Academy-HPS Relationships Response

[Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>]

I have just read and discussed with Ron Kathren his comments. I apologize and offer:

Item 1  - I asked "At the last national HPS meeting a senior Academy representative announced that the Academy is the "technical arm of the Society. Do you agree?" Ron is correct, it was not "announced." The use of the word "announced" was both poor and inappropriate. I only wish that I had seen that at the time I wrote it. This statement was a part of a larger conversation that occurred at the AAHP booth. I more attribute the comment to communication (or the lack thereof) problems than an intent to state that the AAHP is THE technical arm of the HPS. This question was asked to elicit the stand of the candidates so as to dispel this issue rather than to be a point of contention. I discussed who said this with Ron and there is no benefit in furthering a poor communication. However, on the positive side, no matter how poor the question, both candidates gave consistent and excellent responses. I apologize to Ron, the HPS, the AAHP, and radsafe if my comments were taken as being negative or intentionally provocative - they were not intended to be.

Item 2 - The "RSO Standard." When I spoke with Ron he remembered a conference call of himself, Tom Essig, and me about the AAHP preparing a document related to RSO qualifications. It appears that use of the word "standard" resulted in a significant communication problem. It appears that the word "standard" resulted in Ron not recognizing this as the same issue as we had discussed many months ago.  Additionally, at the time of the call we did not discuss this as being limited to university and medical RSO, thereby resulting in another communication problem.

At the time this was discussed in the RSO Section meeting, I asked "should someone try and force the Academy to not issue a "standard" or should we seek a cooperative HPS/HPS RSO Section/Academy effort?" No, the obvious answer, to me, was to coordinate and cooperate. Obviously a cooperative collaboration of the HPS and Academy members developing and issuing the "standard" would help make it more universally recognized and dispel the idea that it was directed to only CHPs.  Only today, one of the leads for the HPS RSO Section e-mailed that "I received a call from Tom Essex who is the leader of the University RSO standards group within the AAHP last week.  He wanted to assure me that the RSO Section as well as others would have a good opportunity to review and provide input to the standard they are drafting.  He mentioned you specifically and I told him that you were on my list of RSO Section members to be involved in the formal response from the Section. . . . Hope that clarifies where things are."

Looks like we are now on the road to that cooperative and coordinated effort of the two groups and to dispelling anyone's opinion that the groups were not working together (or would not work together). I would like to think that rather than driving a wedge between these groups that Ron K., Tom Essig, Bob Zoon, I, and others were helping to build a bridge between the two groups to address a common interest. I look forward to working with dedicated and qualified people like Tom. If my comments resulted in other than the concern that we need to be unified and that the HPS needed to be more closely involved, I apologize. If my comments were taken as being negative or intentionally provocative - they were not intended to be.

Item 3 - Ron  said that he was "outraged" and from our conversation it was clear why.

First, this was not a question that I had. It was a question I was asked to ask by someone who declined to ask it himself.  However, that is not an excuse. I wrote it and I take responsibility. My hope was that it would have the opposite effect than the one that Ron (and now I am sure others took). I had hoped that this question and the associated answers would help to dispel the concern (even if held by only one person) that the AAHP somehow has an inappropriate influence on the HPS. Yes, I have heard the concern and based on private e-mail I received so have others. However, the fact that we have heard a rumor or innuendo does not make it true - only that it exists. I did not intend to imply that the Academy has or may have at any time attempted to inappropriately influence the HPS. I had hoped to expose the problem. Again, I apologize to Ron, the HPS, the AAHP, and radsafe if my comments were taken as being negative or intentionally provocative. They were not intended to be.

However, let us accept that some may have had the opinion that the AAHP unduly affects the HPS (based on my private e-mail the concern does exist - even if in only a few minds). In fact, let us accept that some may still have that opinion. Acknowledging that this erroneous opinion may exist allows us to address it. The AAHP and the HPS working together (such as on the RSO "standard") helps to dispel this opinion. Ron's and others efforts to have joint meetings, to pull in even other organizations, and other positive actions they are taking will also help dispel this opinion. Acting that this does not exist (again, even if in only a few people's minds) does nothing to dispel it. Lets work to address and dispel this rather than being upset that it was raised in such a poor manner.


There is an old saying that if six people tell you "you are sick" - lie down. Well it only took the one e-mail and my conversation with Ron to realize that what I had seen as great responses (as others I had shared them with agreed) that I wanted to share contained poorly worded questions and were fraught with the possibility of misinterpretation. 

I would like to look on the positive side. We have two excellent candidates and both had good and consistent responses. The RSO "standard" is being worked on in a cooperative effort of the AAHP and the HPS. The issues raised of the relationship of the AAHP and the HPS have been pulled into the light of day and can now be dispelled just as the sun dispels fog. 

Finally, I wish to apologize to that excellent gentleman, Ron Kathren who took the time to talk with me about this in detail. He is an asset to both the HPS and the AAHP.

It appears that I either did not have the communication skills needed to have properly framed these or I did take the time to use the skills I have. 

This issue is far to complex to address by e-mail and never should have attempted to do so. E-mail does not give a personal voice inflection and is easily misunderstood or taken out of context. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with anyone who wishes to call. Call my office at (510) 643-7876 or my home at (707) 746-7285. 


Paul Lavely
UC Berkeley
lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu

>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
>
>
>

************************************************************************ The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html