Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: New QA program for college of opticians

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Burlington
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    12

    New QA program for college of opticians

    Anyone read the notice on the college of opticians website.
    CE requirements have gone up to 16/year, from the 30 every three years. Wonder why the college board increase the amount of credits. More money for them?

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,615
    Just more College B.S. They don't have anything better to do than overlaod opticians with more nonsense. The College could try to stop internet unauthorized dispensing or they could try dealing with discipline cases they already have or they could try policing the exisitng unauthorized dispensers or they could put an inspector back on the road but all of those would be intelligent things to do . Changing a quality assurance program that has nothing wrong with it is what they decided to do instead of protecting the public .

    Why will they spend money to change a good quality assurance program but they will not do public awareness advertising ? Why will they spend to change Quality Assurance and fly staff to Switzerland Conferences but they won't pay for an inspector ? Who paid for the Swiss adventure ? Why will they spend money on a useless delegation policy nobody wants but they have discipline cases that are many years old ? Why do they spend money to send staff to CLEAR and yet all of our bylaws and regs were violated and just resulted in a suspended sentence and house arrest for the most publicized offender ? What a joke ! What a mockery of justice and the College and MOH ! Clearly we don't need CLEAR . Why has the College not put anything on it s web site about this suspended sentence and a house arrest that allows time out for shopping , work and church ?

    They are changing Quality assurance because it makes them feel like they are doing something when in fact they are avoiding what they should be doing .



    It is the same rationale they used regarding delegation . Feed back told them that members do not want delegation yet they keep trying to ignore the members feedback and they continue to push new unpopular , uneccessary things at the expense of the mandate. Delegation would not help opticians and it most certainly would not protect the public so why is the College pushing it ? What is the College motivation ? Why do they want to water down public protection and let unlicensed and unregulated people dispense under the auspices of delegation ?

    Feed back also told them that members want unauthorized dispensing stopped and the members want transparency and accountability from the College ... did the College do that ? NO, they responded by cutting off members rights to even ask questions and is there any accountability ? Could a member see the books or ask a question about the financial expense on the statements and recieve an answer or would they be told no ?

    The members need to impose a Quality Assurance program upon the College , not the other way around .
    Last edited by idispense; 11-19-2011 at 11:05 AM.

  3. #3
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by idispense View Post
    Just more College B.S. They don't have anything better to do than overlaod opticians with more nonsense. The College could try to stop internet unauthorized dispensing or they could try dealing with discipline cases they already have or they could try policing the exisitng unauthorized dispensers or they could put an inspector back on the road but all of those would be intelligent things to do . Changing a quality assurance program that has nothing wrong with it is what they decided to do instead of protecting the public .

    Why will they spend money to change a good quality assurance program but they will not do public awareness advertising ? Why will they spend to change Quality Assurance and fly staff to Switzerland Conferences but they won't pay for an inspector ? Who paid for the Swiss adventure ? Why will they spend money on a useless delegation policy nobody wants but they have discipline cases that are many years old ? Why do they spend money to send staff to CLEAR and yet all of our bylaws and regs were violated and just resulted in a suspended sentence and house arrest for the most publicized offender ? What a joke ! What a mockery of justice and the College and MOH ! Clearly we don't need CLEAR . Why has the College not put anything on it s web site about this suspended sentence and a house arrest that allows time out for shopping , work and church ?

    They are changing Quality assurance because it makes them feel like they are doing something when in fact they are avoiding what they should be doing .



    It is the same rationale they used regarding delegation . Feed back told them that members do not want delegation yet they keep trying to ignore the members feedback and they continue to push new unpopular , uneccessary things at the expense of the mandate. Delegation would not help opticians and it most certainly would not protect the public so why is the College pushing it ? What is the College motivation ? Why do they want to water down public protection and let unlicensed and unregulated people dispense under the auspices of delegation ?

    Feed back also told them that members want unauthorized dispensing stopped and the members want transparency and accountability from the College ... did the College do that ? NO, they responded by cutting off members rights to even ask questions and is there any accountability ? Could a member see the books or ask a question about the financial expense on the statements and recieve an answer or would they be told no ?

    The members need to impose a Quality Assurance program upon the College , not the other way around .
    idispense,

    where on the college website does it state that they sent people to Switzerland? I cannot find anything on their website that mentions that. Also I cannot find any mention of the feedback about delegation. Could you post the link to these points you've raised about the college? I would love to read more on their misspending of funds.

    Thank you

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,615
    http://www.coptont.org/docs/stakehol...s/thematic.pdf


    The College recieved feedback from 110 members and of those 102 were negative on delegation . Conclusion as reported by the College ...the members do not want it ! So why is the Colllege still pushing it and refusing to listen to the membership ? What motivates them to not listen to the members ? Last I checked this is supposed to be a self governing body and profession . It does not seem to work that way ? Why is that ?
    Last edited by idispense; 11-20-2011 at 02:52 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Important: Seattle Central Community College Opticianry Program
    By wmcdonald in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 06:23 PM
  2. Security Guard at Opticians College Meetings?
    By ManitobaOD in forum Canadian Discussion Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-21-2010, 01:21 AM
  3. College of Opticians of Ontario & Optometrists
    By Refractingoptician.com in forum Canadian Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 08:14 AM
  4. Corruption in the College of Opticians of Ontario
    By Leslie in forum Canadian Discussion Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-25-2006, 11:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •