AHDI Meeting: House of Delegates, Day One
First, let me say, Austin is HOT. Goodness, the heat index is high here and I’m pretty sure the temperature went over 100 today! Still I was lucky today, no flight delays and everything smooth. That is always a toss up if I am changing planes in Dallas, but today it seemed to go quick and easy.
The House of Delegates convened tonight from 7 to 9. The first order of business is always adoption of the agenda. It was during this time that it was explained that the item of business on the agenda titled “Blueprint for Great Governance” would actually be the resolutions committee report. Speaker Bonnie Monico stated she wanted to do the resolutions in the order of #1, #3 and then #2. The rationale for this was that the delegates from the Southeast and from Nebraska had not yet arrived. Since Resolution #2 originated with the folks from the Southeast Region, it was felt that proceeding with #2 wouldn’t be fair without that delegate present to speak to it. The maker of any resolution always has the floor first on any issue. This particular delegate did arrive about 7:15, however, the agenda was already approved by then. After the meeting, I did ask if there was a possibility that it would change back to the original order now that the delegate would be present tomorrow for the discussion, however, I don’t see that happening. I believe there is a desire to reply to some of the concerns about the plan and doing resolution #3 first gives that opportunity. Of course, if resolution #3 passes, there is no need to even discuss #2.
Do We Have a Trust Issue?
In the Speaker’s address, she attempted to put on the table what seems to be an unspoken issue of trust in leadership. She asked the question “Do you believe the HOD exists to keep the board in check?” This actually started out to look like it might be a good discussion. Trust of leadership is a huge issue in any organization. One point I thought was good was from a Florida delegate who said she didn’t feel distrust, however, she felt that significant things like bylaws changes shouldn’t be done by a small group like a board of directors, who may not have the time to get direct member input like delegates would. Another delegate brought up hearing that once someone goes to serve on a national level, they abandon their grassroots groups, chapters or states. This frankly sort of derailed the entire discussion about trust. It became more of a discussion about how directors ARE involved in their local components, as well as a discussion about the limited time all volunteers have. One board member did suggest that part of the issue is that once you get on the national level, you “see things differently.” I hope the meaning there was that you simply have information that the general membership doesn’t have and maybe doesn’t even want to deal with. Being the word people we are, one challenge would be that part of the issue IS maintaining the vision of the membership. The option never actually came to the gallery to speak on this issue of trust and after an hour of discussion, a delegate requested that they move on. I think that was actually a good thing.
I did have an opportunity to speak with the Speaker later in the evening. One thing I have shared with her is that I do think the issue of trust needs to be put on the table. I also think that sometimes what perpetuates that is there are times when members ask questions, ask for clarification, or even disagree with leadership and they are told “What’s wrong with you? Don’t you trust your leaders? After all, you elected us.” While I’d like to say this issue of trust is a new one, it really isn’t. It’s been the big unspoken question for most of the time I have been involved in AHDI. What it really comes down to is talking about the perceived or real disconnect between leadership and the general membership. Does it exist? And if there’s a disconnect, and if it is related to a different fund of knowledge, then how do we get that information to everyone? Only by being on the same page can we really move forward.
Membership Numbers
One thing that came up tonight is that the association now has 15,725 members. I did ask on Facebook earlier how many were Associate Members through subscription to the Knowledge Base, and that number was again reported tonight as 10,273. If you subscribe to the Benchmark Knowledge Base product, it comes with associate membership in the association, both for those who have this through an employer and the students who get it as a part of their school program. For some of those with this membership, it is simply because their employer purchased the KB for their use. While it does represent a huge number of potential members to be recruited to professional membership, it also begs the question of how membership in the individual professional category could be stable as reported in recent webinars. At some point not too long ago, I thought we had around 6,000 to 7,000 in the individual professional category. Since, as I understand it, the total number includes all membership categories, that would appear that our categories of members who pay their dues simply for membership is only about 33% of the entire membership. I did also hear reported tonight that students make up 30% of the association’s membership, some in associate student and some in regular student membership. Tomorrow may shed more light on this. There has been some discussion about how to recruit those KB members to full membership and it would appear to offer an opportunity for that. As membership is one of the four initiatives, this would certainly be a good group to start with in recruiting efforts. It would also seem that this needs serious consideration if a dues increase is proposed. Would that mean the KB subscription also increases? Or would the increase only fall to those “regular” members? Lots to think about there!
Resolution #1
Resolution #1 did come before the House tonight. There was a lot of discussion about the value of credentialing, about the impact of credentialing on other professions, etc. A few clarifications were made to the resolution. It is not meant to cover “anyone” who touches health information, only those who have the ability to change or create it, and really boils down to the roles that an MT would have. It also is not a resolution that creates legislation. While that could be an outcome down the road, it’s about impacting the way those outside of our profession view credentialing. It was also pointed out that, with less than 3,000 CMTs total, it’s pretty hard to get employers to require it because there simply aren’t enough CMTs to get the job done.
One thing that came up was the idea that emergent resolutions, no matter what they are, really do not give delegates or anyone the opportunity to really discuss the issues with their membership and receive their feedback. This brought a response from AHDI CEO, Peter Preziosi, who told delegates that THEY are the leaders and if they don’t see the value that MTs bring to the table without having to ask their membership, then we have bigger problems. While I could see his point there, his reference to people “creating emergent resolutions in secret that want to undermine (not sure that was the right word) what others are doing” was, in my opinion, really not called for. It is true that the authors of Resolution #2 did it confidentially until they were sure they had the support to submit it. In doing that, it became an issue of the speaker, as leader of the HOD, feeling blindsided, not something anyone wants to feel in leadership. I’ve been in that role, both as the Speaker of the HOD and as AHDI president, in the past and it’s never a good feeling if you are “left out of the loop” for something significant being presented. I also know that the maker of the resolution wrote an explanation, apologizing for any perceived ill will on the part of those who signed it. It was simply a group attempting to see if there were others who felt the same. We will never all agree, and if we cannot do so with mutual respect, we will always struggle internally.
In the end, resolution #1 was called for a vote and passed unanimously, with 31 delegates voting. I hope there will be some kind of routine reports back to the membership about what is being done on this so we can all see the results of this activity.
At this point, the House was recessed, to be reconvened tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. Tomorrow will be interesting discussion related to the BGG and how we move forward.
The Meetings After the Meeting
Of course, in any meeting, some of the real conversation comes in the “meeting after the meeting.” I see people who are supporting the idea of moving forward with the BGG now. I also see many who are saying let’s see more of a plan first. In reality, with the changes made when the resolution was finally written, all it does now is establish a leadership board and dissolve the House of Delegates. The idea of districts is one that it says we will move forward with, however, it also clearly says the state/regionals and local components will continue to exist, and continue to maintain their separate treasuries. My question on this one is then how do we fund districts? The answer I did get when I asked this was that the district structure will be figured out with the “transition year,” all we’re doing now is establishing the leadership board.
How will tomorrow go? I think it’s anybody’s guess. Is this House ready to dissolve itself? And does the membership want input into that? Is the membership ready to turn over the decision making related to member issues to a body of 13 instead of 35? With the resolution only published three days ago and indeed changing from what had been discussed in the webinars, I’m not sure. In the end, I’m frankly not sure that the plan is a bad one. I do still believe, however, that we haven’t given delegates the time to really get input from the membership. In a membership organization, that could be a dangerous move if we truly want engaged members. I do hear several people saying that. No matter which way it goes, until we really address issues of trust and communication, I am afraid we will continue to spin the same wheels again and again. I hope I’m wrong about that, I really do. At some point for survival of the organization, there needs to be a unified purpose that people can get behind.
Be sure to watch for updates from me on Twitter throughout the day and a recap post here in the evenings. I do see your comments during the day and will look forward to them. So, back to you! Do we have a trust issue? What speaks to you in the happenings of the evening so far?
Related posts:
- AHDI Releases Resolutions for House of Delegates
- AHDI Meeting Wrap Up
- Countdown to AHDI Meeting
- AHDI Meeting Update
- AHDI Meeting is This Week
Tagged with: Certified Medical Transcriptionist • CMT • Credentialing • industry updates • medical transcription
Filed under: Industry Updates
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
It is unfortunate that issues of trust and transparency continue to be discussed in an open forum when those to whom the speakers are so obviously referring are not in attendance to speak for themselves. It is unfortunate, too, that any efforts to speak for members who are still confused, torn, or outright opposed to the way current issues before the House have been handled are met with accusations of dishonesty, that any dissenting opinion is met with an association-sponsored blitz of ad hominem attacks like none we have ever seen in this association – from the CEO, to selected (not all) board members, and even the Speaker of the House. It is unfortunate, indeed, that those who cry “transparency” are sometimes the ones who lack the understanding of what it means or are so out of touch that from one corner of their mouths they ask what members are saying, yet with the other they spin a barrage of verbiage that does nothing but effectively snuff out the voice of the grassroots.
Transparency apparently is defined by some as telling us a resolution will put in motion a general direction of change; truth, in the eyes of members who are watching and following these proceedings, is that the final resolution (which we so desperately wanted to see weeks ago so we could discuss it with our membership) contains very specific and pervasive change that will affect every member in our association, as well as an agenda that it be pushed through, including the necessary bylaws changes to make it reality, before the end of this calendar year.
The makers of Resolution #2, which I understand is now #3 because our Speaker made the decision to change the order in which the Resolutions Committee delivered them to the House and will not change it back, were NOT attempting to counter the many good, strong ideas of reform held within the BGG. We were not attempting through our sponsored resolution to shut it down for good (although there are many who have voiced they wish that could be done). Contained in our resolution and its rationale is the statement that we believe reform of our governance could actually work for the good of all if given more time to live in the minds of membership. If dues-paying members upon whose hard-working backs the livelihood of this body depends, who already do not want to see their dues increased, are now told the real story of what happened in Austin, that their voices were not allowed to be heard, were decried at every turn from the podium, and summarily snuffed out by procedural tactics, how strongly do we really believe they will fight to see the new structure contained in the BGG succeed?
If we encourage our members to talk to us, to tell us what they think, to become engaged in the purposes of the association – yet when they open their mouths to speak effectively they find their integrity called into question – do we really think they will continue to speak?
The resolution sponsored by the SE Regional BOD was NOT an attempt to subvert, thwart, or undermine the efforts of those who have worked so hard on the BGG. This was explained by me last week on the component association leaders’ listserv, but apparently was not received in the spirit in which it was posted. It was simply a call to reason, an effort to slow things down so we can more thoughtfully and steadily get our members on board – so they will pull WITH us instead of running for the door. Nothing more, nothing less. We stand by our belief that delaying enactment of such sweeping reforms is still the wisest course of action, especially when so many of our members have told us this is what they think and have asked us to make sure it is voiced when the proper time presents itself for deliberation.
Since our resolution was introduced last Tuesday, we have continued to be inundated with blast after blast from BGG proponents, continuing to push the BGG through as “the answer,” but this time accompanied with language implying that those who oppose its immediate passage and implementation are either dull, misinformed, or up to no good. When we talk about transparency and trust, leaders at all levels must own their part in why this is a problem for us – not just the handful of members who sponsored a resolution that was, in part, inspired on one of our town- hall webinars by our Speaker of the House, who stated that “any member can bring a resolution to the House at any time,” and then plainly stated it was her decision how it would be handled from there. One has to wonder, if dissenting members had requested access to associational resources (webinars, travel time, and more) to build a movement to oppose the BGG, would such requests have been granted? Judging from the reaction of the power brokers to a very quickly put together resolution that merely attempts to slow things down, it is doubtful. Those in control want the BGG, no matter what anyone else thinks, feels, or deems of value. Why is one set of members’ voices and opinions (including those of elected component leaders) of greater value than another?
What you see before you, therefore, is the grassroots’ effort to be heard and have their opinion honestly considered in the order in which their resolution was received, and leadership’s response to that request.
That, my fellow members and colleagues, is the most unfortunate thing of all.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 6:44 am
I think it’s all challenging. I hope today that people will be calm, that all sides will be heard, and that we can move forward. Remember, everyone is passionate about this. I’m off to the leadership summit today where there is to be more information. Stay tuned!
[Reply]
Miriam’s post says it all.
Regarding membership numbers… They aren’t accurate, especially in light of the Knowledge Base. I, for one, am counted as a member TWICE… I joined AHDI as a student member and then purchased the Knowledge Base, which gave me an associate membership on top of the student membership!!
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 6:43 am
Sue, as I understand it, we are only counted in the “highest” category of membership. What that means is that you would be listed as a student, I am listed as an individual professional, and so forth. The system allows for not counting someone twice.
[Reply]
Well then I would say a better accounting of membership numbers needs too occur and right now before we start making large decisions based on those numbers that seem to say we do indeed have 15,000 active, contributing members … and how many of those are at the annual meeting,
This is the letter I sent to my HOD members and BOD partner explaining why I signed on to resoluton #2 … now #3, neat trick that, nothing like even more confusion added to am already confusing situation. It is nice letter, not in any disrespecftul, but specifically honest about why I think we need to take more time to think this one through in a lot more detail before we vote ourselves into a mess we may not be able to get out of. It pretty says anthing I would say today if I was stading right in front of any of you at this meeting.
Vallie, Sherry,
I realize you are both probably busy getting ready (if you have not left already) to head out to the annual meeting, but, since I am in the states you are delegates for, I wanted to send you both a short note to let you know that I have signed one of the resolutions for consideration by the HOD, resolution #2, to put the adoption of restructuring the organization on hold.
Please understand, I am not at all against restructuring the organization. It is no secret that I have thought the organization needed changing for a long time now. However, I think any large-scale endeavor such as this will be needs to have a solid foundation in common sense. We don’t even have a financial plan for this yet, and we are freely, publicly, admitting we have no idea what this will cost. I am having a little trouble finding the common sense in that and I know I am not the only member having that trouble. It makes me feel like that silly robot off Lost in Space waving my arms around and shouting “danger, danger.”
Did your parents ever tell you never sign anything before you read it all the way through? That is how I think of this one. I don’t think we have any business voting for a draft plan that has not even been finalized yet,especially when we have no idea how we are going to pay (and it is going to be expensive, no doubt about it).
But the most important reason I think we need to hold off on this is that restructuring will only work if you have total membership “buy in .” Near as I can tell, we have managed to do just about everything possible to damage that “member buy in” before we even got the plan on paper. We have a solid core of long-time members who could, given the chance, make this restructuring a viable thing … personally I think we better take the time to start making those members feel like they are more a part of this or it is doomed before it even begins. Dropping the plan on their heads a couple of days before the vote when they can’t even get their delegates to respond to emails or phone calls was not exactly a good way to start encouraging member buy-in.
If this plan is so vital to AHDI’s survival as an entity then it will still be viable a few months/a year from now when folks have had time to breath, when they have stopped feeling like the HOD/BOD is doing an end run around them to shove something down their throats whether they want it or not. If the concept can’t survive that few months/year of waiting and planning then we had no business attempting it in the first place.”
Nae
[Reply]
Kathy, thanks for your insightful take on the HOD. Just like “corporate culture,” an association’s culture starts at the top. There are obviously some disagreements, but it sounds like they are getting more personal than just passionate. Please know that there are lot of us who are practitioners who believe that saving the industry should be a far more important discussion than bylaws and formal organization. Spending so much time on this and fostering ill will is NOT what our profession needs now. We need a plan for preserving our craft, or the structure of the organization will become a moot point.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 4th, 2010 at 6:46 am
Crystal, you are so correct in the culture starting at the top. That said, I still have respect for those who are in leadership roles in AHDI. They are volunteers like all of us and are just as passionate about their thoughts and ideas as anyone else. I also agree that there are much more important topics to be talking about than structure. How that goes today will depend on the direction the delegates wish to take with their discussions.
[Reply]
Thank you so much for the update Kathy!! I appreciate your time in posting this for those of us unable to attend ACE this year.
In reading all this about the BGG, it brings me back to when the association decided to change its name (from AAMT to AHDI). Discussion was actually held on the forum (oddly enough, no such discussion there regarding the BGG, but then again no time to discuss it really). My opinion at that time was is it possible to know more about the implications of changing the name and have more time to discuss it. I’ve said it before, my opinion was basically treated as “What is wrong with you?? We know what’s best for the association!” And, by “we,” I mean those in national leadership. That ship has obviously sailed!
This time around, the situation seems eerily similar, yet on a much larger scale. I did let my delegate know that I didn’t necessarily not support the idea of BGG but just would like more time to explore the implications of it since it is such a massive change. I was pleased to see Resolution #2 (now #3) be published. However, with changing the order of those resolutions, I am concerned.
I also very much appreciate Miriam’s response and explanation. She very well put into words what I have been feeling for several years now.
Thank you again Kathy for sharing your time and insight with us.
[Reply]
Kathy,
I’m not sure what you mean by the “highest category of membership.” Does that mean that associate members are not counted??
[Reply]
I, too, appreciated your tweets/Facebook posts, Kathy, while things were happening. Thank you. It does seem that resolution #2 was misunderstood. I can see how Bonnie might feel it was sneaky; however, is the Credentialing Development Team getting the some remarks made about their emergent resolution? Nobody saw that one coming.
As for Peter’s remarks: “…Peter Preziosi, who told delegates that THEY are the leaders and if they don’t see the value that MTs bring to the table without having to ask their membership, then we have bigger problems.” Yes, we do have bigger problems! Haven’t they heard or listened to what the members are saying? How many times do we have to say it? Sometimes I think Peter gets a little tired of listening to a bunch of women discuss things to death. We’re pretty good at that. Peter made a comment in one of the BGG town hall webinars I attended. He told us that registration was extremely low for this convention, and if we don’t come to ACE and encourage our members to go, then there won’t be anymore conventions. Maybe he just gets really frustrated inside and spurts things out without thinking.
I really wanted to attend this HOD meeting but couldn’t swing it financially. It’s probably a good thing I’m not there. I would be totally frustrated and disappointed and concerned, which would raise my blood pressure.
As for the issues of trust and transparency, I feel this is a 2-way street but only one side is being admonished. Why is delegate discussion closed to component leaders and interested members? (referring to the delegate google group) We (AHDI) have had a problem with trust for years. All leadership positions encounter this problem, whether it be association, corporate, political, etc. I think this is just a fact of life.
[Reply]
I could write volumes about this, like many of you could. Kathy, I truly appreciate the time you’re taking to keep us informed as I see facebook posts from friends who are there and enjoying the local bars instead. Thank you so much!
My state does not have a chapter and I have attempted to contact a delegate for my region without success, so I’m going to voice my opinion a little bit here.
I feel like AHDI is for those of you with many years of experience. Then, and only then, do member’s opinions matter. Although newer MTs cannot speak from a foundation of years of experience, sometimes a fresh perspective is not a bad thing! I don’t participate on any MT forum because if I say I am happy with my job then I am just too dumb to know any better. If I say I am happy with my wages and love my employer, well no one wants to hear that or I am just too dumb to realize how bad I have it when the truth is that I have it better than most and I darn well know it! I, along with many other new MTs who are fearful of speaking up, feel like we don’t have a voice in the industry no matter where we try to have that voice. We’re new so we’re not important, and yet we’re the future of the entire industry! I’m in my 30s so I could be doing this for many years to come, and darn it I want to be just as important to AHDI as that MT who has been doing this for 25 years! I’m not in this profession just to stay at home with the kids, although I do have a house full of them. MT school isn’t my only accomplishment in life either. I am already well educated and also continuing my education in the HIM field even now. I have a lot to bring to the table.
If you read AHDI publications there is often a student section and the rest is written from the perspective of years of experience. Where more experienced readers might find it boring, there is so much that could be offered that would draw in newer MTs. One example is helping us learn how to use our expanders better, time management ideas (who among is not juggling 500 things right now??), and even conflict resolution for that “mean” QA on our first job.
Cost is another huge issue for MTs across the board, but especially the new ones still trying to claw their way into a salary above minimum wage. AHDI offers some wonderful webinars, but I simply cannot afford them. Is there anything that can be done to lower costs? I have a large, young family and just my AHDI membership was tough to pay for. I haven’t taken the CMT in the year since graduation due to the cost.
I have mixed feelings on disolving the HOD; however, no matter what the number of people in leadership, wouldn’t it be nice if that were a diverse group? If we were all represented in it? From the new MT to the one near retirement. Everyone in leadership in my region has been doing this for at least 15 years. That experience is great and I can learn from their wisdom I am sure, but I would like to see new people get a chance too. Opinions (VOTES!) from a wider perspective could really change things up.
I have no new MT friends who belong to AHDI. Not one! Start a facebook campaign (FREE!)to draw us in! We need you, but as the future of the industry you need us too. Just joining isn’t enough. Get involved! Inspire us to want to save all year to go to ACE! Because right now, I know I am not the only one who feels like AHDI participation is only for those with years of experience.
I see people sitting at their computers complaining about low wages, a bad job market that is going overseas more every day, and bad treatment at work. If more of us could stop just venting to each other and find a way to really be heard, and maybe I’m just a dumb newbie for thinking this, we might get somewhere.
Last thing, I promise, I wanted to say was about membership. When I was confused about whether I should join as a professional or a post-graduate I called AHDI and even though I was already working I was advised to join as a post-gradauate. So there is one member who is in the wrong category. My membership is post-graduate; however, I have been a working professional for nearly a year.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Sarah, I must say your post spoke to my heart. It IS important that we embrace those who are new to the profession. Do not let others impact your enthusiasm about the profession you have just entered, or how you feel about it or your job. One of the reasons I have always loved working with students and new professionals is that your enthusiasm reminds me of why I got into the profession to start with. The reports on membership yesterday showed that 30% of AHDI membership is students. What that says to me is that it’s important that this group is embraced, heard, and becomes an important part of things. You ARE the future of the profession. I really appreciate you sharing your voice here. Thank you so much.
[Reply]
Sarah – there are many AHDI components on Facebook. Come join us! I’d love to be your MT friend on Facebook!
[Reply]
Kathy, I really appreciate your updates about this subject, but I find it very disheartening that so much time is being spent on trying to put other people down instead of finding out what everyone really wants.
I am the current president of the TRSi Chapter of AHDI and until all of the e-mails started hitting the google group last week, no one in our Chapter had any idea of what was going on. The lack of communication to the groups needs to be addressed in a big way. As you know, Kathy, our Chapter is a virtual one and I really don’t see how this kind of chapter can be put into a region. We have worked very hard last year and this year to increase our membership and have finally started to see the results. Our Chapter already promotes providing educational programs for the members, encourages them to become credentialed, putting information out through the TRS website about joining our group, and trying out best to keep everyone informed about what is going on in the industry as a whole. My board and I decided ahead of time what we felt needed to be done to grow our membership and then we went on from there. Finding speakers, attracting members, sharing information about industry trends, and providing educational programs during the year. We had a couple of meetings where we shared tips with the members about using text expanders and how best to build them and use them. We did one meeting just on sites on the internet to locate information in all sorts of categories like drugs, orthopedics, locating doctors, etc. If one of our members comes across a site or an article that is worthwhile, they always share it with the group. The most important concept that we share with each other is that all information needs to be verified and that we need to take the time to make sure that we are producing a quality document for the client or school. We all feel that there is no shortcut to quality and putting the time in to research new terms, and above all, verifying that we have it right. We did this on our own in our Chapter and I have to say that I am very proud of what we have been doing. We supported the AHDI initiatives with a letter writing campaign. We implemented a quarterly award for an outstanding student at TRSi and we give them a certificate and gifts.
If the resolution passes to split everyone into regions, where does a virtual chapter like ours fit into the picture? Our chapter works closely with TRSi and that is where we get our membership from. Why is it that most of the information from AHDI never makes it out to the components or chapters?
Kathy, thank you for having this forum where ANY MT can share their thoughts. I like the fact that here we do not have to be concerned that our thoughts and words are going to be twisted around and then the back-stabbing begins. From my point of view, that is the way that AHDI should operate.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Linda, thanks so much for posting here. From what I understand from yesterday, the issue of what region a corporate or institutional member, as well as the employer and school chapters, will be assigned hasn’t been decided yet. It may be that it depends on where the business is and that’s something the steering committee will have to work out.
[Reply]
Linda – Unfortunately, your component may be in the same boat as the Online Association. I listened to the morning session of the Leadership Summit, and I find it very disheartening to hear that if the resolution on restructuring passes the HOD or restructuring steering committee will probably hold the power to decide a component no longer serves a purpose and therefore that component will need to disband.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Lisa, I hope that isn’t the case as well. With the online association, where I am also a member, I think perhaps the question is that the original purpose, to provide delegate representation to those who didn’t have a state or regional association, won’t exist anymore. Does that mean there’s not a place for it? I don’t think so. Will it look different? I’m not sure. As you know from listening, we’re about to redefine lots of things.
[Reply]
This is very interesting dialogue. Apparently, there is some funny math going on somewhere regarding AHDI membership numbers, and it is very frustrating. I am concerned about the discussion of Benchmark and our association’s true and actual membership numbers. I considered purchasing Benchmark but because I was in the middle of my membership year, I decided to call AHDI and find out if there was a way to prorate the Benchmark fee (since I did not need the included membership) or pay the difference between a professional membership fee and the Benchmark fee (with it’s membership fee). I was told that there was no way to do that. Also, I was told if I did purchase Benchmark, it would re-date my membership year, so to speak. Instead of being a member for, say, 7 years, I would now be a new member. I did not want to do that so I did not make the purchase. However, I haven’t heard of anyone else who purchased Benchmark talk about this, so either members do not realize this is happening, or the person I spoke to at AHDI was misinformed. Either way, AHDI apparently does not have a plan for capitalizing on Benchmark memberships and bumping them up to full professional memberships.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Let me try to clear up a question I saw on this. When I said you’re counted in the “highest membership category,” what I meant is that if you have a KB membership (associate), but are also a member as a student, post grad, or individual professional, you are only counted in the membership numbers in the latter. That is to avoid having someone counted twice. Within the KB membership, there are “associate” and “student associate” members, so that the association can identify those who are students in a program who use the KB. That was done so that the student group could be specifically identified to receive things of special interest to students. Hope that helps!
[Reply]
Gee, Julie…that’s weird. I was also in the middle of my membership year when I purchased Benchmark KB, but my membership year was **not** re-dated….it stayed the same. Go figure…
[Reply]
Lisa,
I agree that the TRSi Chapter of AHDI would be in the same boat as the Online Association and I share your frustration about it. In rereading Kathy’s post about the meeting I was struck by the way the resolution’s were changed around so that #3 would be voted on before #2. While I understand the rationale behind that move as Kathy explained it, I also agree that since the delegate that proposed #2 was there in time for the discussion the order could have been changed back to 1, 2, and 3. As Kathy pointed out, if #3 passes there is no reason to discuss #2, which I think is an important resolution.
[Reply]
I agree with Julie in that some funny math is going on. I don’t know who answers the phones when you call AHDI, but in retrospect I do think it was odd I was told to register as a postgraduate with that being defined as someone who has graduated but is not yet working. As far as reporting membership goes it means those numbers are off by at least one. If they are off by one then I’m sure they are off by more.
My long-term goal is to earn the RHIA credential and work in a leadership capacity in the HIM sector of healthcare. As such, I am also a member of AHIMA and although I value and appreciate the hard work that so many of you put into AHDI, I think AHDI could learn a few things from AHIMA. Even the AHIIMA website is more user friendly and informative. As a student in HIM through a large university, I have to enroll in classes that require I learn a great deal about AHIMA especially its history and structure. What MT school teaches that about AHDI? Of course, with mandatory certification to find any job worth having in HIT/HIM you have to be somewhat familiar with AHIMA. If you’re not familiar with the organization, it is worth taking a few minutes to look over the website. I’m sure they have their own issues that I’m blissfully unaware of, but by and large I must say that AHIMA really has it together.
One great example of issues on the AHDI site and with communication in general is in regard to the CMT. In one location it states that 2 years of experience is mandatory and in another that it is only suggested. Even among CMTs there is a lot of confusion about this. Having attended an excellent school, I know a few MTs who passed the CMT shortly after graduation. Two years of experience is in fact only a suggestion. With the AHDI website giving conflicting information, even employers are often confused about this. I know of one new graduate CMT who was accused of lying about her certification by an employer.
Of course, nothing in life is perfect.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 5th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
One thing that I have heard a lot from AHDI staff this week is that they KNOW the AHDI website needs to be more user friendly and have put that on their priority list to do. Hopefully that will help with things.
[Reply]
It appears as if this upcoming year will be a very busy and exciting time for AHDI. I hope it all comes together as it (BGG) is envisioned. I listened to what I could of the Leadership Summit before lunch (was working) and was quite stunned to hear a former leader bluntly state that if she didn’t like what the bylaws stated she would just do things her own way in XX state, which drove her board crazy. This was met with applause from the HOD and gallery. Maybe I just misunderstood but that kind of summed it up for me….this disconnect between leadership and grassroots members. Next year will be my 10th year with AHDI. After that, I’ll probably direct my money toward AHIMA unless major positive change takes place within AHDI.
[Reply]
Kathy Reply:
August 8th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Amanda, you didn’t mishear that, although I do think she was half joking. It’s hard to know that when you can’t see facial expressions.
[Reply]
The BGG was going to be passed one way or the other. It appeared to me that every talk leading up to the vote was designed to make people look out of touch if they did not accept. I do want to know why the speaker of the HOD was not a neutral party. That did not seem right.
[Reply]
Miriam,
What an honest, heartbreaking post you wrote. For me it very accurately spells out the atmosphere AHDI deliberately has created for itself over the last couple of years, along with some of the reasons more long-time members are choosing to stop sending in those renewals.
Good for you for having to courage to say what you think.
Nae
[Reply]