Hello all,
First I want to apologize to all the PDs on this listserv for this long back and forth. I see this as a critical issue in OT education and feel that the dialogue should be out in the open for those interested. I assume you all can ignore if you wish.
I appreciate you responding Kathy. I don’t necessarily think it is fair that you are in the position of responding for legal counsel and everyone else involved. Please don’t
take this the wrong way but I posed many questions in my long response and what you just sent is not answers to any of them. With that said though I don’t necessarily think it falls on you to answer them all. I will try to restate my questions in as concise
a way as I can. Like you said it is complex.
1.
I am aware of what MOUs are and I am aware of when and why the AOTA-ACOTE MOU was developed.
a.
MOUs to my knowledge are never legally binding; by definition they are typically non-binding internal agreements. We keep being told it is not legally binding
which I know, but what I don’t know is why you all feel you can to keep telling us this? AOTA and ACOTE are the same legal entity so what is the context for this statement? The question of the legality was never raised in this group—it was initiated by the
Board.
a.
The MOU is however documentation used by ACOTE for their accreditation status. When we upload evidence of meeting an ACOTE standard related to our policy for
program evaluation that is not “legally binding” document but if I don’t have evidence I meet the standard I don’t get accredited.
This is the issue.
b.
The MOU was not intended to delineate accreditation functions. It was intended to show how resources would be shared and how ACOTE would be independent in decision
making. This is what is required by USDE.
2.
You will find no disagreement from me that the MOU may not be the best mechanism to outline the relationship and functions. I would be supportive of a move forward
to translate into official documents; however, I would still like to know in the meantime,
what is the justification from legal counsel for the action taken? I don’t like the speed limit in my neighborhood, I don’t get to ignore it until I can work with city council to get it changed.
3.
The bylaws are legally binding. How does legal counsel reconcile this? All the
discussion of the MOU is secondary to this issue. AOTA and ACOTE have 20 years of evidence to show that AOTA has recognized degree requirements as an accrediting function of ACOTE for which they are guaranteed complete autonomy to make in our bylaws.
4.
ACOTE has separate legal counsel who also has expertise in these matters. It is clear from the ACOTE statement that they disagree with AOTA legal counsel. Expertise
does not equal authority. Your legal counsel may be right that ultimately they don’t see AOTA’s action as interference but at this point this will only be proven in court or under USDE investigation. It is not up to AOTA to ultimately decide this. It
is misleading to continue to make this statement to any AOTA constituent group until we hear it from ACOTE and/or USDE.
5.
Agreements between AOTA and ACOTE related to delineation of accrediting functions have to be mutually agreed upon by both parties. What is AOTA’s legal counsel
justification for this plan for unilateral action to develop new policies related to these functions? What can the Board do if ACOTE says no?
6.
There has been zero action by the Board on the record or in the official record of the Board related to this matter. Why? ACOTE Council chair attends all BOD
meetings. Why was there not discussion in a meeting with the ACOTE representative present to discuss this matter on the record to share with membership?
7.
What is the justification for the rapid change in Board position on this matter? The minutes from August and October both express support for the decision and
explicitly state the Board is in support of a single point of entry. Data for the OTD has shown that the majority of the membership has not supported the mandate for some time. Nothing had changed in this regard.
8.
What was the initial justification for the board directing legal counsel to look into this? The video from Amy was after the February BOD meeting….this was not
discussed with legal counsel ahead of the release of this video? That is hard to believe
a.
Also where are the minutes from the February 2018 BOD meeting which would have been the last meeting before this all started?
9.
As it stands now there is nowhere in any of the governance documents that explicitly state that the right to determine degree is reserved for AOTA however on
the website the BOD has acknowledged it to be the role of ACOTE. How does legal counsel justify current action based on this?
a.
If this does fall on the RA why has the RA not been involved in many of these decisions over the last 20 years? Why has the BOD not questioned why decisions
made by the RA were not followed by ACOTE?
10.
Even if there is potential justification AOTA can determine entry level degree, there is no dispute that ACOTE has autonomy with establishing standards. They
could just say they won’t create/maintain OTM standards anymore. Or they could just say they won’t accept self-study for accreditation review from OTM programs anymore. Both of these functions are squarely in their wheelhouse. What is legal counsel’s interpretation
of this and the potential that this entire mess is of no consequence?
I may be off base. It would not be the first time in my life that has happened but this is not adding up. AOTA issues a position statement supporting doctoral entry, ACOTE
after 4 years of work passes a mandate in line with the position statement, the board TWICE over three months passes motions and issues statements in support of the decision (which by the way the official minutes, submitted by you, from October 2017 explicitly
pulled out the position from 2014 statement saying support for a doctoral-single point of entry and say nothing about dialogue), and now has set our profession on a course for legal action to fight the decision. The board must have some information to
justify their actions in light of the potential heavy consequences right? It can’t only be because the membership was upset right?
I would still like the questions posed here and below answered.
Thank you
Tim
Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Occupational Therapy
University of Missouri
810 Clark Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-8403
wolftj@health.missouri.edu
<image001.png>
Hello Tim,
As we both acknowledged, this is a complex issue. The announcement that came from the AOTA Board on Friday, was based on information gathered in the national conversation led by the Board.
As part of the national conversation, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was a document examined by the AOTA Board and ACOTE as we worked to clarify the perceived relationship with the professional accrediting body.
The AOTA-ACOTE MOU was developed in 2005 to reflect the areas of separation of function between AOTA and ACOTE and to ensure the necessary financial resources were allocated for the professional accrediting body to complete its charge as
outlined in the Bylaws. This was an internal agreement between two leadership groups within AOTA at a point in time in our history. It is not a legally binding document. In addition, our new legal counsel (this firm includes individuals with expertise in the
requirements of CHEA and the US Department of Education), advised that this document is not the best mechanism for demonstrating the separation of functions.
AOTA is working on translating the separation of functions, as required by CHEA and the US Department of Education, into policies and procedures. These policies and procedures would be available to members and relevant stakeholders and
reviewed on a regular basis by ACOTE and AOTA.
CHEA and the US Department of Education have requirements to assure no influence in accreditation decisions of educational programs and AOTA meets all of these requirements.
Hi Kathy,
Sorry everyone this is long! This is an important matter though and I feel this needs to be discussed.
I am very well aware of what the intention of that position statement was. As you know but some on this listserv may not, I was on the BOD when it was drafted and passed.
It was to state that the position of the board was in support of a single point of entry at the doctoral level. We did ask for a national dialogue in order for us to work together and move forward. What you are saying now is that the reaffirmation of this
statement by the board in October 2017 was done in order to justify having more dialogue but the first part of that statement and I quote, “It is the position of the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) Board of Directors that the profession
should take action to transition toward a doctoral-level single point of entry for occupational therapists, with a target date of 2025” should be ignored? If that was the intention this was a very poor way of doing it. A position statement is to state
a position. So we look past this as an honest mistake. What is the justification for the statement from August 2017 mentioned below and in the statement from ACOTE? There was nothing in there about wanting more dialog. In fact, it said there
had been extensive dialog and careful consideration!!!! There was nothing in there questioning ACOTE’s authority to make this decision.
There was no statement to the profession ever made that the BOD did not believe that ACOTE had the authority to make this decision until today.
So why did the board direct legal counsel to look into the MOU and the governance documents? What was the justification for this? Also what was the point of the national conversation if all of this was driven by the current board wanting more answers and
directing legal counsel to look into it this past fall?
Our AOTA bylaws state that ACOTE will have complete autonomy in “establishing standards for education programs” So how is it not their decision to decide to no longer establish
standards for a specific degree? Further, where in any of the governance documents does it reserve the right for AOTA to make entry-level degree requirements? Also, if that right is reserved for AOTA, why has AOTA not challenged any of the
decisions ACOTE has made in this regard over the last 20 years? If the legal counsel was charged with reconciling our bylaws, the MOU, our governance documents with the USDE and CHEA requires for recognition, where did they find justification for this
statement from the BOD?
I am very familiar with the language in the bylaws and in the MOU. I am yet to see where it says AOTA retains the right to determine entry-level degrees.
They both however say many times that ACOTE can establish and maintain standards with “complete autonomy”, or other analogous terms to the same effect,. Again, if they choose to no longer develop standards for a degree how is that not within
this function? If they choose not to consider application for accreditation review from OTM programs anymore how is that not in their stated functions? And again, why were no questions asked in the last 20 years?
Just to be clear on this issue, there is nowhere in any governance document for AOTA that explicitly reserves the right for AOTA to make this decision.
The bylaws and SOP for the RA say vaguely that the RA is charged with “professional policy”. The RA can pass whatever they want but it does not mean ACOTE has to respond to their direction. The RA passed a motion a few years back saying ACOTE should accredit
PPOTD programs. They didn’t do it. So if ACOTE is working under the RA direction in this regard where is the protest to this inaction? The statement in the letter from the BOD today saying this is the purview of the RA because they have a history of making
these decisions would be akin to saying that these decisions should rest with the Board because the Board has a history of passing position statements related to entry-level education.
The only explicit mention of who has the authority to mandate entry-level degree requirements is on the AOTA Board of Directors webpage in the OTD FAQs which states:
“Ultimately,
the only body with regulatory authority to mandate the entry-level degree is the Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE®). ACOTE is recognized as the accreditation agency for occupational therapy education in the United
States by both the United States Department of Education (USDE) and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
USDE and CHEA regulations require that all actions and decisions of the accreditation agency must be made independently from the parent association(s). Historically, ACOTE has been careful to consider the positions and policies of the profession’s
leadership groups when determining entry-level degree requirements.”
Kathy, I have never once made a personal attack toward anyone in a volunteer leadership position, including the BOD, over this issue. I know
everyone is a volunteer and I choose to believe that we all have what we see as the best interest of our profession at heart.
I do question actions though. Please don’t mistake my wanting answers as personal attacks. You all made this decision which is leading our profession down a path of litigation. The long and short it, I want to know why.
Thank you for reading/listening
Best
Tim
Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Occupational Therapy
University of Missouri
810 Clark Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-8403
wolftj@health.missouri.edu
Hi Tim,
Actually, it was October 2017 that a motion to reaffirm the Board position of 2014 was presented. Again, as I mentioned to Barb, that position was to have a professional dialogue. The current Board believes the profession should continue
to explore and discuss the entry-level education points.
Regarding the announcement following the ACOTE announcement of the mandates, there were concerns as to whether the AOTA governance processes had been circumvented and this was being examined.
As you reflected in your email to this list serve, this is a complex issue. The current AOTA Board wanted to be sure to understand the requirements of CHEA and the US Department of Education and how these relate to our governance and bylaws.
So, we sought advice from a legal firm with experience in these matters.
We respect the work of ACOTE and the need for ACOTE to do the work they are charged with in the Bylaws. However, “complete autonomy in establishing standards for educational programs” must be seen in the full context-these are standards
that pertain to assessing accreditation status of education programs. It does not mean total autonomy on any issue related to education. As the mandate circumvented the AOTA governance process, the AOTA Board had an obligation to address the issues and concerns.
As you know, Tim, members of the Board take their positions seriously and understand the importance of every decision. The Board consists of volunteers who are committed to the membership and to the future of the profession.
Have a nice evening. -Kathy Foley
Kathy,
So please then reconcile with the statement from the board this past August 2017, the same board with the exception of two members who issued this statement today, in which
the board applauded the mandate and stated “We believe ACOTE has acted in the best interest of all of these parties with their recent decision.”
Or please reconcile with the action of the board in November 2017 when the position statement mentioned below was again
unanimously supported by the current board with the exception of the two members who took office in July. The position statement was to encourage dialog but it was a position statement and
the position was that the board supported a single point of entry at the doctoral level.
So what happened between November 2017 and February 2018 to change the position of the board?
Best
Tim
Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Occupational Therapy
University of Missouri
810 Clark Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-8403
wolftj@health.missouri.edu
Good evening,
As indicated in the statement you linked, the intent of the position statement by the AOTA Board in April 2014 was to take the recommendation to the full membership and facilitate a profession-wide dialogue around the issue. The dialogue
was facilitated by past President Stoffel and the AOTA Board between 2014 and 2015. -Kathy Foley
Hello all,
I am curious. How does the AOTA Board of Directors reconcile its current position with the position statement they issued in 2014 in which they recommended that
the profession move to a single point of entry for the OT at the doctoral level?
https://www.aota.org/aboutaota/get-involved/bod/otd-statement.aspx#sthash.B2g7T9MK.dp
This position statement was one piece of evidence we used to support the transition.
Barb
Hello all,
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Chapter VI, Part 602, Subpart B, Section 602.14, outlines criteria for purpose and
organization for an accrediting body to be recognized by the Department of Education. Paragraph b describes the requirement to be “separate and independent” from the Association. In this section it states that the accrediting body can jointly share personnel,
services, etc. as long as joint use “does not compromise the independence and confidentiality of the accreditation process”
Here is a direct excerpt
(1)
The members of the agency's decision-making body - who decide the accreditation or pre-accreditation status of institutions or programs, establish the agency's accreditation
policies, or both - are not elected or selected by the board or chief executive officer of any related, associated, or affiliated trade association or membership organization;
The federal law explicitly states that an elected board is not to interfere with the accreditation process.
Please understand what just happened. The AOTA BOD, with consultation with their legal counsel, has decided that their authority as a board supersedes this USDE requirement.
There is leeway in what is allowed in terms of written agreements between professional associations, but we are required to have written agreements and abide by them.
Per our agreements and actions for the last 20 years, the authority to determine entry level degrees has for 20 years been left to ACOTE unchallenged by our profession. There is no language anywhere in any official document of AOTA that says this
decision should be AOTA’s and not ACOTE’s.
Your professional accreditation is now at risk. Without professional accreditation we don’t exist.
This folks is a dark day for our profession.
Best wishes to you all
Tim
Timothy J. Wolf, OTD, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Occupational Therapy
University of Missouri
810 Clark Hall
Columbia, MO 65211
573-882-8403
wolftj@health.missouri.edu
From:
ot-pd@aotalists.org [mailto:ot-pd@aotalists.org]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 5:33 PM
To: ot-pd@aotalists.org
Subject: [OT-PD List - AOTA] - A Message from AOTA Board of Directors on the OTD and OTA Mandates
Amy J. Lamb, OTD, OT/L, FAOTA
President, American Occupational Therapy Association (2016 - 2019)
Associate Professor, Eastern Michigan University Occupational Therapy Program
Owner, AJLamb Consulting LLC
Occupational Therapy is a health and wellness profession that assists people in developing the skills they need to participate in everyday life where they live, learn, work and play.
Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson