National Boards / National Licensure

[Homer]

Is a national recognition or licensure possible?

I think it has more posabilities than anything we can do state by state.

Why?(you might be asking ... or just about to hit the "back" button to go to another post)

The two strongest opposing forces to state licensure, it has been stated, are optometry and national retail chains. Does anyone ask why? Oh, you think you know the answer; "they would have to pay us too much." I think that may not be so.

National retail optical chains are doing business in both licensed and unlicensed states. If they had to pay licensed opticians so much more in licensed states, then how do they continue in business? Perhaps wages have very little to do with their opposition to licensure, but the ability to move good people from one location to another does.

We live in a world where traveling and even living for periods of time outside the U.S. is quite common. We think nothing of moving to another state because someone is offering us $2000 or $3000 more a year or may even take a cut because we want to live with our significant-other or close to our children or the beach. That is great in most cases unless an optician in Nebraska wants to move to a licensed state. This is what the "chains" deal with.

No one has responded to my post about Opticianry's changes under the General Discussion Forum but I think a truth is hidden there. Optometrists are also up against state licensure problems. If a person gets divorced and needs to get out of town, it is not easy to run off to Wyoming to get some personal space. Young optometrist don't like this situation anymore than the chains who can't move their star person from Wichita, Kansas to Florida to manage a new store. As far back as 1998, an Optometric Management poll stated that nearly 50% of OD's want a national license.

So the point is ... (thought I'd never get there? Well some things are a little better if it takes a little more time! At my age it takes a little longer - and that ain't all bad.) .... as I was saying, the point is that everybody wants reciprosity.

The national retail chains want it. The optometrists want it. And if we would help them get it we could get some too!! Such a deal! It would be kinda like a United States. We could all live and move and have our being as we liked ... and the marketplace would level everything out, as it usually does.

Let's help the chains (who claim to be pro education /credentialing) and the OD's who want to be able to move to Idaho, let's help them get a nationl license for all of us.

On the other hand, maybe this really belongs in the Just Conversation Forum in the discussions about heaven.

[Steve Machol]

Homer,

I think Alan has a really great idea - a National Board of Optical Specialists. I like the concept of setting 'Board Certified' specialists in a number of optical disciplines. For this to work however, it would require two things.

[list=1]
A truly rigorous and meaningful standard for certification.
A concerted effort to educate the public on the value of Board Certified Opticians.
[/list=a]

I've been giving this idea a lot of thought lately and have come to the belief that it's not only possible, but it's absolutely necessary if we are to raise professional standards.

I encourage anyone who wants to be a part of this to contact me directly at smachol@optiboard.com .

------------------
http://optiboard.com/gifs/steve-sig.gif
OptiBoard Administrator


[This message has been edited by Steve Machol (edited 04-10-2001).]

[Jo]

National recognition is possible; however, it is going to take a loud voice to get the message out. I also like Alan's idea of "Optical Specialists." All professionals who's jobs involve areas of opticianry should be included."

[Steve Machol]

You're absolutely right. Alan made the point somewhere that there are many levels of Opticians - Frame Stylists, Dispensing Opticians, Store Managers, etc., that have different skills sets. Each of these would have different Certification tests and levels.

Likewise I'd add Lab Opticians, AR Coating Specialists, Quality Control and many others to the list.


------------------
http://optiboard.com/gifs/steve-sig.gif
OptiBoard Administrator

[Edited for format.]

[This message has been edited by Steve Machol (edited 04-11-2001).]

[Homer]

So, Jo, do you see the optician who manufactures eyewear at the wholesale level included?

Do you also see the frame representatives included since many are former opticians and/or train optical dispensers in the proper uses of their products.

Would lens representatives be included also?

What about the person who greets the patient after the exam and informs them of the best progressive for them while also educating them on the benefits of modern frame materials - and then takes a PD and sends it out to or back to the lab person.

What about the lab person who does repairs and an occasional dispensing as well as edging the lenses for the operation? What about the generator operator?

What about the person who informs the patient about all of their third-party plan's benefits and shows them the various levels of frames and lenses that are included and then makes sure the forms are submitted correctly.

What about contact lense technicians both in-office and at the wholesale lab level.

Does it make and difference it these people are employees of profession that already have licenses to do "optical specialities"?

Not trying to throw cold water on a hot idea but just want to know how you invision it?

[Homer]

OK, I see a little more of what you are saying and who you are including. Who will set up and fund this board? Isn't this a political process? The board would have to have some kind of government recognition, wouln't it?

It's snowing here in Boulder and there is too much time for me to ask too many questions. Someone has described Boulder as "eleven square miles completely surrounded by reality". May it's no just the snow but the place. :) ;)

[Steve Machol]

This is an evolving concept, but what I see is Board Certification that truly reflects a higher level of knowledge and expertise than what is currently available. This includes actual documented work experience.

However none of this will work unless the public (and through them the optical companies) see a value in retaining the services of Board Certified Opticians. Many lay people have come onto OptiBoard asking how to choose a good Optician. And to date no one has been able to give them a coherent answer. Wouldn't it be nice to point to Board Certification as one critical component in choosing an eyecare professional?

These are just some ideas and as I said this will continue to evolve as we get more ideas and comments.

------------------
http://optiboard.com/gifs/steve-sig.gif
OptiBoard Administrator

[Homer]

Did board certification for physicians in certain specialties come because the public demanded it?

Did some doctors find "Doctor" no longer a good enough statement so they tried to distinguish themselves by setting up certification boards for specialties and can now call themselves, Board Certified Ophthalmologists?

If you were to ask the question on an Ophthalmology web forum; how to select a physician, would you accept "a board certified physician" as a difinative answer?

How many physicians do you know, and OD's for that matter, that are educated, licensed and certified would you not even send your enemies to?

Guess I'm still having trouble getting the vision here. :(

[Found some spelling errors, richard]

[This message has been edited by Homer (edited 04-11-2001).]

[Steve Machol]

Originally posted by Homer:
Did board certification for physicians in certain specialties come because the public demanded it?

Good question - I don't know. However when I was looking for a sleep disorder specialist, I specifically chose someone that was Board Certified as per a recommendation I saw in a Sleep Disorder newgroup.

Did some doctors find "Doctor" no longer a good enough statement so they tried to distinguish themselves by setting up certification boards for specialties and can now call themselves, Board Certified Ophthalmologists?

I don't know this either but my guess is that someone considered a higher level of expertise in a given area to be of value and devised a way to 'certify' it. I could be wrong though.

If you were to ask the question on an Ophthalmology web forum; how to select a physician, would you accept "a board certified physician" as a difinative answer?

Of course not. However I do consider it as one of the important factors.

How many physicians do you know, and OD's for that matter, that are educated, licensed and certified would you not even send your enemies to?

No one is saying that Board Certification is the only factor in determing the professional qualifications. However all other things being equal, wouldn't you chose someone who higher demonstrated level of knowledge than someone who doesn't? I know I would! :D

Guess I'm still having trouble getting the vision here. :(

One of my problems is that I work these things out in my head and just naturally assume that everyone has access to my understanding and logic. However as i said this is a work-in-progress. It will continue to evolve an improve as others chime in with their ideas and comennts.

------------------
http://optiboard.com/gifs/steve-sig.gif
OptiBoard Administrator

[Homer]

Thanks for the response. Are we saying that we have in-fact national certification but that those of us in the industry do not think is is valuable for one reason or another? ( not strict enough, not able to control, not inclusive enough, not recognized by governments)

If I see that an MD or a motor mechanic or a financial planner is certified, do I know whether that person just watched a video on the subject, attended a lecture or two or had a strict practical examination? I think I don't. I think it would be hard to find out exactly what certified meant. I think I will choose someone who is trustworthy rather than certified at something.

I think our main problem is all of the others. We think our certification is valuable but we don't think that the new-comers really qualify. An our customers don't really give a ______________ ! As Harry said in the other thread, our customers are more interested, generally, in when their glasses will be done and what the price will be. They also expect perfection because and eyeglass place is an eyeglass place and of course they are professional.

As I have said before, what we are suffering from is a great lack of self confidence. We long, it seems, for someone to recognize the US and push away the imposterous THEM. I don't know how to fix that.

Will a different type of certification help?
Will an Associates degree or Bachelors degree help?

Let's keep on talking about this. As you have said, "it is a work in progress". To me that is progress!

[Steve Machol]

Homer,

I think the answer to your first question is 'yes' - many in this industry believe the ABO has been so watered down over the last few years as to become too easy and relatively worthless. Since I'm not a Dispensing Optician I'm relying on the judgement of others who've taken the test over the years.

The other half of the equation is what the public looks for when they choose an eyecare professional. This is where I think we've fallen down on the job. For the most part, the public isn't even aware of Licensed Opticians, ABO Certification, etc. And if the public doesn't value this level of expertise, then there's really no hope that we can promote and improve the profession.

Case in point - on a couple of occasions a consumer came onto OptiBoard asking, "What should I look for in choosing an eyecare professional?" The answers were somewhat helpful but not quite to the point. I then suggested the OptiBoard community put together a 'checklist' of questions for consumers to use in judging the expertise and competence of eyecare professionals. Unfortunately no one stepped forward to do this. I see this as a lost opportunity to define the profession of Opticianry to consumers who were open and eager for the message.

That's where we need to do a much better job!


------------------
http://optiboard.com/gifs/steve-sig.gif
OptiBoard Administrator

[marblez]

This subject is something we all should be looking at. The answer to all these certification questions are education. There are several ways to start including everyone. Not everyone will be able to take every test, and to take a test level of ability must be shown. Can a tech of any kind do my job? No but he or she might be able to in 5-10 years maybe less. The other thing we want to look at is how many people are willing to take the test? There are going to be people who say, "my state license is enough". Those are the people who don't grow with our industry. Yes there are alot of questions relating to this subject, as well as, alot of bugs, but it can be done. Be postive and we will achieve what we need. That being a recgnonized profession not just sales peopel.


Christina

[Alan W]

Remember the old logo for MGM Studios? It was Leo the Lion. Around Leo's head was a slogan in Latin. It said Ars Gratia Artis, Art for Arts sake. MGM is gone. You can't Certify for Certifications sake. Corporate optical and some private non optician sectors, is now in control of what is done with an ABO person. They have placed a value on it, and it ain't too good. Instead of people getting a 25 cent an hour raise for in house training, they use the ABO as a criteria and pay 25 cents an hour if you get an ABO certificate. Who is to say it shouldn't be a dollar an hour more? They don't promote that to the public. Why? Cause they can't get enough people to take the test spending the money out of pocket for the exam and getting a reimbursement if they pass it. It costs the boss less to do that, than spend the money on training across the board. It is economically to their advantage to reward less for an ABO than force training and certification, if they can manage it. Bottom line is that it has been religated to mediocrity and the ABO has played right into their hands by making it so easy to get one. It's dying. No takers and whoever takes it either gets the short end of the stick or saves a bundle.
On the other hand, if the Board of Optical Specialists promoted itself directly to the public, and made all the opticians aware they were going to it this is what I believe would happen:

1, the uncertified optician would be fearful that the employer would not keep him on if uncertified. Hence diiigent effort to certify for job protection.
2, Employers would be unable to present uncertified people to their customer without being heavily scrutinized by the public as well as fellow certified opticians.
3, Specialist certified opticians would be in a better position to earn and demand better wages because the public would be on their side. The issue of trust would be dependent on the relationship bewtween the optician and the public and not the employer and the public.
4, I doubt seriously if the employer would come forward and say to the public . .. "don't listen to them, folks. They don't know what they are talking about. Besides you can get the same thing for less here, even if our people are not certified."
5, Board specialized opticians define the relationship in terms of qualifications. Not the employer.
6, Even the generator operator moves up as a manufacturing optician. And, yes, in the state of California, labs have to have manufacturing licenses, or at least used to.

As far as the government is concerned it would have to take sides eventually, and I doubt they woud take sides with employers who want to discredit the professional technician. The professional optician has allowed himself to become discredited or uncredible.

All this HAS to ride in on a promotional campaign launched by the professional technicians themselves. How would they be supported? Contributions from manufacturers. Would retailers threaten not to but the product? Yes. But not for long. The public wants brand name identification. Retailers would have no choice. Besides, if professional technicians don't like to see a particular brand because the manufacturer openly sided with the retailer, it would be difficult to threaten to fire a technician for not selling Sophia Loren frames or the like in lenses.

I am suggesting that one heck of a battle would ensue once professional technicians had the public trust. I doubt the dust would settle for a long time before someone realized that whoever was not in favor of education/certification was undermining a basic tenent of American society . . . education is economic power. . . only when promoted by the right people aggresively. And, so far professional technicians have NOT been the people that do it and they must. Am I centering my attention on economics? Yes. No employer sees us as anything but either an economic bone in their throat or cheap labor. Take your pick and let the public decide, not the legislature and definitly not the employer.
We should be recognized by the people we serve not the employer, not the politician.

[Alan W]

Homer
Lay out all of the skill sets you have.
Some are basic. Some are advanced.
You are an example. I am an example, and a bunch others are examples of the accumulation of knowledge that has led to the ability to perform or trouble shoot better than a person with less training and experience.
Yet, no one differentiates us from those entry level, lower experience and higher experienced people. The same follows for any technical or medical profession.
A family practice physician is NOT an Internest.
Selling is not measuring is not manufacturing. But, we have not told the public they may be dealing with someone who is not yet evolved to a certain level of expertise. There's nothing wrong with that. Exterminators are broken down into 3 levels. But we have to let the public know that the person they a re dealing with may as yet not have reached the highest level. Some people wish to see a doctor instead of a nurse practitioner. Medical facilities are very sure to inform patients that they may not be seeing a "full fledged doctor." But, do you see optical companies telling patients they may be seeing a frame stylist and not a full optician?
No. Why? You figure it out. And, when you do you'll see why we have given away our identity, credibility and in all too many cases dignity if up against a minimum wage OJT who will be out of work when the raises are too high.

[Homer]

And round is circles we go again! When I try to get behind the camera to view this saga played out on the stage of life instead of being out there in the street fight, I see two opposing forces. Some might call it the white hats and black hats others the ying and yang and still other the forces of good and evil. There have always been only two; fear and greed. Both of them good and both of them bad.

When one runs for a political office he must motivate the voters by one of those two "forces" and both if possible. S/He must instill fear in the minds and emotions of the voters of what the opponent will bring and desire for what what Her/His leadership can give them. Whether it war, politics or capturing the consumer dollars, the forces and motivations are the same.

Until optician's can instill fear in the hearts and minds of the voters / consumers / legislators and also demonstrate the great gain by requesting / voting for / promoting our leadership, then nothing will happen but shouting and taunting across the valley at the opposing forces.

While I have only a high school education, I am pro education / learning / training / improving skills any way that we can. I have for 10 years taught ABO review courses and CEC's. However, though education can be powerful, education by itself will not motivate people to change the wrongs of the world. My guess is that we could find many examples of non educated people changing the world into a better place. Now if certifications / recognitions and licenses could make the world a better place then America should be the shinning star of the world! Do you think it is?

Along the lines of the two motivators of people; fear and greed, I would suggest that while I am behind the camera I see a market place that has only those two prinipals to operate by. We like to dress it up by saying that we are simply great people with great skills giving ourselves to the betterment of mankind by providing appropriate eyecare and eyewear. The truth is that if we weren't afraid, we'd go do something else and yet the only reason we'd go and do it would be for more gain. So we say things like have been said above: "we could DEMAND better wages because the public would be on our side".
So it is really about what we can gain in wealth or respect and yet the consumer that we say we get up in the morning to serve is the one from whom we will be DEMANDING higher wages. Now we are either demanding or serving, which is it?

Fat chance that the suppliers will come to the aid of opticians when their only goal is to sell their product - NOTHING ELSE MATTERS! - that can be proven over and over, but they always try to come across as serving our interests - just like we do to our customers.

So its a street brawl. All are involved. All live by the same motivators. All are good guys to somebody and all are bad guys to somebody.

If you could, imageine yourself in a very corrupt country where evil (as you see it) wins about as often as good. In the desert marketplace of that country. And lets say you have the skills, understanding, compassion and proper motivation that you presently claim to possess while the guy in the next tent is a pretty good picture of what you consider evil, then how would you conduct your business? How would you distinguish yourself? How would you best inform the milling crowds of the great advantages of comming to your tent? Is it possible to do an honest business in this environment and still take bread home to your children?

How does this differ from the confrontation we are have been discussing?

[rfish777]

Homer asked:Is a national recognition or licensure possible? I found this article and thought it was interesting.The people who did
the study found most people want college educated opticians. Most people questioned said they prefer the educated person over the apprentice. See what you think.

Archive » Business Management: Is Opticianry Education Important?

Is Opticianry Education Important?
This independent study indicates the public - your customers - thinks it is.
By Steven J. Gerardi, Ph.D

Whether or not opticians should be licensed is a battle being waged all over the country. Currently, more than half the states require some sort of licensure of opticians, and the debate over requiring licensure in the remaining states continues on.

Regardless of licensure statutes, a basic question hangs in each debate: Does the public-your patients-have more trust and respect in opticians who have attained certain levels of education?

The answer, according to a recent indendent study, is a resounding yes.

The study was conducted by Steven J. Gerardi, Ph.D., Thomas A. Woods, Debra R. White, and Roger S. Hill. It was funded by a grant from Essilor USA.

The study surveyed a sampling of eyecare patients about their feelings on education and skill level for their opticians. The vast majority of respondents-regardless of gender, economic level or education level-said they wanted their opticians to have post-high school education rather than apprenticeship.

Woods says he and Hill, an industry colleague, had first discussed "putting something out there regarding opticianry and education."

Worried that a study conducted about the optical industry by optical people would carry little credibility, they decided to bring in Gerardi, a Ph.D whose area of expertise is social stratification.

"We decided to do the study from a sociology standpoint," Woods explains, and take a scientific approach.

Once completed, the authors submitted the study to Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC), where most educational studies are peer-reviewed. It passed the review, and will be published by ERIC this spring.

Next on the agenda was to bring the study before an optical body for review.

That, too, was a success.

The authors took the study to the National Federation of Opticianry Schools (NFOS) members, "for review by my peers."

The study was included in the December 1999 NFOS newsletter, and was critically lauded by Elliot R. Roth, vice president of the Federation. In his introduction to the study, Roth says that, "In regard to opticianry education, this might be just the wakeup call we need to begin to improve our condition."

Woods says the response to the study from the optical community has been a good one. "People are using to make a change" in the state of opticianry.

Gerardi told Eyecare Business that, coming from outside the optical industry, he was less surprised by the results of the study than he was by the current state of opticinary education itself.

"I, like most people, I suppose, was surprised to learn that the level of education necessary to be an optician varies so much from state to state," he says.

"I'm not surprised that people want opticians to be educated," he adds. "People we spoke with don't want high school grads playing with their eyes."

Time to Re-evaluate

In his introduction to the study in the NFOS newsletter, Roth mulled what can be done to improve opticianry.

"How has opticianry progressed in the past century? How do we improve it in the next?," he asks. "The century seems to be a pertinent frame of reference since the profession of optometry began its distinction from opticianry almost exactly a century ago. Since then, optometry has used education as a primary tool to establish licensure as well as diagnostic and therapeutic pharmaceutical certification in every state.

"This is in contrast to opticianry, which has not even been able to establish licensure in a majority of the states. It has been difficult to even establish ophthalmic dispensing programs in many of these states, and existing ones are threatened by politics, budgets, and low enrollment," Roth states.

He says one of the hurdles to increasing opticianry awareness is public ignorance of the profession. "Most clients are not clear as to what an optician is," he says. "Most people are befuddled on one end with ophthalmology, as evidenced by the requests of clients for cataract surgery in optical offices, and on the other with commercial chains that employ uncertified support staff who show frames and offer advice about coatings and materials."

Another problem is the lack of educational programs, he says, adding that the problem is a direct result of the previous obstacle-public ignorance about the profession.

"Without question, a heightened awareness by the general public about the technical capabilities, and quality care that can only be offered by eye professionals would result in a greater demand for trained practitioners," he states.

Finally, Roth says he sees the profession itself at fault. "Complacency has to figure into the equation. Opticians have seen changes occurring for the past several decades. The enhanced scope of practice of optometry, the mass sale of ready-made reading glasses, the birth and growth of mail-order contact lens distributors, and the minimal enforcement of license monitoring in optical establishments can all be counted in the injuries that have been inflicted upon the profession.," he says.

"The solution to our prolonged existence is basic. We must first educate the public about the benefits associated with dealing with qualified, licensed opticians," he concludes. "Through this, we need to create a demand for licensed opticianry in every state. Finally, we must establish formal education programs to educate all the opticians of America."

Education as Investment

Gerardi, Woods, White, and Hill created the study with the intent of measuring public attitude toward opticianry education as "human capital."

The theory of human capital suggests that, in addition to being a form of consumption, education is also a form of individually and socially productive investment.

In New York State, as well as some others, a high school graduate (or GED) can enroll in an apprentice program. This two-year program will allow he/she to sit for the license examination.

However, will the current optician training system, such as apprenticeships, be seen by the public as sufficient training for a health care professional?

Education is Better

The study asked the following questions: 1) Does the public think the apprenticeship program is sufficient training for an optician? 2) In the public's opinion is a college-educated optician a better health care professional? and 3) In the public's opinion, what level of education should an optician obtain?

To conduct the study, the authors surveyed a 10 percent random sampling totaling 151 customers of a large eyecare firm located in the United States. Responses were categorized according to a variety of factors, such as age of respondents, of respondents, economic and education level of respondents, etc.

Each person was asked the same set of questions:

Is apprenticeship sufficient training for an optician?

Should opticians be college educated?
Should opticians have at least an Associate's degree?
Should opticians have at least a Bachelor's degree?
Would a college-educated optician make a better health care professional?
Would you have more confidence in an optician's skills if he/she was college-educated?
The results (see charts) suggest that the customer attitude toward opticianry training is in favor of higher educational requirements and credentials, the authors state.

Indeed, the confidence level in the eyecare professional increases as the optician's educational achievement increases. Furthermore, these data suggest that 100 percent of those polled, income notwithstanding, would be more confident in the optician's skills if he/she was college educated.

Surprisingly, 81 percent of this sample were of the opinion that an optician should have earned at least a Bachelor's degree over an Associate's degree, suggesting that the optician apprenticeship program, in the public's opinion, is a relic of the past and is not appropriate for the modern health care professional, the study states.

Finally, according to the New York State Department of Education, the pass rate of the apprentice trainees within the optician licensure examination is poor. In 1996 only 47 percent-as opposed to 75 percent of those with an Associate's degree-passed the examination; in 1997, 69 percent of the trainees vs. 76 percent of those holding an Associate's degree had passed; and in 1998, 51 percent of the trainees vs. 77 percent of those who are college educated passed the New York State Licensure exam.

These data may be suggesting one or two following: 1) the apprenticeship program's training capacity is weak or 2) the students who seek such a program have poor academic skills.

In either case, the authors conclude, the apprenticeship program is not as efficient in training opticians as the college-based curricula, and therefore should be redressed. EB

Steven J. Gerardi, P.h.D., is associate professor of sociology at New York City Technical College of the City University of New. Thomas A. Woods, B.A., ABOC, is an instructor of ophthalmic dispensing at New York City Technical College. Debra R. White, MS.Ed., ABOM, Fclsa., is director, opticianry program, Mater Dei College. Roger S. Hill, M.A. is instructor at Tri-Service Opticians School. The research was funded by a grant from Essilor USA. All inquires into this research should be addressed to SGeradi223@hotmail.com


Subject Accessories Ask the Labs (Q & A) Business Management Contact Lenses Eye on Equipment (Q & A) Fix and Fit (Q & A) Frames/Fashion Interviews Kids/Teens Lens Processing Low Vision Managed Care Retail Strategies Spectacle Lenses Store Design and Layout Sunglasses
Author A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Issue April, 2001 March, 2001 February, 2001 January, 2001 December, 2000 November, 2000 October, 2000 September, 2000 August, 2000 July, 2000 June, 2000 May, 2000 April, 2000 March, 2000 February, 2000 January, 2000 December, 1999 November, 1999 October, 1999 September, 1999 August, 1999 July, 1999 June, 1999 May, 1999 April, 1999 March, 1999 February, 1999 January, 1999
Keywords


Copyright 1996-2001 Boucher Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved
Terms and Conditions of Service




[This message has been edited by rfish777 (edited 04-23-2001).]

[rfish777]

This was quoted by Steve: some doctors find "Doctor" no longer a good enough statement so they tried to distinguish themselves by setting up certification boards for specialties and can now call themselves, Board Certified Ophthalmologists? I quess we are quibbling over semantics. Because even if the doctor is board certified, he is still qualified as a Doctor. The difference is he has just specialized in a certain field.Certification means: That the doctor has gone on to specialize in a certain field and must pass a state examination upon which he is given a certificate confirming his abilities. This I believe is what Alan is driving at to get
certification in different areas, just like
doctors have done to differentiate themselves from the normal GP(General Practitioner)And like all specializations you
get higher prices and higher fees for your services. What do you think?

[Steve Machol]

That's right. Alan proposes a wide range of specialties which I think is a good idea. For instance many years ago the OLA uses to test and certify Lab Opticians. For some reason they discontinued this practise. I think it would be a good idea resurrect this program as well as certification in the other specialties that Alan proposed.

------------------
http://optiboard.com/gifs/steve-sig.gif
OptiBoard Administrator

[Pete Hanlin]

As someone who works with Optometrists, I would point out that there are a lot of ODs against Board Certification. Supposedly, the main argument for National Certification for ODs is to give them better access to hospital privileges (which many ODs have no interest in). Most ODs simply see National Board Certification as one more hoop and one more outlay of $$$. This is one of the reasons National Board Certification was voted down by the membership of the AOA.

I think a lot of what you all are hoping to accomplish is what the ABO/NCLE currently aims for with the national certification exams (which I still believe are a good measure of minimal competency levels). Having participated in some of the "domain and task analysis" sessions for both the NOCE and the ABOC-AC exams, I can testify to the difficulties associated with coming up with a comprehensive exam. If your goal is to arrive at a national competency standard and certification, you might as well start with the ABO/NCLE.

How could the ABO/NCLE be improved? Well, requiring an associate's degree before letting an individual sit for the exams would be an excellent first step. This would also effectively create an educational standard for all licensed states (which require the ABO/NCLE as part of the licensure process). There are now plenty of distance learning opportunities for anyone who desires to pick up an A.A. in Opticianry, so lack of access is no longer an excuse.

Basically, I think the problem is rooted in not having licensure in all states. When is the last time Opticianry gained regulation in a new state??? I know one of the reasons the State of Florida gave in their proposal to deregulate Opticianry is that it is only regulated in about 1/2 of the states. I fail to see how we can even think about national recognition until we have recognition in all states (can you imagine a state that didn't regulate doctors, or Optometrists?).

The key to all of this (state and national recognition) can be found in advertising. For example, there's this cheesy product called "scratch-be-gone." Its only advertised on small cable channels and usually not in prime time. However, I bet there are few Opticians (in this area, anyway) who haven't been asked about the "miraculous scratch healing powers" of this product that is no more than a china marker.

We need a single message expressed with a single phrase or idea. Then, we need to push the message. Unfortunately, our national societies have neither the membership, foresight, nor the interest necessary to recognize that "the message" is crucial to this profession's future. They're so wrapped up with being introverted and "seperate" that not much gets done for the good of the profession (this isn't to say there aren't dedicated individuals in both the OAA and the NAO, but let's get with it guys...).

Pete's plan...
1.) The OAA and the NAO become one body.
2.) All legislative money is pooled to gain licensure- one state at a time.
3.) Serious money is spent on advertising a positive image of Opticians.
4.) The ABO/NCLE requires an A.A. degree before allowing an applicant to sit for the NOCE or the NCLE. The difficulty level of the exams could be raised by a few notches, and a seperate test for those involved in the fabrication of lenses could be added.

After all this is done, we'll get together and walk on water.

Pete

[This message has been edited by Pete Hanlin (edited 04-26-2001).]

[Jo]

Pete:

I believe this article in Primary Care Optometry News covers what you are talking about. Anyone interested in what OD's are trying to accomplish should take a look at the article; however, I believe you have to register to view the site.
http://www.slackinc.com/eye/pcon/200104/boardcert.asp

[rfish777]

Pete and Jo I think your missing the point.
As I said before I quess we are quibbling over semantics. Because even if the doctor is board certified, he is still qualified as a Doctor. The difference is he has just specialized in a certain field.Certification means: That the doctor has gone on to specialize in a certain field and must pass a state examination upon which he is given a certificate confirming his abilities. Thats the difference. They have sub specialties
where we have sub nothing. Reread Steve's
comment or Alan's. They are saying go after the sub speciality. A certification for the lab tech, optician, stylist and so forth. Get organized and go for it.

[Pete Hanlin]

I don't believe I'm missing the point at all (then again, if I am missing the point, I guess I wouldn't know it because I'm missing it ;) ).

Anyway, you made my key point with your last post. Optometrists are already certified/licensed/regulated as Doctors. Opticians aren't even uniformly certified. It makes no sense for a national body to try to create subspecialty certifications when there is no uniform general certification.

Are there a lot of different job descriptions within our field? Sure. However, if no one outside (or sometimes even within) our field currently cares about our profession, how is it going to benefit us to come up with more sub-certs? Its like counting rocks in the driveway- you know exactly how many there are, but who cares?

In other words, the consumer has to demand (or at least care) that lab techs be certified for such certification to have any benefit. We need to create consumer demand- that requires advertising.

Pete

[Homer]

Pete, I completely agree with your major point. Didn't think that was possiable from me, did'ya?

Once we can agree on the ABO, ABO Advanced or formal education or seomething esle as the national criteria, then we can talk about the sub-sets.

How we accomplish this is the really big question. Seems we need to advertize to ourselves / sell ourselves / buy into the idea before we can go public.

richard

[Jo]

rfish777:

I think I am not so much missing the point as I am getting ahead of myself here. My brain is also still running on thoughts from other posts. I feel we need some form of consistant certification from state to state, perhaps developing the ABO/NCLE into something more advanced and mandatory. Next step would be at least an associates degree. From there there should be specialization with each specialization having its own requirements.

[This message has been edited by Jo (edited 04-28-2001).]

[Alan W]

I've looked at the postings of all of us over several weeks and several different headings. Much to my surprise, we actually have created solutions to many of the issues regarding the future of opticianry. It appears that we all agree that education and promotion of opticianry need to be brought to the marketplace. There is so much valuable discussion and debate already posted that we have to jump from one heading to another to catch the essence of it all. If we copied and pasted all of it into one header we'd have a startling amount of quality discussion and debate. Further, if we went from debate (which is going on right now as we speak on the Optiboard) to action we have already moved light years ahead than the conventional method of monthly meetings on the local level to yearly meetings that end up dead ending. Steve has already taken a consensus and brought it to a meeting. Obviously, that was a shock to the traditional way of doing things. What I see happening next is going to need some organizing on the net/Optiboard. But, what I feel happening next is funneling down the issues to workable action. So, here is a possibility of an organization plan after we have the consensus divided into action topics. Each action topic becomes a workgroup that can develop a net based plan of action. Workgroups can meet on the net in "hidden chat rooms" Steve can set up. Possible action topics are and not in order or prioritized:

1, agreement on specialties for certification
2, development of a training board to develope the criteria for a curriculum leading to a certificate of specialty (going backwards from the job to the training to create the job).
3, ways and means (working with each action team to determine its money needs, set up sources of funding (dues, donations, federal grants, affinity sources, etc interested in funding internet organizations)
4,marketing team who will interview and communicate with professionals in internet marketing and professionals in media marketing in order to get a budget and plan put together.

Finally, an executive chat room for team leaders to present progress on a regular basis with deadlines and accountability, open to viewing by all of us, but dialog limited to team leaders, possibility with general membership input at the end or something.

The hard part of this is to get used to the idea that not one foot touches the ground. It is all cyberorganized and managed. New rules, new cyberplaces, new everything. But, one thing I do know is that everyone in earshot of this posting already is internet savvy.Learning how to use chat rooms, Netmeeting, so on and so forth will be exciting, challenging, and very do-able, even if all the members are sitting there in their skivveys (sp?). It still gets done.

With all due respect. And the fact that you guys have heard much to much from my big mouth lately. I have copied and pasted this posting on another couple forums and headers in an effort to help facilitate organization. After this, I promise to keep my mouth shut and wait until called upon. I am commited to you all to help and hope I don't make myself a pain in the somethingorother in the process. Thanks for the opportunity to sub,it this crude and poorly constructed proposal.

[Alan W]

Pete
The uniform certification we seek and the one you think we should have before we "go public" is called an Associates Degree. That's he "MD" after the name we should be shooting for. That's a no brainer. I don't see why there should be a debate. If there are those with no AA and have demonstrated equivelency, let them be tested. That's called challenging the course. If they pass, they get the degree. What we need to work for is that option. Anyone else needs college training or the equivelent. As for going public? By the time we get the post secondary schools to get that option from their certifying body, whether it be a state community college system, association of post secondary schools, or whatever, that should be the task of some degreed optician/alumni, etc. task force. While they are working on that, the marketing "team" can be doing its thing to prepare for going public. There is lag time involved. But, the marketing function will have to begin a good year in advance anyway. These things don't happen overnight, but are a coordinated multifunctional initiative that starts with planning and organizing long before the plan launches. This is NOT an "Ifee" situation. But, we have demonstrated for decades resistence to change, organization, planning, and stepping outside the box to recruit talent to do our bidding. It's called delegation in the right places, and I am seeing too many of us doing too much thinking about the implementation process (with the lack of skills to do it) and not enough designing a plan. The legislative function is in place. The educational functions are in place. They need to be reengineered to have more specific impact, becase they are trying to accomplish too much with the available talents. Going public is a marketing function of which few of us knows how to do. But, there is an individual who has proved marketing ability and his name is Joe Bruneni. What he did for polycarbs he can do for opticianry, cause he is one. But, we need to stop thinking for the experts and be the designers of the mission, the objectives, and the goals before we implement anything.

[Don Lee]

Originally posted by Homer


...Do you also see the frame representatives included since many are former opticians and/or train optical dispensers in the proper uses of their products...

Would lens representatives be included also?

I can't remember the last time I met a frame or lens rep that was a former optician.

Don

[Alan W]

I see reps as no different than any other member of the industry. Under the specialties concept anyone can establish expertise. So, rather than by job title, their education and or acknowldged experience equivelent positions them. I, personally, would have a lot more respect for a frame rep who is recognized by peers than one off the street by a frame distributor.

[Jo]

Alan,

Yes,we have all done quiet a bit of thinking and planning. You mention moving on to designing. What do you and the others who have posted to threads involving creating a change propose as a Step 1 in the plan?

[Don Lee]

Originally posted by Homer
Is a national recognition or licensure possible?

The two strongest opposing forces to state licensure, it has been stated, are optometry and national retail chains. Does anyone ask why? Oh, you think you know the answer; "they would have to pay us too much." I think that may not be so


In Oklahoma the optoms have fought everything to do with licensing for about 40 years. Word has it that they don't want Opticians to have credibility. One on one each optom will say they're for licensing but as a group they fight it. Their lobby is so powerful that they beat the Ophthalmologist and now they can do refractive surgical procedures.

The last time licensing came up was about 3 years ago and the chains didn't want it. Neither did the optoms, unless you were talking to them one on one.

If you're a beautician or a dog you have to be licensed in Oklahoma, but not if all you do is fit spectacles and contact lenses.

Don

[Homer]

Don, good to see your post. Why exactly do you think that optometry is against opticianry having any recognition? They don't want to pay for opticianry? The just want to have all the business for themselves? or they are afraid of opticians who know what they are doing?

BTW, I have sepnt a little time working in Oklahoma in the mid-70's.

Your point is the reason why I think we need to and can finght this thing on a national level. I am actually stupid enough to believe that we can get optometry and the chains to support us in this.

Let's all join the fingernail painters and the dogs and get a license! :wink:


:cheers:

[Don Lee]

Originally posted by Homer
Don, good to see your post. Why exactly do you think that optometry is against opticianry having any recognition? They don't want to pay for opticianry? The just want to have all the business for themselves? or they are afraid of opticians who know what they are doing?

Your point is the reason why I think we need to and can finght this thing on a national level. I am actually stupid enough to believe that we can get optometry and the chains to support us in this.


I don't know why optoms would be against Opticians being a credible group. Perhaps for reasons you have previously mentioned. They have argued that Opticianry doesn't require a minimum amount of formal education. So what! I don't think a formal education, college, is necessary and from some of the glasses I've seen fit by 1st year optoms I'd say it's a hinderance. I believe a trade school or an apprentice program would benefit Opticians and that every Dispensing Optician should be, at the very least, ABO Certified.

Since attempts at the state level have failed we should try at the national, providing it's not ran by the government.

I don't think we need support from the optoms or chains. I'd really hate it if the optoms became our controlling entity. Chains? Only if they kept their mouths shut and forked over lots of money. I've not had any good experiences with the chains. The NAO, ABO, and OAA would be very useful to us and Optical coorporations could help provide funding for lobbyists.

Don

[Don Lee]

Originally posted by Homer
Don, good to see your post. Why exactly do you think that optometry is against opticianry having any recognition? They don't want to pay for opticianry? The just want to have all the business for themselves? or they are afraid of opticians who know what they are doing?

Your point is the reason why I think we need to and can finght this thing on a national level. I am actually stupid enough to believe that we can get optometry and the chains to support us in this.


I don't know why optoms would be against Opticians being a credible group. Perhaps for reasons you have previously mentioned. They have argued that Opticianry doesn't require a minimum amount of formal education. So what! I don't think a formal education, college, is necessary and from some of the glasses I've seen fit by 1st year optoms I'd say it's a hinderance. I believe a trade school or an apprentice program would benefit Opticians and that every Dispensing Optician should be, at the very least, ABO Certified.

Since attempts at the state level have failed we should try at the national, providing it's not ran by the government.

I don't think we need support from the optoms or chains. I'd really hate it if the optoms became our controlling entity. Chains? Only if they kept their mouths shut and forked over lots of money. I've not had any good experiences with the chains. The NAO, ABO, and OAA would be very useful to us and Optical coorporations could help provide funding for lobbyists.

Don

[Homer]

Don:

1) Are you a member of the organizations you listed?

2) Do you have a state society / association? If not, why not?

3) We're going to have a great multi-state, regional convention in Colorado next Spring. Want to join us?

4) It has been my experience that the "optical Corporations" are going to take a very low key position in this issue - they will simply play both sides against the middle and sell their products to whoever gets there first. They are only pro-opticianry when they think there is a chance you will buy their products.

5) If NAO, OAA, NAOO and those pushing a formal education product can not get on the same page, how will we ever attempt to draw unity out of this present form of disunity.

6) Quite frankly, I think the licensed states would be the greatest force against any kind of national recognition or licensure. None of them will be willing to "lower their standards" to unite all of opticianry.

[Don Lee]

Originally posted by Homer
1) Are you a member of the organizations you listed?I'm a member of the ABO and am about to join the NAO.

2) Do you have a state society / association? If not, why not?We don't have a state organization. We can't get the Opticians interested in supporting a local chapter. There have been 5 or 6 state organizations over the past 40 years and all of them have failed. What really doesn't make sense is that Tulsa will have absolutely nothing to do with any Optical organization.

The Southwestern Ophthalmic Dispensers Association is still trying to keep interest. It's a multi-state organization that provides education. It moved from Dallas 3 years ago after 25 years. At the moment I'm the president and we're trying to get an educational meeting scheduled for later this year.
3) We're going to have a great multi-state, regional convention in Colorado next Spring. Want to join us?Sounds good. I may attend the meeting.
4) It has been my experience that the "optical Corporations" are going to take a very low key position in this issue - they will simply play both sides against the middle and sell their products to whoever gets there first. They are only pro-opticianry when they think there is a chance you will buy their products.I figured the companies might take that position and I wouldn't blame them. They need to make $$$, which is perfectly understandable to me. We shouldn't count them out, though.
5) If NAO, OAA, NAOO and those pushing a formal education product can not get on the same page, how will we ever attempt to draw unity out of this present form of disunity.I have no idea. That will take people with political saavy and adminstrative skills.

6) Quite frankly, I think the licensed states would be the greatest force against any kind of national recognition or licensure. None of them will be willing to "lower their standards" to unite all of opticianry. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm confident that licensing help everybody involved with Opticianry. I'm wanting to get involved at the national level. I don't know how I can help. My best skill is gathering information. I'm not an administrator or politician, as much as I want to be.

Don

[Judy Canty]

Just to clarify a couple of points:

1. One can not be a "member" of the ABO. The ABO is a certifying body. The money you pay them is to renew your ABO certification, not dues.

2. The NAOO is a lobbying organization for the large optical retailers, including LensCrafters, Cole and others. They have no vested interest in formal education and actively oppose licensure of Opticians whenever and wherever possible. While I learned long ago never to say "never," the idea that they will ever be on the same page as OAA or NAO is merely a pipe dream.

[Don Lee]

Originally posted by Judy Canty ...One can not be a "member" of the ABO. The ABO is a certifying body. The money you pay them is to renew your ABO certification, not dues...[/B]Pardon me, I must have suffered a transient ischemic attack or a mature moment. I was a member of the OAA but am going to join the NAO. I've been thinking about TOPS (Texas) and giving more thought to Colorado.

BTW: SWODA, which I am/was a member, is not going to have a meeting this year. We can't find any interest at this time.

Don

[Alan W]

Jo
Apologies for late response. I've been crashed for a while.
STEP 1 . . . Cyber Steering Committee . . . dedicated chat room.

If there is someone who wants to see and participate in reengineering opticianries present organizational structure, that's where the meetings need to begin.

My position is that anyone presently involved in academic or legislative activities needn't think I am for their abolishment. I am, however, in favor of a third entity, marketing, which should move in position along side the other two and all should be functions of a parent organization. I also stand for the creation of specialty certification and my reasons to be presented (repeated) at the steering committee cyber meeting.

As an alternate, I am in favor of multipoint videoconferencing where we can all see and here each other. I would like to see Steve facilitate that. If there are costs involved, we should get that from Steve and apply for a grant from a supporting supply-side company. I also feel Steve should be paid for this work.

On page one of this thread is a 4 point proposal which I am not firm on, but would like to see someone modify or build on it. I have seen no responses or comments on it.

The idea of a dedicated chat room, in my mind, means no other debate than what will lead to a constructive action plan. It will need a tough and serious moderator. Someone who will say: OK, Alan, time to shut up and let someone else speak . . . you're the weakest link . .. gooby!!

[Jo]

Four Points
1, agreement on specialties for certification
2, development of a training board to develope the criteria for a curriculum leading to a certificate of specialty (going backwards from the job to the training to create the job).
3, ways and means (working with each action team to determine its money needs, set up sources of funding (dues, donations, federal grants, affinity sources, etc interested in funding internet organizations)
4,marketing team who will interview and communicate with professionals in internet marketing and professionals in media marketing in order to get a budget and plan put together.

On Point 1:
-Mechanical
-Dispensing

On Point 2:
Perhaps we should look to organizations already in place, the ABO/NCLE and the Commision on Opticianry Accredation for guidance on this one. Revamp and strengthen both the certifying boards and our commitment to education.
On Point 3:
This is going to be the tough one. We would need a management company. Money and time are two of the toughest criteria to meet.
On Point 4:
We would need a marketing company. Look how hard it has been for all of us to try and define ourselves and what we do. If we don't know who we are, what exactly are we going to be telling the public?

[Alan W]

Jo
Bless your heart and thanks for the feedback.
I agree on all points. There's work to be done. We do have resources around us. But, wihout structure, those resources won't spend a dime on us. :finger:

We CAN do this. But, I'm not going to be the only one at it. I'm going to sit back and wait for signs of life and let's see where this will go. :rolleyes:

If the folks at ABO so on and so forth are as willing as I am to look at themselves and do some reengineering, I'm willing to jump in on my favorite love . . . organizational marketing. But, I won't lift a finger, unless the academic and legislative folks are willing to come together to make up two legs of a three legged stool. E Pluribus Unim . . . or however the heck you spell it! United we win, divided we fall!
Now, where's my Alka Seltzer?:o

[Pete Hanlin]

Someone mentioned that the NAOO would never be on the same page as the OAA and NAO (and I agree, the NAOO is a front for anti-opticianry organizations). That is assuming that the OAA and NAO are on the same page! I am a member of the OAA and the NAO. Having said that, I'd like someone to point out five things each organization did with my membership money to help further Opticianry (five specific things).

Personally, I think the key to our development is going to have to come through a stronger ABO/NCLE in conjunction with a national organization. Why do Optoms resist Opticianry legislation? Easy, no profession likes to be constrained by regulations outside of themselves. The primary employers of Opticians are Optometrists, naturally they are going to resist anything that regulates who they can hire.

Pete

[hcjilson]

The National Commitee of State Opticianry Regulatory Boards will be meeting at the OAA Convention in June.The third item on the adgenda of this meeting is entitled A National Practical Exam listing optiboarder Roy Ferguson as presenting the subject.The forth item is National Practical Reciprocity, presented by Shelby Powers.The key to doing anything on a national basis lies within the states, not the various trade associations.If ALL the states would agree on this point,then a lot of progress will have be made.Sad to say I haven't been to this committee meeting in over 20 years for various reasons however I willbe attending this one in June. Unfortunately what has to happen is the states will have to give up their perogatives in terms of testing. That means that states like NY, FL and others will have to be less restrictive, and that won't happen easily.Everyone will be worried that the test will become watered down as was the case with the ABO test.(I have been told that...I have no personal knowledge that the test was watered down from what it was originally-no offense intended)

Reciprocity is a bad word.By definition, it only can happen if someone moves first.Arizona has led the rest of the states in that regard, but most have not followed.A better word to use is (5/17 Edit) Endorsement. Your home state license will get you one in the state in which you practice. You are responsible to know and follow the rules and regs of the Discipliary actions, if required, are pursued by the issuing state in much the same fashion as drivers licenses are handled.This is being pursued by the MA nursing board at the present time.

Thats what we should be working on.If a standard practical exam can be adopted by the regulatory boards, and a standard written test adopted,let the national association's concentrate their efforts into bringing non licenced states into the fold.What you have in effect will be national standards governing state licensing.
Well food for thought anyway, and I'll let you know what develops post Anaheim.
Please pardon syntax and spelling errors :)
Best from the Cape

[rfish777]

It seems we need to gather together all the states to come to a
coherent recognition that all states need some sort of testing to regulate the opticians in each state. Or we can go after a national testing that would be ratified by every state to show if you took the test in North Dakota you can if you like practice in New York, because reciprocity would be across the board. You would no longer have to take a test in New York and then in
North Dakota or Florida. it would be a comprehensive across the
board national exam excepted by all 50 states.
Then we need some national recognition of the fact that opticians are part of the allied health field and need to be recognized as such. I believe this is what hihcjilson was getting at.
But I believe the biggest obstacle in this whole situation is going
to be trying to get funding to get pubic awareness. Without funding this whole idea is shot down the drain.
So I believe that the first course of business would be to secure
funding. Secondly: Getting ratification of a national exam that would be excepted by all 50 states. That should not be to hard. Most of the states already except the ABO. You just have to get the rest of them to ratify it for there states.
Once we get ratified then we can go forth an amend the ABO so it's not so watered down. Right now it is pretty easy.

[Jo]

But I believe the biggest obstacle in this whole situation is going to be trying to get funding to get pubic awareness. Without funding this whole idea is shot down the drain.

I agree with you 100% on this one. My question is who will be gathering the necessary funds? A national organization? Individual state organizations? (Each state would have to have some form of representation then) If it were to be a national organization, would it be one of the existing associations?

I believe we need a strong national organization with state chapters. We have no efficient means of doing anything with the current system. Some states have no associations others do. Money is being spread thin by the lack of standardization. National associations have the ability to pool funding and as we have all discussed in numerous threads, money talks. I know one obstacle in the way of having a strong national presence is our lack of agreeing on which presence we most strongly support. Why are we getting stuck so early in the game? Either we need to communicate more with these national associations or they need to listen better. Perhaps we need to form an entirely new organization from scratch that represents the interests of our majority.

[rfish777]

Jo said:
Why are we getting stuck so early in the game? Either we need to communicate more with these national associations or they need to listen better. Perhaps we need to form an entirely new organization from scratch that represents the interests of our majority.
Alan said: The legislative function is in place. The educational functions are in place. They need to be reengineered to have more specific impact, becase they are trying to accomplish too much with the available talents. Going public is a marketing function of which few of us knows how to do. But, there is an individual who has proved marketing ability and his name is Joe Bruneni. What he did for polycarbs he can do for opticianry, cause he is one. But, we need to stop thinking for the experts and be the designers of the mission, the objectives, and the goals before we implement anything.
Again were at that precepise waiting for the sword of damocles to fall while chicken little is still yelling the sky is falling, so we get stuck on the sematics and forget about the whole. The problem is what Alan said on another thread "WHERE ARE ALL THE OPTICIANS?" Where are all the opticians? I see a few of us here but where are the rest? More than likely they are sitting on there
preverable behinds waiting for some one else to do there bidding.
Jo said we are getting stuck. Maybe we do need a new organization. One where all opticians would vote from each region for a representative to represent that region. That way we would not be beating around the bush waiting for everybody to get a kick in the rear-end to get going. If we don't start we can't
begin and if you can't begin you might as well flush all this down the toilet. On these threads we are all alike. We all have two opinions and opinions are like armpits everybody has two. Come on lets get together on this thing.
As Alan pointed out there is someone who can help us get this thing off the ground. Once that is accomplished we can go after the corporations to provide funding.