[optimal] Re: thinking cap
- From: "Timby & Timby" <timby@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:12:55 -0500
I am sorry, I missed the first of thread.
Honorary Life Member is not a 'convertible' membership option for the
general membership.
HLM is an award, voted upon by the OPS general membership after the
nomination of an individual to the BOD. This award is to recognize
contributions, generally by non members, to the Society. Of the current 32
HLMs, 9 were ophthalmic photographers.
HLM carries all membership rights EXCEPT for no motion/voting privilege and
no dues.
I might add, that when I retired actively from the clinics I chose not to
recertify. Since I have always felt and stated that the CRA was a working
certification; daily use of skills, current continuing education and the
curiosity of new techniques and equipment usage were the hallmarks of the
CRA expertise. The BOC has wrestled with the CRA status of retired persons
and always come up with "you're active or you're not." Some retires CRAs
have probably complied with recertification to keep a CRA, but this seems to
be a lot of time and expense to hold onto a title, if you are truly retired,
you can't really use. For me, I was a CRA, a good one and proud of it, but I
do not need the title now.
Ken Timby
Chair, Honorary Life Membership Committee
From: optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:optimal-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of CPMC Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:12 PM
To: Paula Morris
Cc: optimal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [optimal] Re: thinking cap
OPS members have the option to become an Honorary Life Member, but lose
their voting rights in the process.
Denice Barsness, CRA, COMT, ROUB, FOPS
Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center
CPMC Department of Ophthalmology
2100 Webster Street Suite 212
(415) 600-3937 FAX (415) 600-6563
From: Paula Morris [mailto:paula.morris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:05 PM
To: 'Ethan Priel'; CPMC Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center; 'Alan';
rhonsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: thinking cap
Hi Ethan
This issue has been debated by the BOC to infinity and back and the
conclusion has always been that to be meaningful as an accreditation, to be
maintained, it must be supported by CECs. Credentialing is different from
achieving a degree that is awarded by a university or school. Credentialing
speaks to current expertise - that is one reason why the OPS has not
"grandfathered" anyone with certification.
My recollection is that Csaba was one of the first to say that
grandfathering and recertification that is not earned by continuing
education was inappropriate. The honorary public recognition of service and
dedication is the FOPS which does not go away.
BTW, my husband's certification as an engineer goes away without continuing
education as well.
BethAnn can speak to all this much more eloquently than I. There may be an
official stance in NOCA - now ICE - that speaks to this issue, and if so,
that standard should be followed by the BOC.
My opinion, and I have both CRA certification and the FOPS, is that when I
am no longer imaging I will no longer want/need the CRA. I intend to pursue
the OCT-C as well, and may only image for the next few years, but my overall
feeling is the same.
Hope this helps,
p
From: Ethan Priel [mailto:prieleye@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 1:14 PM
To: Paula Morris; 'CPMC Ophthalmic Diagnostic Center'; 'Alan';
rhonsc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: thinking cap
Folks, greetings.
I know this is not a formal or even ad-hoc group, but would like an
un-official sounding board:
I was struck by the 'strangeness' of Csaba mentioning in passing lately that
he is letting his CRA lapse, not needing it any more.
Do you think it would make any sense to 'allow' retiring CRAs, with, say, at
least 15 years of upholding their CRA, to 'keep' the title after they retire
and have no need - or funding- for maintaining the certification ?
I know that the requirements will change as time goes on, but it is not as
if they will try to take jobs away from aspirants.
And the CRA must have been important enough for them to recertify for all
those years.
Passing this thought on to those who swim these waters better'n me,
Ethan
Other related posts:
