There is a misperception among some technologists that the development and maintenance of the BRPT exams is handled by Association Management Group (AMG), the management firm retained to provide operational management services to BRPT. That is not correct: the BRPT exam development process is handled by volunteer subject matter experts (our SMEs), each of them experienced, working sleep technologists. These SMEs work in close cooperation with our testing partner, Pearson VUE, and under the direction of the Exam Development Committee (EDC) chair to manage the ongoing activities related to the BRPT exams. Pearson VUE, a recognized global leader in the field of standardized testing, assures the psychometric validity and the reliability of our exams and delivers our exams to technologists through testing centers all over the world. Our EDC chair, with years of experience both as a sleep technologist and as a facility manager, paired with extensive experience in the development of the BRPT exams, assures that our exams are developed and delivered according to best practices in professional credentialing. The staff assigned to BRPT through AMG -- a four-person team including an executive director, credentialing manager, credentialing coordinator, and program coordinator -- are focused on the day-to-day operations of BRPT: application review and processing, management of the RPSGT recertification program, customer service, communications, and program marketing. If BRPT did not use a company such as AMG, more expense would be incurred for office space, equipment, staff, IT support, etc.
The management decisions made by the BRPT Board have been made carefully and are reviewed throughout the year. The savings realized by BRPT through a relationship with a management firm are material compared to operation of BRPT as a stand-alone organization. The American Society of Association Executives, in an annual review of non-profit organizational operations, estimates those savings at 25-30%. Financial stewardship is a key responsibility of the BRPT Board. The Board has, for many years, maintained a level of reserve funding at or above the level recommended for stable operation of a non-profit organization of BRPT's size and scope. Revenues generated by the BRPT credentialing program are directed toward an expansion of the programs and services in place to serve our stakeholders: an on demand testing model, the highest quality exam development and delivery model, the development of an online tool for the management of the RPSGT recertification process, and an effective marketing and communications program on behalf of our credentials. All twelve members of the BRPT Board of Directors are volunteers and are not paid for the work they contribute. New directors are selected from interested volunteers as position terms expire. Directors’ terms are typically four years while officer positions are two.
The relationship of BRPT -- a credentialing body -- to our credential holders is not identical to the relationship of a membership body to its members. We are charged with developing and delivering credentialing exams, and maintaining those exams at a level which will assure that the credentials we offer will retain their value and will support the standing of our field within the broader allied health community. That is a responsibility which the BRPT leadership takes very much to heart.
Janice East, RPSGT, R. EEG T.
BRPT President
And how can the Board expect ANYONE to view the various exams that have been given over the years as the same? Just because the board has now unethically chosen to use the rationale of NCCA certification as a convenient front to cover that which they GUARANTEED would not happen; namely make the LIFETIME certificate holders recertify, I am still aghast that the board took this unethical step. Then we are to turn to the board to be the supposed judge the ethical behavior of certificants. Hmmm intereting. We have to ask why other organizations have left their lifetime certificates in place and moved forward with new requirements to satisfy NCCA certification? They have NOT unilaterally changed a contract between certificate holders and the Board that was GURANTEED. I am still flabbergasted by this truly shake to the foundation change that the board has undertaken. If AMG is NOT in control of your board, then please do not have Mr. Ganoe respond to questions posed to the board.
ReplyDeleteI am still waiting on By-laws that have been promised from Mr. Ganoe, and a board Member. But since we are only the money train and not "members," we really have no right to view the by-laws as Mr. Ganoe once informed me on the phone. So, we are left with only listening to the board make placating oratories on the utility of the RPSGT credential, and the relativity of the Board to Sleep Techs' lives. And we should leave all other manner of objectively judging the board's actual actions at the door, because the board says they have our best interest at heart.
Hmmm, now who said it: Fool me once, shame on you; fool my twice, shame on me.
The thing that would truly set matters straight, which seem to have gone astray back when AMG joined the fold, is to remove AMG as your management company, hold open bidding transparent to the membership, oh sorry, "certificate holders," and start anew with a management company that is not as heavy on the money generating side and strong willed to seemingly break the backs of the certificants who wish to see a better board. Why can ASET and their credentialing arm run this way and not the BRPT? Maybe ASET should create a sleep credential?
Actually, this is what, the board's third management company, correct? The first company, Applied Measurement Professionals, was found to be a wholly owned susidiary of the National Board of Respiratory Care. A shock for many, but not taking into account who invited them in. And that was back when the AARC and NBRC had more direct desire to take over the sleep field. Now their intentions seem to be hidden in circumventing legislative intent, that the BRPT really plays little role in helping to move along, but I digress.
To the board's credit they changed companies. What was the second company, or is AMG the second company? It does not really matter as here we are again with another seemingly inept company running things. So, maybe the problem is not with the management company after all, but the problem may be with the board?
-Claude Albertario, RPSGT, RST
Under the stewardship of AMG it has been anything but stsble. And since we dont hsve access to much financial info, and no by laws, cost effective is debateable. For one thing, i do not believe the board has mandated a salary comparison for the director, so how do you know it is cost effective. Share with your registrants the fees paid to AMG, the salaries, the " other expenses" etc.. Only then can we begin to decide if sone folks have misconceptions. I dont believe i have ever heard anyone claim thaT AMG was involved with the test makeup. That appears to be a,"misconception" on your part.
ReplyDelete