society within the year preceeding the Meeting. If he is a true Board Member, we should adopt the policy to always vote the next Meeting President at our General Assembly and not just indicate him by the Board. One can be a Board Member by the vote of the General Asembly only.

(2) We could invite more persons to the Founders Consulting Board, I mean each Past President may enter this Board after having completed one year of his Past Presidency. This would strengthen the Consulting Board in the future (we six are not immortal).

Tomasz 2009-12-06


Ciao Manuel
As far as i remember you should work on the new version of the Statutes. I would like to give some suggestions and start a possibly useful discussion.
I suggest these changes:
We have one place in the Board for the Chief-Editor of Scoliosis.
I think that another place could be given to the next SOSORT Meeting President (so to be inside all discussions and being able to participate to the Board work).
I suggest to take out the rule about professionals participating in the Board, and suggesting this as a preference among candidates (i.e. if there is one CPO or one PT and three MD, then the preference will go to multiprofessionalism, otherwise no reason to maintain if there are no candidates).
Finally, I suggest to create a "Founders Consulting Board" that should be composed by the Founders (i.e. you, Hans, Toru, Theo, Tomasz and myself) that maintain the right to participate to the Board meetings and email discussions with a consulting role. without the right to vote.

2009-12-01 Stefano Négrini

Stefano 2009-12-02