2009.09.16 19:05:35

John McDaniel

This was an optcom list posting from Craig S. Steinberg, OD, JD.  I found this stunning and felt compelled to share it with all of you.  This is disturbing, to say the least.  Thanks to Craig for permission to post this here.

Le Meas,
John G. McDaniel, OD, MLHR
President/Founder
Waugoo Consulting Group, LLC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This, from the AOA website for all the public to see:

“In addition to their formal, doctoral-level training, all optometrists participate in ongoing continuing education courses to stay current on the latest standards of care and to maintain their licenses to practice. Optometry is one of the only doctoral-level health care professions to require continuing education in every state for license renewal.”

Oh, and this too, in a flashing colored box so that it draws attention:

So, is the AOA FOR optometry or AGAINST it??? We see here the lengths the AOA has gone to push its divisive but money-making board certification agenda. They are willing to sacrifice the profession if that’s what it takes. The AOA is telling the public, in boxed bold print on their website, that we’re the only doctors that don’t measure continued competency (which, by the way, is dead false) and that an optometrist that isn’t board certified is not “equal to” the other health care professions.

Guess that’s the PR campaign all you AOA members are paying an $85/month assessment  for. 

board certification of optometrists | political optometry | optometry | American Optometric Society | AOS | AOA

2009.06.27 02:10:04

John McDaniel

Note: this was originally written in April of 2009 and held back from publication.  Today, June 26, 2009, the BC proposal passed.  I was very optimistic that the AOA leadership structure would find a way to serve the will of the majority of the membership.  I was wrong and am tremendously disappointed.

I, like many optometrists across the United States, have followed the board certification (BC) debate and debacle closely.  I have formed and published strong opinions opposing the current proposal.  I have spent hours researching the details of how this plan came into its present form, the communication (or lack thereof) of the plans details, and the driving forces behind it.  I have come to a conclusion that the most oppressive problems with BC have less to do with the proposals or counter proposals and much more to do with the process, motivations, and leadership of the American Optometric Association (AOA).

Here is the crux of the problem: the AOA undoubtedly spent years hammering out what they deemed a proposal that was a blend of interests.  Those interests include the desires of a few select powerful leaders in the AOA, the collective needs of the membership, and the looming changes in the health care landscape.  Nothing is inherently wrong with those interests, however, I believe there is something wrong with the prioritization of them.  It is my view that the truest of leaders in the AOA elected to put their own desires ahead of the interests of the membership and the need to effectively and efficiently address the impending health care system changes.  Note, that by definition, a leader or leadership is not always a positive thing.  Leaders get things done through their own actions and through the actions of surrogates.

The desire of the few to put a “solution” on the fast track was driven by a desire to dramatically change the profession of optometry in a real and permanent way.  The “urgencies” that purportedly drove the process are merely an excuse; a platform on which to enact a radical agenda for the profession.  It is interesting to me that the most effective leaders in the AOA were the ones behind the BC effort.  Their ability to get the BC proposal to where it is at today represents true leadership ability.  I suspect (it is only a suspicion) that if one were to dig deeper one would find that the current BC proposal can be sourced to a single person.  While I am certain that many facets have been tinkered with to create a cohesive team of top AOA folks (aka the surrogates) that support the current framework, I have little doubt that the genesis of this proposal comes from a single person.  That is not, in and of itself, a bad thing either.

The problem with leadership is that it is rare.  What are the odds that the top folks at the AOA have several real leaders in their midst that are capable of getting things done?  Statistically speaking, the odds are low.  The odds become even lower when you add in the notion of multiple leaders having substantively the same vision of a solution.  Instead, I believe we have witnessed the results of a powerful leader getting most of the AOA “leadership” to follow his/her desires.  So why do I think that is a bad thing?  Great question.

The problem lies with the motivation and methods of the original leader.  Even if I thought the current BC proposal was a good idea I would have significant issues with the process that has been used to advance it.  It seems clear to me that the process was promoted simply because of a “we can do what we want” attitude possessed by the true leader of the AOA and the BC proposal.  That is a problem; a big problem, in fact.  That attitude and process leads to negative consequences that have only begun to be felt.  The net ramifications of that mindset may ultimately weaken the stated goals of the AOA and its membership.  That, my colleagues, is a much bigger problem for optometry than the stated crisis driving the BC movement.

My proposed solution to this problem is dramatic and will likely not sit well with the current AOA leadership.  I propose a coup of sorts and an end to the status quo leadership track structure.  It is time to find some real leaders for the AOA that have the ability to overcome other leaders that desire to steamroll the membership simply because they believe no one is willing or able to stop them.  It is time for true leaders to rise to the AOA ranks that specifically lack an organizational memory and organizational experience.  The very organizational memory and experience we rely on has lead to the current status of a powerful few that feel oligarchic in their influence.  In short, I propose a house cleaning to get rid of the arrogance and self indulgent paradigm that exists in the AOA leadership structure today.  Of course, such revolution is not necessary if the power of the membership is proven to be stronger than the power of the few in the AOA leadership structure.  How does one prove where the real power resides?  A decisive “no” vote of the current BC proposal and any of its last minute modifications, concessions, and marketing tactics is how.  A “no” vote shows the leadership who is the true boss of the AOA.

Le Meas,

John G. McDaniel, OD, MLHR
President/Founder
Waugoo Consulting Group, LLC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

leadership | AOA | board cerfitication | BC