BC CE Oct 16, 2005

**hcjilson** · 10-21-2005, 07:44 PM

To Eye See, Hear, Hear!

hj

**Cindy K** · 10-21-2005, 11:58 PM

Firstly, I would like to state that I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone's opinion is deserving of being heard. That, I would imagine, would have been the purpose of the question/comment period during the COBC AGM. The microphones provided would have distributed your comments and complaints directly to those individuals on the Board of our College, and I'm certain your opinions would have been noted. As well, it may have given any other registrants who held similar opinions to yours the impetus to comment as well. As they say, a thousand voices are louder than one.

I read with utter disbelief the content of your letter. and cannot fathom what purpose this action could possibly serve should you CC it to the newspapers and to the Ministry of Health. Well, actually, my last statement isn't entirely correct. Unfortunately, I do see what YOUR purpose is.The proper course of action, I feel, would be for you to have written your letter to the COBC. Not on the Optiboard, not to the newspapers, and CERTAINLY NOT TO THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH. If you feel as strongly as it appears that you do about the AGM and CE program of that day, please allow our College to respond.

However, I can only surmise your real intent in voicing the opinions which you have, in the manners in which you propose to. The transparency is really quite obvious, and it seems that you wish to do nothing else than inflame an already volatile situation in our province.

**mlm** · 10-22-2005, 01:03 AM

I have been following this thread with interest and some dismay. I know egbert personally, and I'm the one who told him that Optiboard is an amazing forum for all ECPs.

Since he won't say it himself, I will. He has been an optician for more than 20 years. He has done everything from working in a surfacing lab to working in a retail setting. I have been very privileged to have a friend like egbert, who has taught me much of what I know about opticianry.

I can't comment on the COBC AGM. I wasn't there. However, I know for a fact that egbert did not post his draft letter simply to get attention. He wanted to get feedback, primarily from other opticians who attended the AGM, before he finalised his letter. I commend him for taking the time to think things through, instead of firing off a letter in the heat of the moment. If anything, this thread proves that nothing should be done in haste.

And I'm glad that he has a much thicker skin than I do. For if this was the kind of reception I had received when I first joined Optiboard, I know I wouldn't have felt welcome to return.

**hcjilson** · 10-22-2005, 05:38 AM

When you impugn the reputation of someone, you had best be prepared to take the heat and defend your opinion.This thread was an open invitation to a lively debate and had little to do with a gentle welcoming reception for egbert.We are happy to have him share Optiboard with us, and his opinions as well, however as someone pointed out earlier, his choice of verbiage is mostly the reason for this controversy.
He got the opinion sought, and perhaps more politely and understated than the original letter.

**Eye See** · 10-22-2005, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by mlm

I have been following this thread with interest and some dismay. I know egbert personally, and I'm the one who told him that Optiboard is an amazing forum for all ECPs.

Since he won't say it himself, I will. He has been an optician for more than 20 years. He has done everything from working in a surfacing lab to working in a retail setting. I have been very privileged to have a friend like egbert, who has taught me much of what I know about opticianry.

I can't comment on the COBC AGM. I wasn't there. However, I know for a fact that egbert did not post his draft letter simply to get attention. He wanted to get feedback, primarily from other opticians who attended the AGM, before he finalised his letter. I commend him for taking the time to think things through, instead of firing off a letter in the heat of the moment. If anything, this thread proves that nothing should be done in haste.

And I'm glad that he has a much thicker skin than I do. For if this was the kind of reception I had received when I first joined Optiboard, I know I wouldn't have felt welcome to return.

What sort of feedback was Egbert looking to get from the newspapers or the ministry of health? I have no problem with anyone using this forum to post their opinions etc., however, why else would a person go to the media unless they wanted attention?

**QDO1** · 10-22-2005, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by mlm

I have been following this thread with interest and some dismay. I know egbert personally, and I'm the one who told him that Optiboard is an amazing forum for all ECPs.

Since he won't say it himself, I will. He has been an optician for more than 20 years. He has done everything from working in a surfacing lab to working in a retail setting. I have been very privileged to have a friend like egbert, who has taught me much of what I know about opticianry.

I can't comment on the COBC AGM. I wasn't there. However, I know for a fact that egbert did not post his draft letter simply to get attention. He wanted to get feedback, primarily from other opticians who attended the AGM, before he finalised his letter. I commend him for taking the time to think things through, instead of firing off a letter in the heat of the moment. If anything, this thread proves that nothing should be done in haste.

And I'm glad that he has a much thicker skin than I do. For if this was the kind of reception I had received when I first joined Optiboard, I know I wouldn't have felt welcome to return.

He might do well to know that the board isnt just read by those in the know in Canada, Im in Sunny England, and im sure there are readers much further away

**Graduate** · 10-22-2005, 01:57 PM

I think it is now time to stop immolating innocent member, it is wise to mentor him into diplomacy of forum posting.

egbert you are brave and your voice has been powerful. I am positive your college will present the best quality seminars in future. All the best.

**Darryl Meister** · 10-22-2005, 04:21 PM

Egbert, just addressing the content of your letter, I would make the following comments (which, if you have already submitted your letter, might very well be irrelevant at this point):

I found the subjects chosen as topics by Dr. Jalie to be inappropriate for our seminar.

If you felt that the topics wouldn't be worthwhile, why not just sit those particular presentations out?

As every member in attendance is licensed as a professional optician, each of us has already studied both the lens materials available to us and the qualities of progressive lenses.

It has been my experience that opticians generally have very little exposure to either the fundamentals of progressive lenses or objective assessments of progressive performance. And I find it difficult to imagine that Mo Jalie, author of no less than three books on the subject, didn't share with the audience something they hadn't already known before.

To mention just two of them, on the topic of the test for inflammability of spectacle lenses, Dr. Jalie went on at length describing how lenses that could not withstand temperatures of 650 degrees were not suitable for eyeglass lenses, and were not available for sale.

This sounds like more of an issue with international standards, not with Mo Jalie. As Ian pointed out, he might have been explaining the link between the two, as well as the rationale behind certain requirements.

He also discussed how a smaller size in a lens will reduce the thickness of the lens. This is optics at its most basic level, and something that no licensed optician does not perceive as being self-evident.

I wouldn't think that a discussion of lens materials could truly be complete without making this point, however obvious. After all, the point of using high-index lens materials is to reduce thickness and convincing the patient to upgrade to a high-index material may be all for naught if you don't also pay attention to the size of the lens blank required for the new frame.

Also, several of the opticians seated at my table found the language employed by Dr. Jalie nearly incomprehensible. We are opticians, not scientists; phrases such as "convex oblate ellipsoidal surface" delivered without further explanation

You seem to have gone from arguing that his presentations were too basic to arguing that they were too complex...?

Further, you have argued that licensed opticians have been thoroughly trained on progressive lens designs... Wouldn't it stand to reason then that they have also had some exposure to single vision lens design? Conicoid surfaces are commonly used for aspheric lens design. Perhaps if he had had more time to work with, he would have gone into greater detail.

especially in a society that encompasses so many for whom English is not the primary tongue

This is a legitimate concern, but I think the issue here is that the organization asked an English-speaking instructor to present, not a French-speaking instructor.

In any event, I am very envious of you. I would have loved to have attended one of his seminars.

**egbert** · 10-22-2005, 08:03 PM

Thank you all for your replies. I would especially like to thank Jason Carruthers, RKM, and Darryl Meister for supplying the kind of feedback I was asking for. And mlm for the kind words.

To keep all of you up to date, I am in the process of re-working the letter to the College of Opticians, copies of which will not be forwarded to anybody but the college and this forum. I regret that the original was posted here without having given it a bit more time to reconsider the wording, but being new to computers in general and the Optiboard in particular, had no idea of the size of the audience I would be reaching. A poor excuse, but hindsight is 20/20.

It was not my intention to cause embarrassment to any members of the profession, Dr. Jalie least of all. My apologies to anyone I have offended, especially Dr. Jalie and the members of the board and volunteers at the College of Opticians who worked on the seminars at the AGM.

Thank you all again for your responses. I have just one last question for you - is there an Optiboard equivalent for the Witness Protection Program?

Sincerely,

Egbert

**wmcdonald** · 10-22-2005, 09:52 PM

I appreciate your response. Often intent can be skewed when posted on a board like this, as I can tell you from experience. I hope you will continue to post and make your opinions known. That is how we improve and your response here indicates the kind of person who we need to remain an active poster.

**egbert** · 10-28-2005, 12:15 AM

Hi again-

The final version of the letter is finished and has been posted to the COBC. The complete letter has also been posted here at the beginning of the thread.

Thank you all for your interest and your responses.

Egbert

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-28-2005, 07:28 AM

''

**Jason Carruthers** · 10-28-2005, 08:22 AM

BC College of Opticians
Jane Doe

Dear Ms. Doe:

I attended the Annual General Meeting of the College of Opticians of BC at the Best Western Hotel in Richmond on October 16, 2005. I'd like to commend you on your choice of speakers. Dr. Mo Jalie is an eminently respected member of the optical community worldwide and we were fortunate to have him as a speaker.

Progressive lenses have played a large part in our CE at least twice in recent years. I feel Dr. Jalie’s time and expertise could have been put to much better use at our seminars had he spoken more on topics such as new lens products, safety standards, problem-solving, or even obscure/under-used products that he might share with us.

The terminology Dr. Jalie used was frustrating for me. I had never heard of "enhanced robustness" before and I had to hear it again before I realized what was meant by it. I mean no disrespect to Dr. Jalie, but feel that simpler language would have been far more effective in order for him to get his ideas across.

And lastly, on the subject of sight-testing ( and I bring this up only because it was mentioned as part of the day’s proceedings ), do not let it be said that ALL opticians look forward to their ability to conduct such tests. I disagree very strongly with the plan to go forward with sight-testing by opticians. The province’s decisions to abandon coverage of eye exams and to allow sight-testing by opticians do not take the best interests of the public into consideration. No amount of training will allow me to offer the public the level of care they receive in an examination by an optometrist or an ophthalmologist. Yet many customers will choose to forego eye examinations when given the option of a free vision screening at their local optical shop, and I believe we are doing them a disservice by offering this option.

I thank you for your time in reading this letter, and hope that you will take its contents into consideration when planning further continuing education seminars.

Sincerely,

Egbert Optician

**wmcdonald** · 10-28-2005, 08:31 AM

This is a well-written and developed letter and takes into consideration many of the things we have discussed vigorously on this thread. While I disagee with your sight-testing hypothesis, I believe strongly in your right to voice your opinion. Sending this to the College will aloow for your views to be heard.

**Jason Carruthers** · 10-28-2005, 09:46 AM

To avoid any confusion, the letter above was re-written by me. Let me explain why. I though it best to start off on a positive note before getting to the complaining. It helps to avoid you looking like a negative person. I also thought your last version was still a little too long. Also, I wouldn't try to speak for others. If you felt the terminology was difficult then say so. There were some points I thought were irrelevant that I took out, such as the part about you hoping that opticians would be properly trained before getting licensed. It's too obvious. Next, it is important to address the letter to an individual and to also sign it as an individual. Names are very important. And lastly, there is no need to apologize for the first draft of your letter that you never sent. It's just more words that someone has to read. Words (and peoples time) are valuable and should be used sparingly.

**Eye See** · 10-28-2005, 12:15 PM

Nicely written. However, I feel there is something missing from your letter. That is what you would have liked to see there instead.

I do not site test in my practice and I have no intention of doing so in the near future. However, it is a very necessary option that should be allowed to the public. People with healthy eyes should have access to affordable changes in their prescription to ensure they have the best vision possible. One thing I think you fail to recognize is the amazing advancements in technology. New vision screening devices are very useful in detecting a variety of health issues. There are cameras that can take a picture of the eye that shows everything from blood vessels to the macula with exceptional clarity. Every person should have access to a regular health check but the reality is many people (especially children) are slipping through the cracks. We opticians should strive to ensure everyone has access to this new technology by making it more accesable and affordable.