[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Academy-HPS Relationships
The following was received as part of the general mailing to Radsafe. Since
it concerns the American Academy of Health Physics, and contains innuendos
with no basis in fact, as current Academy President who is also a
Past-President of the Health Physics Society, I feel constrained to comment
on the three questions posed by Mr. Lavely to the two HPS Presidential
aspirants, which I have only just seen, as follows:
1. As both candidates have stated, the Academy and the Health Physics
Society are separate and wholly independent organizations, although with
many common and overlapping goals. I am unaware any "annnouncement",
official or unoffical, to the contrary by "senior Academy representative" as
alleged by Mr. Lavely. Perhaps Mr. Lavely would care to share with the
Radsafe commmunity some specifics: when, where and by whom and in what
context the alleged statement was made.
2. As President of the Academy I am unaware of any committee of the Academy
that is preparing a standard for qualifications for a university or medical
RSO. However, there are no barriers to the Academy, as an organization of
professional health physicists, proposing or preparing such standards;
indeed, this is well within the purview and charter of the Academy. After
all, the Academy is an organization whose membership consists solely of
health physicists.
3. I am outraged (and, I might add, personally insulted) by the apparent
implication in Question 3 that the Academy, has or may have at any time
attempted to inappropriately influence the HPS. The Academy has a long
history of close working relationships with the Society; indeed the goals of
the two organizations are not in any way at loggerheads. It is significant
to note that virtually all Academy members are also members of the HPS, and
a number of HPS Officers and Directors, Committee members and chairs, are
also Academy members.
I am heartened by the response of the two HPS Presidential aspirants, both
of whom, I note, are active members of the Academy.
Ron Kathren, CHP
President, AAHP
At 01:20 PM 12/1/98 -0600, Paul Lavely wrote:
>As part of my preparing to vote for HPS president I asked both candidates
>the following three questions.
>
>I am in the process of selecting a person to vote for as HPS Pres. I wish
>to hear your views on the relationship of the Academy to the HPS. For
>example, I would like your views on the following:
>
>1 At the last national HPS meeting a senior Academy representative
>announced that the Academy is the "technical arm of the Society. Do you
>agree?
>
>2 A committee of the Academy is preparing a standard for qualifications
>for a university or medical RSO. Do you believe that such a standard should
>come from the Academy or from the HPS? Why?
>
>3 Will you work to assure that no inappropriate influence on the Society
>will be allowed from the Academy?
>
>
>The response that Paul Rohwer sent:
>
>
>Hi Paul,
>
>Thank you for your questions. I will respond to them in the order in which
>they were asked.
>
>I do not agree that the Academy is the "technical arm of the society." The
>Health Physics Society (HPS) is a separate organization from both the Academy
>and the American Board of Physics (ABHP). Of course the HPS was instrumental
>in the establishment of the Academy and the ABHP. Also many of us are members
>of both the Academy and the HPS. I think the two organizations should be
>mutually supportive and work together; however, they have separate objectives
>which should continue to be separate.
>
>I think that any proposed standard for qualifications for university or
>medical RSOs should come from the Society. I see the Academy as being
>responsible for development and implementation of a certification process
>which might be desired once the agreed upon qualifications are established. I
>would expect the Society's newly established RSO Section to be at the
>forefront in development of any such proposed standard for qualification of
>RSOs.
>
>Yes I will work to assure that no inappropriate influence on the Society will
>be allowed from the Academy or any other organization. For the benefit of our
>profession and professional practice of radiation safety we need cooperation
>and teamwork among the responsible organizations.
>
>Thank you for contacting me. I apologize for my delay in responding. Please
>contact me again if you have further questions. Your interest in the election
>of Society leaders is appreciated.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Paul Rohwer
>
>
>
>
>The response that Charlie Willis sent:
>
>Paul,
>
>The HPS and the AAHP are independent organizations that have a lot in common
>and that, historically, have worked together on a number of matters. The AAHP
>often has one or more sessions at the HPS annual meetings. At
>Minneapolis, the
>AAHP organized the sessions on the "Wingspread Conference." Almost all
>members of the AAHP are members of the HPS. As for the comment that the
>AAHP is the technical arm of the HPS, it simply is NOT correct. Some folk may
>see it that way and they are free to speak their minds, but the two
>organizations are separate and independent. Besides, there are a number of
>HPS members who are not AAHP members (Ken Mossman, Marv Goldman and Bill
>Mills come quickly to mind) who would not concede "technical expertise" to
>the AAHP. To be concise, I disagree with the statement.
>
>As for a committee of the AAHP preparing a standard on qualifications for a
>medical or university RSO, I did not know this was underway. It is easy to
>see why the AAHP would have an interest and anyone is free to draft a
>standard (e.g. long ago, I initiated a standard as a member of the Southern
>California Chapter). For the document to actually become a national
>standard, however, it must be voted on and approved by an official
>standards-setting body. At this time, neither the AAHP nor the HPS is an
>accredited standards-setting body. In fact, according to the last
>membership handbook, the AAHP does not even have a standards committee. The
>HPS sponsors two standard-setting bodies: N-13 and N-42. Neither of these
>groups has a formal working agreement with the AAHP but they both work
>closely with the HPS. At the present time, the HPS Standards Committee
>organizes the working groups that draft the standards for N-13, while N-42
>organizes their own working groups. I believe that the standards you
>mention should be N-13 standards so they get the broad-scope review that is
>essential to both quality and acceptance. In this sense, they would be
>from (and published by) the HPS.
>
>To the extent necessary, I will work to assure that the AAHP has no
>inappropriateinfluence on the HPS.
>
>Charlie Willis
>caw@nrc.gov
>
>
>No recommendations - just responses.
>
>Paul Lavely
>UC Berkeley
>lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu
>
>
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html