Re: ABC/BOC
HRA/STP
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: ABC/BOC
Creator:
HRA/STP
Date:
3/10/2004
Text:
Britt,
Obviously, we still don't have all the facts on this years long
discussion that the ABC board has been having about unification. I've
wondered the same thing. Why was the decision a full acceptance approach
rather than a stepped approach as you suggest? A stepped approach might
have angered more BOC certifees but it would have angered fewer ABC
practitioners. It sounds more logical. I would like to know the
discussions that the board has had on this subject. So far the
explanations given by the board members who've given one have not been
convincing to me. But then, as ABC isn't a member organization,
apparently it doesn't have to be.
Harold Anderson, CO
M. Britt Spears CPO wrote:
>Randy,
>I couldn't agree with you more with one exception. ABC should let them in as Certified Assistants first and then allow them to take the Certification test with no educational/experience strings attached-the same costs we all paid, when their ready to take it, just the term limits we all went thru. If they pass, they pass-that's great. We're all happy and I beleive that they could see the fairness involved. That would keep from watering down the ABC credential.
>Britt
>
>Randy McFarland < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
>The BOC came out and made the big public announcement that the talks had
>broken off, instead of hanging in there trying to work things out. Soon
>thereafter, they offered to let ABC members join for free, an obvious
>ploy to undermine the ABC. I have to admit I was surprised that the ABC
>countered with a similar offer, but it appears it was in the heat of the
>moment and they have virtually rescinded that offer.
>I suspect that the leaders of BOC didn't want to give up their power and
>income. (Follow the money trail). They let their membership down by
>letting this opportunity to work things out with ABC slip through their
>fingers.
>There are certainly some non-ABC practitioners who have the ability to
>provide good care. Why can't we agree on a standardized test that if
>passed, would qualify for ABC certification and would also be accepted
>by licensing states? Having each state reinvent the wheel in creating a
>test seems like a waste. Perhaps different levels/qualifications of
>practitioners?
>I'm sure the ABC board members and others who have been working their
>butts off trying to work through all this are feeling pretty frustrated
>with the criticism from those who are willing to complain but haven't
>stepped up to personally support our national organizations. Of course,
>it does take dues and money to make it all happen, but many of players
>have volunteered much of their time and have tried to make good
>decisions. I admit I have reservations when suppliers have a say in who
>should be qualified to fit what, but we're all in this to varying
>degrees.
>I support the ABC and believe they gave a good faith effort negotiate
>with the BOC while supporting the standards it's practitioners want.
>Let's continue to give them our support and constructive feedback so
>they can continue of from here.
>
>Randy McFarland, CPO
>Fullerton, CA
>
>
Obviously, we still don't have all the facts on this years long
discussion that the ABC board has been having about unification. I've
wondered the same thing. Why was the decision a full acceptance approach
rather than a stepped approach as you suggest? A stepped approach might
have angered more BOC certifees but it would have angered fewer ABC
practitioners. It sounds more logical. I would like to know the
discussions that the board has had on this subject. So far the
explanations given by the board members who've given one have not been
convincing to me. But then, as ABC isn't a member organization,
apparently it doesn't have to be.
Harold Anderson, CO
M. Britt Spears CPO wrote:
>Randy,
>I couldn't agree with you more with one exception. ABC should let them in as Certified Assistants first and then allow them to take the Certification test with no educational/experience strings attached-the same costs we all paid, when their ready to take it, just the term limits we all went thru. If they pass, they pass-that's great. We're all happy and I beleive that they could see the fairness involved. That would keep from watering down the ABC credential.
>Britt
>
>Randy McFarland < <Email Address Redacted> > wrote:
>The BOC came out and made the big public announcement that the talks had
>broken off, instead of hanging in there trying to work things out. Soon
>thereafter, they offered to let ABC members join for free, an obvious
>ploy to undermine the ABC. I have to admit I was surprised that the ABC
>countered with a similar offer, but it appears it was in the heat of the
>moment and they have virtually rescinded that offer.
>I suspect that the leaders of BOC didn't want to give up their power and
>income. (Follow the money trail). They let their membership down by
>letting this opportunity to work things out with ABC slip through their
>fingers.
>There are certainly some non-ABC practitioners who have the ability to
>provide good care. Why can't we agree on a standardized test that if
>passed, would qualify for ABC certification and would also be accepted
>by licensing states? Having each state reinvent the wheel in creating a
>test seems like a waste. Perhaps different levels/qualifications of
>practitioners?
>I'm sure the ABC board members and others who have been working their
>butts off trying to work through all this are feeling pretty frustrated
>with the criticism from those who are willing to complain but haven't
>stepped up to personally support our national organizations. Of course,
>it does take dues and money to make it all happen, but many of players
>have volunteered much of their time and have tried to make good
>decisions. I admit I have reservations when suppliers have a say in who
>should be qualified to fit what, but we're all in this to varying
>degrees.
>I support the ABC and believe they gave a good faith effort negotiate
>with the BOC while supporting the standards it's practitioners want.
>Let's continue to give them our support and constructive feedback so
>they can continue of from here.
>
>Randy McFarland, CPO
>Fullerton, CA
>
>
Citation
HRA/STP, “Re: ABC/BOC,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/222560.
