Comments

• I'm extremely surprised and disappointed that there is only ONE PTA on this task force(I know many PTA's, including myself applied to this task force).I'm also surprised that the one PTA chosen is also a ATC, I think I see the relevancy, but am concerned that there may be some biased opinions related to the PTA. I also feel it is unfair that the main person(private practice) that brought forth RC 3 is on this task force. I want to be positive,and open minded in feeling that the APTA is looking out for the best interest of the PTA, yet this does worry me. I look forward to hearing the outcomes from the research of the task force.Thank you.

  Posted by Lisa Tameling on 8/12/2011 4:28 PM

• Two members from the same state, the maker of the motion, one PTA, and private practice largely represented - all raise concerns that there may not be the diversity needed to fairly examine the impact these motions have on all areas of practice.

  Posted by Debora Bornmann on 8/13/2011 6:03 PM

• I would concur that the list does not look diversified enough. I would have loved to apply, however as a full-time clinician & a very part-time researcher, I would not be able to have the flexibility in my schedule to meet as the board would like to. It is unfortunate that the APTA does not have sufficient membership from those in acute care, other PT practice settings. Perhaps if APTA "marketed" to these members of some of the benefits it might be able to provide, a more diversified & larger membership would be achieved. I would refer the Task Force to the Acute Care Section Lecture: Acute Care - Our Profession’s Foundation and Its Future by James Dunleavy for some direction.

  Posted by Christine Brussock -> =MT\A on 8/14/2011 10:37 AM

• I agree with the above comments. I applied to the TF as a PTA. I am also a massage therapist ( how I put myself through PTA school). I am so disappointed in the variety of the members. I suspect that PTA's are being thrown under the proverbial bus. It is the responsibility to represent all PAYING members of any association equally. It is a conflict of interest to have one group decide the future of another. The true measure of a man is on the inside, the outside can be ma ipulated

  Posted by Polly Bowers-Maness on 8/14/2011 4:09 PM

• I agree with the above comments. I applied to the task force as well, but was not selected. It appears that the PTA is being thrown under the proverbial bus. I would encourage you as much as possible to get involved. Contact your delegate and express your self. The task force is an advisory panel only. Your true source of strength is your delegate. Poor past participation of the PTA and the stronger participation by the private practice section is how this started. PTA's are accredited by CAPTE, just as PT schools are accredited. We are college educated and are perfectly capable for speaking for ourselves in such Task Forces. I feel the association has a responsibility to represent those who PAY THEM THEN TO REPRESENT us. The number of NON PTA's deciding the future of a PTA appears unethical. There is a conflict of interest. The measure of a man comes from within, because the outside can be manipulated. Are these NON PTA's interest true to the PTA's future? Please get involved and contact your voting delegate.

  Posted by Polly Bowers-Maness on 8/14/2011 4:27 PM

• 5 Private Practice Section members including the Private Practice Section President, at least 4 individuals primarily working in private practice, 7 of the nine states represented already allow "others" to provide direct patient care - and how many of these individuals employ or work regularly with PTAs under the current APTA practice model?

  Posted by Debora Bornmann on 8/14/2011 4:49 PM

• I agree with the post above. I know of several professional PTA's that voiced a strong desire to be on this TF. This TF has an opportunity to bridge several key issues with PT's and PTA relationships in the APTA, however the structure does not look as if the PTA's will get more then one voice at the issue. I also believe that our Delegates should have been included on this TF as the make of the motion was.

  Posted by Sean Bagbey, PTA on 8/15/2011 11:30 AM

• Interest in serving on this task force ran high resulting in an applicant pool comprised of many qualified individuals representing a diversity and wealth of experience and skills. As it made the decision regarding the composition of this important task force, the Board of Directors (Board) was guided in its decision-making by the design specifications approved as part of the new Volunteer Group System (details at can be found at http://www.apta.org/VolunteerGroups/Revisions/) implemented earlier this year. Specifically, the Board considered the specifications related to volunteer group participation – transparency in process (enables members to see how and why Board and staff make decisions, but activities that involve appointment decisions protect member confidentiality), effective (focuses on the right person, right time, right task), and inclusive (allows choice of best possible volunteers across all necessary demographics, areas of expertise, etc.; is not unnecessarily exclusionary). By balancing these design specifications while making appointments to this task force, the Board is confident that it has selected the "right people at the right time" while including diversity in demographics and practice expertise to fairly represent the multiple interests in this volunteer group's assigned task.

  Posted by News Now staff on 8/15/2011 12:40 PM

• I agree with the post above. I know of several professional PTA's that voiced a strong desire to be on this TF. This TF has an opportunity to bridge several key issues with PT's and PTA relationships in the APTA, however the structure does not look as if the PTA's will get more then one voice at the issue. I also believe that our Delegates should have been included on this TF as the make of the motion was.

  Posted by Sean Bagbey, PTA on 8/15/2011 1:11 PM

• It seems that the task force has abandoned PTAs, which is who it is supposed to support as part of this organization.

  Posted by Deidre Barnes, PTA on 8/15/2011 3:23 PM

• I think all would agree that the board had a difficult task in selecting the right members to be represented on this task force. I am certain the board did not take this decision lightly. The task force, as I understand it, is designed to make recommendations to enhance the position of PTs, PTAs and ultimately patient care. It would seem that having a disparity among task force members could affect not only the out come but the proverbial weight behind those perceived "tainted" recommendations. It would then seem in the best interest of the task force’s ultimate goal to have a committee with a make up which better reflects the organizations demographics.

  Posted by Darren Goodwin on 8/15/2011 4:52 PM

• I at least hope that the PTA has a voice within the task force and not just a "HALF VOTE"! I strongly feel that more than one PTA should have served on this task force. Who better to speak on the behalf of PTA's than a PTA. Why not have educatores and state regulatory board PT's and PTA's as well.

  Posted by Danny P. Landry on 8/15/2011 5:36 PM

• What better way to decrease the importance of the PTA than to load a task force with PT's? Why would I want to continue membership in a non-democratic orgaization, APTA? Professional validity compromised by the professionals in the organization-great, just great!

  Posted by Edie Watson on 8/15/2011 10:29 PM

• I agree with all the comments. Why should we PTA's continue to support APTA when we are allowed to participate with only 1/2 vote and now only 1 rep on this task force? How are we going to be respected as professionals when our own professional organization doesn't respect us enough to give us full membership privelges?!

  Posted by Debbie Everhart on 8/17/2011 9:00 AM

• I also agree with all the above comments, and am a little frustrated with the lack of representation on the task force and lack of respect from our professional organization. I sincerely hope that those appointed keep a very unbiased view and give the one PTA their undivided attention.

  Posted by Christy Hall on 8/17/2011 12:20 PM

• It is a shame that the PTA is being under represented and that the makers of motion 4-12 are heavily represented.

  Posted by Tom Freeman PTA on 8/22/2011 2:40 PM