|
|
| |
|
Nov.
2003—Issue 3
Co-Editors John Rutkowski,
RRT House of Delegates Officers Thomas Striplin, MEd, RRT, RPFT/Speaker-elect Denise Johnson, RRT/Secretary Tony Rodela, RRT/Treasurer Ruth Krueger, BS, RRT/Past Speaker Robert Fluck, Jr., RRT, MS, RRT, FAARC/Parliamentarian |
In This Issue... | |
Editor’s Note Speaker’s Update Speaker-elect’s Report Secretary’s Report Past Speaker’s Report Effectiveness Survey Who Takes Care of Us Agency Representation Good Fred and Bad Fred Recruitment Success Stories Calendar of Events Membership Figures |
Michael Jackson LaDawn Reynolds Tom Striplin Denise Johnson Ruth Krueger Debbie Fox Steve Kessinger Susan Rinaldo Gallo Fred Hill |
|
|
Editor’s Note Michael Jackson, RRT The Publications Committee thanks all who submitted articles to the AARC Record. My co-chair, John Rutkowski, and I alternated primary responsibility for publication. The first batch of articles for this issue of the Record was sent out to all committee members for review. Very few changes were necessary. Good Fred and Bad Fred combined to produce one final article, which I edited. My current term in the HOD is up but I continue on with the Political Advocacy Contact Team (PACT). The work of both groups has been indelibly impressive. Activism was a theme at the recently concluded Massachusetts Society for Respiratory Care Annual Meeting. US Representative Richard Neal of the House Ways and Means Committee gave us a Good Fred /Bad Fred presentation. He told 600 RTs that their letters to congress were not futile, but he was not ready to support the current “imperfect” Medicare bill. “Keep doing what you’re doing” the congressman said of our efforts. Christopher Reeve followed the congressman on stage. He spoke (with respirator support) to 750 RTs for 50 minutes and answered questions for another 40. Despite quadriplegia, he dynamically projects health care activism. Reeve prides himself on how, with pulmonary exercises, he’s built up his “tidal volumes”. His diaphragm pacer now allows him to support himself for the better part of each day without respirator support. The audience of 750 RTs was deeply touched by Reeve’s wit and wisdom. Finally I want to express appreciation to the original authors of the e-mail voting system. It seems that the best of ideas, like my hospital’s RT driven protocols & the US Constitution, need to be tweaked and tuned. Thank you all for your inspirational diligence. [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Speaker’s Update LaDawn L. Reynolds, BA, RRT My how time flies when you’re having fun! I can’t believe my time as Speaker is about over. I have all of you to thank for a wonderful year. Thank you, first and foremost, for having the confidence in my abilities by electing me into this position as Speaker of the House of Delegates. I know a lot of you believed in me when I didn’t believe in myself. This has truly been the highest point of my professional career. I will always cherish the memories and friends I have made over the 11 plus years in the House. Thank you, also, for having made this year a successful one. We’ve addressed a couple of difficult issues and, as always, the great minds of this body debated them to a workable resolution. With your help we’ve been able to accomplish the goals I set forth to you at the beginning of my term.
Fred Hill, AL (3); Leigh Otto, CO (5); John Loyer, CT (3); Doug McQueary, IL (13); Debbie Fox, KS (9); Mary Alstead, MI (15), Karen Hart, OK (7); and Ruth Krueger, Past Speaker (16). Instead of “Go Big Blue” I’m chanting “Go HOD”. Let’s get that motivation going, there’s only 3 months left to meet this challenge. I have confidence in all of you. In my eyes we’ve had an extremely successful year. It’s because of all of the great backgrounds and minds of this body and your willingness to debate issues that we’ve had this success. You’ve made my year as Speaker an easy one. Thanks to all of you for an incredible year! [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Speaker-elect’s Report Tom Striplin, MEd, RRT Which is Hotter...Vegas or Respiratory? I guess I will take a gamble writing about some hot topics here in my report, but HEY, we are heading for Las Vegas, so what else would you expect! As we approach the upcoming House of Delegates meeting and International Congress, I would first like to recognize Kevin Shrake for an outstanding job at the helm of the AARC. He has bought a renewed spirit and level of confidence to the association that is inspiring others to stand up and make a difference on all levels. Now for the Hot Topics. It seems as though no matter where I go in the circles of respiratory therapy lately; a good deal of talk is directed at the future of the CRT and RRT credential. We basically have two schools of thought emerging, the demolition of the CRT and the move to a one credential level (RRT), or the prevalence of a two-tiered 3 level testing system as we have it today. What is disheartening is that a lot of therapists still fail to understand that the AARC is not the “testing” organization, but rather the “professional” organization representing our field. It truly astonishes me that many RT’s don’t know the difference or the designated roles between the AARC and the NBRC. I think the issue of a single vs. a dual level credential system is going to be around for some time. If you examine both sides of the issue you can see positive points and negative points with either side. The question will be which outweighs the other and what is the best direction for our profession? I believe the AARC leadership will have this hot potato in their lap and will have to deal with the issue. The House of Delegates passed a resolution onto the board of directors concerning this issue. The NBRC is the wildcard and it will take some networking and a strong consensus to make changes to the system. Another hot topic that is on the burner is the future model of revenue share between the AARC and the state affiliates. Having chaired the AARC audit-sub committee this past year, I can see the importance of a model that awards states based on a shared vision and partnership between the two bodies. I believe it is not asking much to assure that states work with the AARC towards shared professional growth on all levels. From a practical business standpoint, if the AARC grows, that should filter to its partners (state affiliates) and if the AARC should show losses, the partners should share some of the burden. Luckily for the state affiliates, the AARC has absorbed that burden even in the face of losses and continued to provide the state affiliates with a level of revenue share above the required amount. I don’t know of too many businesses that would continue to distribute money to its partners as the same level in the face of losses. I welcome a refreshed model for revenue share that rewards affiliates based on a cooperative partnership and growth pattern. Hot Topic # 3: Concurrent Therapy: We must embrace challenges to our profession and continually move forward to position ourselves as the experts in the field of respiratory therapy. Many therapists fail to realize the importance of educating the public and the continued need to convince our constituents that we are the best providers for patients suffering from cardio-pulmonary ailments. As we continue to provide “assembly line medicine” (concurrent therapy) to our patients, we are viewed as nothing more then multi-skilled technicians that fail to be patient centered. We open the door, allowing others to view what we do as a limited skill occupation. The need to implement protocols and diversify respiratory therapy is professionally urgent. As I close, my 4 recommendations (not for Respiratory, but for Vegas folks!) are: (1) Play red on the roulette table and stand next to a good looking person (that way when you lose, you at least have something good to look at as you watch your money enter the Vegas pit!) (2) Find someone who does not like to play slots, have them pick a machine and then tell them to move and play that machine (you are guaranteed to win). (3) Forget Craps! even when you are not drunk you still can’t understand that game!. (4) Don’t sit next to Sam Giordano at the Black Jack table; your casino is likely to be flooded! Have safe trip, looking forward to seeing you and working with you all again. [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Secretary’s Report Denise Johnson, BS, RRT Recommendations, resolutions, motions to withdraw, poll votes, placard votes, emergency resolutions, amendments, friendly amendments, WOW, we saw it all in Orlando, didn’t we? The House of Delegates meeting held in July was eventful and productive. As always the discussion was lively and informative. I want to thank those delegates who submitted resolutions and your diligence in providing us with the appropriate and complete information to assist us in the discussion and decision-making. One recommendation I would like to review with you came from the Resolutions Committee. It was moved to change the House rules as it relates to the chair for this committee. Currently, the House Secretary is the chair and the recommendation was to propose that a chair be appointed from within the membership of the Resolutions Committee. This would allow for an experienced participant from the committee to lead the important work of this group. I will be bringing another recommendation in Las Vegas to include the Secretary as a member of the Resolutions Committee going forward. Resolutions for the December House meeting have been submitted and will be sent to all of you over the House list serve by October 24. This will allow time for discussion at your state affiliate board meetings. Once again, as a reminder, the resolutions committee reviews these for clarity, completeness and appropriateness. The submission process is easy with the on line form that is sent automatically to the whole committee. I really enjoyed my first meeting as House Secretary! I learned a lot from the experience and expect that I will learn more at our next meeting. I look forward to seeing you all in December and want to once again thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve as your House Secretary. [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Past Speaker’s Report Ruth Krueger, BS, RRT CAHL and the AARC I had the privilege to attend two one-week workshops over the summer for the Coalition for Allied Health Leaders (CAHL) in Washington, DC as a representative for the AARC. Prior to attending I really didn’t have a grasp on what or who exactly CAHL was and what they did—hence the reason for this article. CAHL is the combination of three organizations. NN2—National Network of Health Career Programs in Two Year Colleges, ASAHP—Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions—4 year programs, and HPN—Health Professionals Network. The Health Professions Network is a unification of professionals, representing diverse aspects of allied health including primarily provider organizations, but also educators, accreditors and administrators. The group works together in a cooperative and interactive manner on issues relevant to health care. I represented RT in the HPN category. The website link for HPN is: http://www.healthpronet.org/about/index.html Allied Health is defined as all healthcare professions EXCEPT nursing, physicians and pharmacists. You may have heard about the allied health reinvestment bill to federally fund programs, scholarships etc. other than nursing. That bill came from CAHL and in our first week session in DC, we (the CAHL participants) all lobbied for this bill with our legislators. There is so much more power when allied health professionals combine to achieve legislation than if we tried to find $$ for each of our own. The problem of course is our legislative $$ are very tight and representatives are reluctant to sign onto anything that asks for more money. Another piece of CAHL is the public recognition of allied health and the many professionals that that encompasses when caring for a patient. There is a website for allied health that I would like you to check out that really puts a face to who we are collectively. It is a good website for high school counselors as well as college health science departments to have handy for their students interested in health care. Here is the link: www.alliedhealth.org Meeting with this group of 35 health care educators and providers was enlightening because of the diversity. I was the sole RT representative and when faced with so many issues from so many other healthcare organizations, it puts into perspective that only through interdisciplinary collaboration can we hope to provide the best care possible for our patients and the best education possible for our students. Add into the mix, the complexities of shrinking funding and competition for federal dollars from nursing and pharmacy and it becomes even more critical that we educate our co-workers to the fact that 65% of healthcare providers are allied health. If faced with the loss of some of these professionals, patient care would suffer. [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Effectiveness Survey Debbie Fox, MBA, RRT, Chair On behalf of this committee, the results of the Effectiveness Survey are listed below. Seventy-one surveys were returned from the meeting in Orlando. Thank you for taking the time to fill out and return the surveys. The questions with average number responses and the comments received are listed below. If you have any questions, please contact me. Special thanks go to Doug McQueary for tabulating the results.
1. The AARC House of Delegates is an appropriate forum for comprehensive reporting of AARC activities. 3.84 2. The leadership of the House of Delegates consistently attempts to promote involvement of the chartered affiliates. 3.70 3. Communication between the AARC HOD and BOD is generally effective and continues to improve. 3.35 4. The resolution process is an effective means of promoting changes within the AARC. 3.30 5. The “Open Microphone” session provides an effective means of introducing new ideas and fostering cohesiveness. 3.60 6. The resolution process allows for timely input into AARC strategic planning. 3.34 7. The format of the AARC HOD provides good opportunities for both formal and informal networking. 3.70 8. The HOD committee system promotes affiliate involvement in planning and impacting the direction of the HOD and the AARC. 3.38 9. The HOD is an effective means of addressing key affiliate issues through existing AARC structure. 3.50 Additional comments It’s getting better, still a lot of opportunities. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Who Takes Care of Us? Steve Kessinger, CRT I spent the last two articles talking about how to better deal with applying for funds to travel and hints on budgeting your state society’s funds. This time I thought I would talk about budgeting your time at work and taking care of yourself. If I were to ask you why you went into Respiratory Care what would your answer be?
If any of these was your answer, you have clearly deluded yourself and are probably already making plans to change careers. If you said “because I wanted to help others in need.....let’s talk.” The best advice I ever received came from a grandmother who most thought to be “four floors short of a two story building”. Her exact words were, “Steve you ain’t never going to make it to the end of the game if you don’t rest a while on the bench” (she happened to be an avid Atlanta Braves fan and often spoke in basebaleese.) Over the years I turned that into “You can’t take care of anyone else if you can’t find time to take care of yourself”. I spent years pouring my life into my profession. Always more than 40 hours in a week. Frequently because I could not bear the thought of my colleagues working short, then becoming resentful when they would not do the same for me. I reached a point where I simply “burnt out” and sought other positions within my field to recover. I eventually joined a C.I.S.M. team. There, I learned what stress can do to us, and what we can do about it. After debriefing a large group of law enforcement officers who had lost a fellow officer in the line of duty, I finally got it. I could not do it all, all the time!!! Not only are we replaceable (despite our belief that we are not), but also we need to debrief each other as often as possible. There was a time (when we were all young) that getting together after work and having drinks was the way we coped. We would talk about work and all its gory details, and rationalize our failure to shed a tear for the victim, but also for the traumatic event we had witnessed. I realized that human beings were not meant to see traumatic events as often as we do and that we voluntarily expose ourselves to them without considering the consequences. So, how do you take care of yourself? I say it’s a matter of switching our sense of “sacrifice”. Instead of always sacrificing our personal time to help out our colleagues, we need to (occasionally) sacrifice our sense of pride and embarrassment at turning down an overtime shift. That sounds very harsh, and it is. It means letting down a friend so that you can recharge your batteries and that is not in the makeup of most of the people I work with and respect. When you look at the future, however, you see that fewer people are expected to join our ranks. That means we are in for the long haul, or we change careers. Having just recently turned 50, I’m not inclined to leave a profession I love and learn how to program computers or start day trading. I’m also no longer inclined to work myself to death. I’ve chosen to budget my time in the following manner:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Agency Representation Susan Rinaldo Gallo, RRT There are many opportunities within the AARC for members to volunteer their time and expertise. The AARC would accomplish only a portion of what is done now without volunteers. Volunteering is a way to give something back to a profession that has enabled us to do so many things- provide for your family, have a satisfying career, fill a need in society and so on. If you are reading this article, you are already aware of the benefits of giving some of your time to your profession, because each of you is a volunteer. The area of volunteerism this article addresses is the agency representative; AARC appointees who work with agencies or organizations that are closely aligned with the AARC. Representatives act as the “eyes and ears” of the AARC which could never provide enough staff to cover all venues. This level of volunteerism is essential for any association. Many representatives dedicate a substantial amount of their time to these efforts. Most of the representatives have a high level of expertise in the special area prior to being appointed. Representation puts a face on the respiratory therapy profession. This is much like intradepartmental committees you serve on within the facility in which you are employed. It is easier to relate to respiratory therapy issues when personal contact has occurred. It’s naive to think that policy discussions affecting the profession will take respiratory therapy into account if there is no representative present. The need to have a seat at the table cannot be overstated. The ability to have as many representatives as the AARC does demonstrates the association’s financial and resource strengths. This also demonstrates the association’s commitment to it members. The AARC has representatives assigned to the following
agencies: Representative’s commitment varies with the requirements from each agency. Some of the representatives attend meetings. Many do a substantial amount of work in the profession’s behalf. This is an area I am becoming more familiar with in that I just began a term as the AARC’s first representative to the AMA’s CPT/Health Care Professionals Advisory Committee. So far it has been “interesting”. It certainly is an area RC needs to be involved in. But then, I’m sure all the reps feel the same way about the agencies they are involved with. [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Good Fred and Bad Fred Fred Hill, MA, RRT Good Fred: The House of Delegates list serve had a flurry of activity with that E-voting process, but now it has become quiet again. I guess you are happy about that. Bad Fred: What do you mean? Good Fred: Well, you don’t really like the idea of conducting HOD business via email, do you? Bad Fred: When it was originally proposed, I was against it. However, in light of recent events, I am not sure. Good Fred: You are so wishy-washy. Can’t you ever stick with a position? Bad Fred: Do you think it is virtuous to stick with a position? Good Fred: Well, I can’t count on you from one minute to the next. Don’t you think the recent attempt at using the E-vote process was a failure? Bad Fred: Well, we didn’t reach a conclusion, but it might help us in the long run. There is a possibility that people are giving serious thoughts to bylaws, communications, and House of Delegates processes. People may become more thoughtful through this process. That could be viewed as a success. Good Fred: So, do you think the E-vote process will work in the future? It seemed pretty cumbersome. Bad Fred: Well, it utilizes email and people are in a love-hate relationship with email. People are being inundated with email and a lot of it is junk or is considered junk. As a result, people hate having to deal with bunches of communication that seem worthless to them. Good Fred: You said “love-hate relationship.” Where is the love, then? Bad Fred: Email is fast, convenient, and inexpensive. So, if we want to communicate to someone, we are enthusiastic about it. It provides instant gratification. As recipients, we can choose to deal with email on our own schedule. We can set aside a time of day for email review. We don’t have to do it every day. Good Fred: So, can you bring love to the E-voting process? I mean some of the commentary was quite negative about what happened with the bylaws dialogue. They seemed to consider the process as intrusive and confusing. Bad Fred: Well, in a sense, the process was both intrusive and confusing and that is part of the reasons I was against it from the outset. However, despite the negative reaction, I now see that given a proper structure it might work just fine. Good Fred: How do you do that? Bad Fred: We, first of all, have to admit that the process is intrusive, may not fit into people’s schedule. We have to take people’s feelings into consideration. In a sense, when the Speaker brings an issue to the House of Delegates via email, the Speaker is convening a meeting. We don’t mind a meeting if it has certain characteristics. Good Fred: What characteristics? Bad Fred: Some characteristics that would make a meeting acceptable would be 1) advanced notice, 2) being held at a convenient time, 3) being aware of how long the meeting will last, and 4) most important, justification for the meeting. Another desirable characteristic would be to make participation in the meeting voluntary. Good Fred: Whoa! This is too much for me to absorb at one time. Can you break this down? Bad Fred: Yes, the justification for handling something via the E-vote method should include why it can’t wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the House of Delegates. That was a failing in our recent attempt. It was never apparent why we had to deal with the bylaws then, as opposed to December. After all was said and done, it seems we will deal with the bylaws amendments in December. So, if people were angry about an intrusive process that was unnecessary in the first place, then they may have been correct to be upset. Good Fred: What about advanced notice and convenient time? Bad Fred: Well, the Speaker upon introducing an issue could propose a schedule for handling this situation. Then the Speaker could ask who would be willing to participate. Now, all that is asked is if the various delegations have received the email. An affirmative response to that question, in itself, should not be construed as a willingness or even an ability to participate. Good Fred: Why not? Bad Fred: Well, conceivably an email could be confirmed as received, but the next day the email recipient may be scheduled for inpatient surgery that might prevent participation for several weeks. That is an extreme example. As you know, when the first e-vote process was launched, I was unavailable that entire week. Good Fred: So was I! Bad Fred: Of course, you don’t have to state the obvious. Good Fred: Okay. So, to invoke the e-vote process, the Speaker would 1) state the issue to be considered, 2) state why it should be handled via e-voting as opposed to waiting for a regularly scheduled meeting, 3) propose a schedule for dealing with the issue, and 4) request participation in the e-vote process. Bad Fred: Exactly, you have been paying attention. Good Fred: But, suppose no one wanted to participate or very few delegates wanted to participate. Bad Fred: Well, I think most delegates, when it was presented that way, would want to participate. There might be some who couldn’t participate for good reasons, but I think the delegates are willing to give time to issues once they understand the issues and the need to consider them in a timely manner. Good Fred: What about the delegates who don’t want to participate? They would be inundated with a lot of email anyway. Bad Fred: Not necessarily. Once it was determined who would participate. Those delegates could be set up on a temporary list serve just for that purpose. The other delegates would not even see the email discussions. Good Fred: Well, assuming that is possible, that might work. Bad Fred: Better than that. It would increase people’s willingness to be involved. Good Fred: How so? Bad Fred: Human nature! People don’t want to be left out. Good Fred: Okay, but the discussions could still be confusing. Bad Fred: Yes, but we have to accept that as part of the process. That can’t be regulated. We have to refine the process to accommodate confusion. Good Fred: How so and why so? Bad Fred: An inherent problem in email communications is delay. We can’t wait for a response before we make a response. We don’t know if a response will come. It is chaotic, as was described by Ruth Krueger. We just have to become comfortable with chaos. There can be several threads of conversation running at one time. Commentary does not necessarily come in any organized fashion. Good Fred: Can parliamentary procedure help it to be organized better? Bad Fred: Actually, parliamentary procedure may hurt the process. Good Fred: What do you mean? Bad Fred: Parliamentary procedure is designed to keep focused discussions going in a tight time frame. With e-voting the process is not so limited by time. In a regular meeting we may have twenty minutes to an hour for an agenda item. In the E-vote process, we have the luxury of days. For instance, we should probably not allow the “Calling of the question.” Good Fred: Why? Bad Fred: We may not allow enough time for order to arise out of chaos. Some important viewpoints may go unexpressed. If the discourse dies of its own volition, the Speaker could suggest terminating a discussion period early, but probably reasonable notice, say 24 hours, should be mandatory to complete a discussion before the designated time. We have to realize that delegates are not going to be monitoring the discussion continuously. The intrusion into work and family life is still there. We would have to allow reasonable time for all participants to respond to changes in the schedule. Good Fred: Suppose a delegate found out about the e-vote process after a group had been sequestered to the special list serve. Could that delegate join the discussions late? Bad Fred: I think that should be allowed. A simple request to the Speaker, either direct or via the HOD list serve should suffice. Further, a digest of discussions could be available in some fashion so that the late delegate could catch up. All of this is available with electronic communications through the AARC. So, there are no new tricks here, as far as I can see. Good Fred: It still doesn’t seem like an easy process. Bad Fred: Well, we don’t know. The recent process faltered in some aspects, but we should have learned something. Good Fred: What should we have learned? Bad Fred: To be patient and accommodating. Good Fred: How do you handle amendments, subsidiary motions, and points of order? Bad Fred: All of those things tend to make it more complicated. I think probably the process could be freer than is allowed in parliamentary procedure. That would reduce the need for many points of order. I think several threads of discussion can be allowed. If an amendment is introduced, it could be discussed, but discussion on the main motion could continue as well. Good Fred: Wouldn’t that be confusing? Bad Fred: It might, but it might be more efficient. We could allow the Speaker the latitude to monitor and direct. The virtue of amending might become apparent. The Speaker could intervene and say something like; “Does anyone object to voting on this amendment starting at 5 p.m. tomorrow?” If there were no objections, that vote could be taken as defined by the Speaker. Good Fred: It sounds like you are advocating loosening up the process. Bad Fred: In a sense, I am. Let’s be honest. Without screening each email item, there is little that can be done to regulate how email discussions will go. So, loosen the rules. I wouldn’t even limit a delegate to only speaking twice on an issue. I think the Speaker could politely admonish someone who was trying to monopolize the discussion. The important thing is to have relatively rigid time lines in place for discussion and for voting. Good Fred: Suppose someone wants to raise a subsidiary motion: to postpone, to refer, to table, or something like that. Bad Fred: I think you let those motions fly about. Let threads of discussions develop around each motion. At some point, the Speaker could intervene and ask the delegates to indicate a preference. Let’s say we had 40 delegations participating, 15 wanted to postpone and 15 wanted to refer, and 10 wanted to vote on the issue. The Speaker could direct the delegates to select between postponement and referring only. Then a vote would be made on whether or not to refer (if that was the most popular choice). If the motion to refer failed, then you go to a vote on the issue itself or continue discussions. Good Fred: Good grief! This seems complex. Bad Fred: It could be, but good people working together can make it work. Besides, we might expect that most issues handled in this manner won’t be that complex. Good Fred: Some people are more comfortable sending email communications than others. Doesn’t the email process work to the disadvantage of those who can’t or won’t participate? Bad Fred: In an HOD meeting, some people are more comfortable going to the microphone to express an opinion or ask a question. So, that kind of situation exists in either process. It would probably be less of a problem in e-vote processes, because there is more time to gather one’s thoughts. One could ask a colleague to review comments before they are sent out. However, in both processes, individuals can focus on the discussions (listen or read), process information, and form opinions. So, even if someone appears passive, they are actually participating as long as they are paying attention. Good Fred: Even though the e-vote process may run for days, it might not always be reasonable for a delegate to gain input from the affiliate BOD. Isn’t that a problem? Bad Fred: A delegate has to be flexible. While it is useful to get affiliate BOD input or approval, it isn’t usually necessary if the delegate has a good relationship with the affiliate BOD. The delegate simply has to trust his/her own judgment and be able to justify decisions that are made. Besides, with email communications, a delegate should be able to communicate to most affiliate BOD members in a relatively short time period. Remember, representative democracy confers, through an election process, the right for a representative to make decisions on behalf of the electorate. We are obligated to make decisions with the best interest of our members in mind. Good Fred: Why did the bylaws get bogged down? Bad Fred: Bylaws are special and because of their importance deserve special scrutiny and understanding. Our process was untested, needed refinement, and possibly was not appropriate for the consideration of bylaws. Good Fred: What you mean is - you don’t know. Bad Fred: Boy, you are good!. [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Recruitment Success Stories The following are success stories from state societies’ recruitment efforts. These are being published in the hopes that they will be helpful to other societies. Arizona: Offered a substantial discount to AARC/AzSRC members for seminar registration. Made sure it was understood that the CEU approval process was more cost-effective for members than for non-members. Connecticut: Raised the price of our conference admission for non-members to include the price of membership. An ambassador was available to them if they had questions. Delaware: A member’s administration granted the resources to reimburse for registry for those not registered, and membership to AARC for those therapists already registered. Illinois: Registration fee was set for non-members at $90 over the member rate; then offered the non-members the option of applying that $90 to a combined membership in the AARC/ISRC. Also offered free admission to students who were already an AARC/ISRC or ISRC member. Maryland/DC: A $50 discount was offered to new members; the non-members difference in registration amounts was converted towards the AARC membership and these individuals were made new members; recruitment booths were set up at locally sponsored meetings and hospital seminars; a recruitment CD and brochure were put together and will be mailed to over 500 school libraries and guidance counselors—also featured on the CD are the videos Breath of Life and the Magic of Membership. Mississippi: Held a Nascart race as a fund-raiser to send kids to asthma camp; partnered with American Lung Association in some efforts; developed a “gold card” plan which offers significant discounts on future meetings, advance notices for events, etc.; gold card memberships are being comp’d to new members as well as existing members. Montana: Kept our CEU fees low, i.e., banquet style dinner was served for $85 per member or $163.50 for the non-member. After subtracting expenses, the cost was $3.94 per CEU—this went over with a bang! We obtain sponsorship from pharmaceutical outfits and DME suppliers to help with expenses, thus we are able to offer more for less, so to speak. Rhode Island: Gave good presentations and CEUs for each day of the meeting; added surprise guests and some comedy in the presentations so that people had a good time. Utah: By becoming a member at the state convention, the AARC membership cost was included in their registration fee. Virginia: Offered generous discounts to all who attended the conference and gave great presentations on the advantages of being a member of the AARC.. [Top] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Calendar of Events
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Membership Figures (as of 11/6/03)
|
