Winds of Change Blowing at NCBTMB
February 1st, 2005
By Rebecca J. Razo, managing editor
February, Massage Today reported on the NCBTMB
election process in which a board member alleged unfair
election practices after she was initially denied a
place on the ballot to run for a second term. Massage
Today interviewed current NCBTMB Chair Garnet Adair
and former NCBTMB Chair Judy Dean about the election
process, the changes affecting the organization, and
their respective outlooks on NCBTMB's future.
They reported on the National Certification Board for
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCBTMB) election
process in which board member Elizabeth McIntyre alleged
unfair election practices after she was initially denied
a place on the ballot to run for a second term ("Board
Member Questions NCBTMB Election Process,"
As a result, the NCBTMB immediately adjusted its
election procedures, which included appointing a new
Nomination Committee (NC), implementing revised election
criteria, and subsequently reopening the application
process to professional certificants and public members
desiring a place on the ballot.
Around the time of McIntyre's complaint, Mark A. Smith,
PhD, CAE, who became the NCBTMB executive director in
July 2004, announced he was leaving to take a position
with the National Certification Commission for
Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM).
And more resignations followed when, in early February,
NCBTMB Chair Judy Dean and Chair-Elect Neal Barry
resigned from their positions on the board, citing
personal reasons. Board members Garnet Adair and
Elizabeth McIntyre were subsequently seated as chair and
Massage Today interviewed current NCBTMB Chair
Garnet Adair and former NCBTMB Chair Judy Dean about the
election process, the changes affecting the
organization, and their respective outlooks on NCBTMB's
(Editor's note: These interviews were conducted
separately; neither Garnet Adair nor Judy Dean was made
privy to the other's responses.)
Interview with Garnet Adair, NCBTMB Chair
Massage Today (MT): Elizabeth McIntyre
issued an open letter to the massage profession
questioning the now former election practices at the
NCBTMB. Some former board members expressed disapproval
at the way she handled herself. How do you feel about
the situation and how it was handled?
Garnet Adair (GA): I am not familiar with any
former directors voicing disapproval that I'm aware of,
so I can't speak to that. From my recollection,
Elizabeth brought forth some questions last summer and
they were never addressed and placed on the table for
discussion by the chair at that time. There was a
request for conversation that didn't take place and
questions that were brought forward at a board meeting;
she was told to take it to the Supervisor of Elections,
which, according to our bylaws, if there's a question
about the process, you take it to the Supervisor of
Elections. The Supervisor of Elections did not return
any contact, and the board was told at that time not to
speak [about it]. I really feel that when there's been
an opportunity, when there's been a request for many
months for conversation and it is not addressed, then
there would be some concerns that there were flaws.
MT: So, Elizabeth requested information
about the election process several months prior to
GA: Absolutely. It's something she had tried
to bring forward for a number of months.
MT: And what was she trying to bring
forward? What were her concerns?
GA: I can't speak for her on this. From what
I'm aware of, we [the board] needed to have a discussion
about the election criteria needed for both the public
member and practitioner directors in the election
process, so that as people are doing interviews they can
take the criteria into consideration to fit the picture
that the board identified.
MT: Was there any conclusive evidence
to support McIntyre's allegations of unfair election
GA: To say that there was conclusive evidence
means that there was a formal investigation; we did not
have a formal investigation. But the directors took the
information in and with the guidance of legal counsel,
identified that there were enough concerns that should
be addressed - there were concerns with perception.
MT: To your knowledge, were there flaws
in Elizabeth's application that would have kept her off
GA: I didn't see her application, so I don't
know what was in there. But if somebody is told that
they don't meet the criteria, they should be told what
the criteria are. She inquired for that information from
the Supervisor of Elections and never did hear back. The
Supervisor of Elections resigned shortly after.
MT: Is McIntyre fit to continue for
another term on the board?
GA: The certificant population identified her
as fit to be on the ballot the first time, and she was a
director that was in good standing. I don't know the
criteria the [Nominating Committee] was looking at.
Based solely on the fact that the certificant population
had identified her as desirous to be on the board three
years ago, it would have to be very clear to me what
skills were not being met.
MT: McIntyre is now chair-elect.
GA: That is correct, which also tells me that
she has strong support; it speaks clearly that the
directors feel that she's not only qualified to remain
as a director but also qualified enough to [eventually]
serve as chair.
MT: Do you think it's coincidental that
Judy Dean and Neal Barry resigned from their positions
as chair and chair-elect following the events of
Elizabeth McIntyre and the election process? Do you
believe the resignations were related? Is there a "real"
story behind this?
GA: If there's any story behind that, if
there's any connection, I'm really not aware of it.
Neither of them has brought that information forward and
discussed it with any of the directors in a director
forum. If they've discussed it individually, I'm not
aware of it.
MT: That's two resignations at the same
time; it seems there was a little bit of turbulence at
the time this was going on, so I'm wondering if that
concerns you at all for the future of the board?
GA: It is certainly not the most desirous for
any board to lose their chair and chair-elect at the
same time. They both, within their letters to the board,
indicated personal reasons, but it was not based on
dissatisfaction about what was going on or personal
dissatisfaction with their roles.
MT: At this point in time, has the
election process been improved or changed?
GA: We're working to have our newly elected
directors seated no later than June 30, instead of the
beginning of May as the bylaws show. We're making some
changes this year that will cease after this election,
specifically to allow us to have the directors in place
a little bit later than what we normally have. We are
working on having the criteria so that people doing the
interviews will have the criteria that were missing in
the last election.
MT: What are the core requirements to
run for the board?
GA: According to the bylaws, you need to be a
practitioner that's been out of school for at least
three years; you need to be a certificant, and a
certificant in good standing. We also have some other
criteria that there cannot be any more than X number of
people involved in a school, X number of people involved
in a regulatory arena, X number of people on a competing
board of directors or organization. We have to know that
people fit into those, but we don't have any more than
what the bylaws allow for in those categories.
The Leadership Development Committee years back created
some additional criteria that was tweaked each year so
that they would know what the needs of the board were,
but it was never ready so the candidates didn't know
[the qualifications]. I could use Elizabeth as an
example. She's been a practitioner for at least three
years, she's a certificant and she's a certificant in
good standing. Other than that, she wouldn't know when
submitting the paperwork if there were particular skills
that were needed. That's why we need to have public
Another thing that was very uncomfortable was that no
one knew who the [Nominating] Committee members were. It
was asked. In fact, I asked a couple of times. That
information was never given to any of the directors; we
did not find out who the committee members were until
January. It's really uncomfortable when you have a
transparent election process but you don't know who is
on the NC, and it's never been something that is
secretive. Everybody has always known who has been on
MT: Who knew the members of the NC?
GA: The chair of the board had to approve
MT: Was there any reason given why the
names were kept confidential?
GA: All we were told was "I don't have that
list in front of me"; "I don't know" was the answer when
MT: There is going to be a new exam and
new eligibility requirements coming soon.
GA: Eligibility criteria will change effective
June 1 for the National Certification Examination for
Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork, and we are coming out
with the National Certification Examination for
Therapeutic Massage, which is for massage only.
MT: In developing the new eligibility
requirements, NCBTMB surveyed 500 nationally certified
massage therapists. If there are 100,000 massage
therapists nationally, this number represents only 0.005
percent of the massage therapy population. Isn't it a
little presumptuous for the NCBTMB to assume that these
500 therapists speak for the entire profession in coming
up with these new eligibility requirements?
GA: We don't currently have 100,000
certificants. We have somewhere around 85,000, and when
the job task analysis was done about a year and a half
ago, it was significantly less than 85,000.
MT: Right. But in the massage
profession as a whole, obviously not everyone is
certified. That would put the number at about 100,000
massage therapists - if not more - in the United States.
If only 500 therapists were polled for the entire
profession, isn't that a small sample of therapists to
create widespread eligibility requirements for the
GA: I would have to defer that question to the
person that was the Director of Certification at that
time. I don't know, in my familiarity with the job task
analysis and our ability to be accredited under the
National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), if
there is any specific criteria or what percentage is to
be included in the job task analysis. I would not be
able to say if it was presumptuous or not. If there were
specific criteria that we were to follow within our
accreditation, then I know that it was followed.
MT: How about in your professional
opinion, was it fair to interview 500 massage therapists
out of - we'll say on the low end - 80,000 nationwide
then create exam eligibility requirements based on that
GA: As the chair of the board, I can't really
state my own professional opinion. I have to respond as
the spokesperson for the organization and in that case,
again, I would defer that question to the Director of
Certification for you to know for sure that we followed
the criteria that we are obligated to abide by.
MT: I'm not questioning whether the
criteria were followed. I'm questioning the number of
therapists that were surveyed, and based on that limited
number of surveys, the creation of new eligibility
requirements. I'm not questioning the validity of how
the process was done. I'm questioning more why the
sampling wasn't wider than 0.005 percent of the massage
therapist population...would you still defer me to the
Director of Certification?
GA: Yes, I would.
MT: Are you satisfied, then, that the
new eligibility requirements implemented on June 1 are
appropriate and fitting to the process of certification?
GA: Yes. The board had a conversation about
that recently, and we confirmed that there is a sound
reason behind how those numbers came forward.
MT: Will the NCBTMB be hiring a new
executive director from outside the management company
it has had under contract since 1992? Is the NCBTMB
becoming a stand-alone company with employees of its
GA: Yes, we are. In fact, you're the first
person that gets to officially hear this. The decision
was made awhile back, but we did not place it in our
minutes until recently. We have not done a press
release, but it is public information. There will be an
official press release forthcoming.
MT: Why was this decision made?
GA: I think there is always a growth time
where organizations find that they are ready to move out
on their own. This is something that has been spoken
about for numerous years. Natural growth would take us
at some point to a stand-alone organization, and that
time is now.
MT: Can you describe the transition
plan for becoming a stand-alone company that will ensure
the interests of massage therapists, schools and state
GA: I won't be able to describe the specific
transition. But what I do want to communicate is that it
is going to be done so that it is as seamless a
transition as possible. It is very important for the
directors to have our stakeholders feel the least amount
of glitches. Sometimes, there are extenuating
circumstances; things come up and there could be some
adjustments. But we're trying to make it as seamless as
MT: Will the NCBTMB be moving its
GA: That we don't know. We have to take in a lot
of things in making the decision of what is going to be
best for this organization. We're not even close to
making a decision at this point.
MT: Some massage therapists believe
that the NCBTMB and the AMTA are working together to
"monopolize" the massage therapy profession. Can you
describe the NCBTMB's relationship to the AMTA?
GA: I can see that because AMTA was the
springboard of national certification there is an
[impression] we are still associated. They are another
professional related organization. One is a membership
organization; one is a voluntary certification. Many
membership organizations have an arm of certification
under their same umbrella. [NCBTMB] is a separate entity
from the membership organization. There could be some
confusion based on some familiarity of other membership
organizations having a certifying arm.
MT: If there was another certification
examination for massage therapists, would you be opposed
to it or supportive?
GA: Because this is a growing industry, it is
certainly not something that is not ever going to
happen. Would I be supportive of it? If McDonald's was
next door to Burger King I don't know that one would be
necessarily supportive of the other, but there are going
to be personal preferences - a person might elect to go
to one place compared to the other. With that, I think
that competition is not a bad thing. In fact, many times
it can be a very good thing. So, I can't say that we
would be supportive of it, but I can't say that we would
campaign against or try to stop any organization from
providing another certifying exam.
MT: The exam itself seems sometimes to
be a source of frustration for therapists. Many
therapists have complained that several questions have
little or nothing to do with bodywork. Others have
indicated they believe the test is biased. I'll give you
an example. One of our readers wrote to us and said the
"Some of its current questions are inaccurate; others
confusing; some amazingly simple; a few
incomprehensively difficult; and a few questions promote
modalities. One of the questions I had to answer when I
took the test:
Which is the most effective form of stretching?
D- Active Isolated Stretching (which is trademarked)
There is no right answer to the above question; it
was chosen to promote a stretching modality."
What, if anything, is the NCBTMB doing to address these
types of complaints?
GA: The exam questions are created by people
called in specifically to write questions - subject
matter experts. The questions are researched and
referenced so that each one has at least two - and it
might be three - references to books or other articles
that support the answer, then those questions become
Where we have 160 questions on the exam, 150 of them
are actually graded. The remaining 10 questions are beta
tested for clarity, consistency, and to be sure that
they are clearly understood by the population taking
them to determine whether there needs to be some
additional tweaking or clarification before they become
test questions that are actually graded. I know the
questions go through quite a process before they are
included in an exam.
When I took my exam, I remember thinking on some
questions, "I've never heard of this before," but I
could usually rule out a couple of the answers and then
use my critical thinking in making the determination
based on the education I have as to the most logical
answer to that question.
MT: Do you think there is room to
improve some of the questions on the exam as it stands
GA: Everything can always stand for
improvement. To say that there is no room for
improvement would be incorrect; if I said there is room
for improvement, I don't want it to be thought that we
feel our test is faulty in any way. I think that it is
very representative of - to tie into the job task
analysis - the information that we have gathered from
MT: So, are you satisfied with the test
as it stands?
GA: Yes, I am.
MT: I have spoken to readers who have
expressed dissatisfaction with how the NCBTMB serves the
profession. We've heard that the NCBTMB is notorious for
poor customer service, that calls are often not
responded to, that paperwork is lost over and over
again, etc. Do any recent and/or pending changes
specifically address this perceived shortcoming or does
the NCBTMB have any plans for improving its customer
GA: Yes. Customer service is something we are
adamant about getting a much better public image out
there. We have recently added more staff. The goal is to
cut our turnaround time to three weeks. Currently, it is
right at four weeks but that was before we brought in
additional staff, so that number should be coming back
down to three soon.
MT: Where do you see the NCBTMB in five
GA: I anticipate that we are going to stay on
the cutting edge of certification, still keeping our ear
to listening to our stakeholder groups because they are
very important to us, and we want them to know that we
have two-way communication, so that we can keep those
relationships strong and those alliances healthy.
The National Certification Board is very strong; we are
a unified group and are excited about the direction the
organization is going in as a stand-alone, as well as
our changes in the exams that are coming forward. We
have a lot on our plate, but it is not overwhelming or
too daunting for this board to address.
Interview with Judy Dean, Former NCBTMB Chair
Massage Today (MT): Elizabeth McIntyre
issued an open letter to the massage profession
questioning the now former election practices at the
NCBTMB. How do you feel about how the situation was
Judy Dean (JD): Ms. McIntyre originally shared
the letter of rejection from the NC during a board call
in late December. At that time, fellow board members
voiced their concerns and surprise regarding the
committee's decision. As chair, I informed the board
that further clarification was to occur between the NC
chair and Ms. McIntyre, and that individual board
members were not to become involved in the process, as
it could be interpreted as board interference or
strong-arming the nomination process. I was unaware of
Ms. McIntyre's further communication to the massage
community until I received a copy of [her] letter from a
fellow board member.
Components of Ms. McIntyre's letter did reflect a form
of campaigning, which is not permitted in the election
process, as well as allegations that my appointment of
the NC chair possibly influenced the committee's
decision. Once a chair of the NC is made, board members
are expected to step away from the process so that there
is no perception of influence or interference with the
process. Ms. McIntyre's sharing of her perceived
concerns outside "the walls" of the boardroom resulted
in a snowball effect in that a member of the Ethics
Committee took it upon herself to share the letter in a
massage therapy chat room Web site, and from there, to
additional media. This member also shared the private
e-mail addresses of all the board members so that chat
room members could contact us directly.
The response letters of support for Ms. McIntyre
reflected a reaction to inaccurate information presented
by Ms. McIntyre - namely, that not all the committee
members were nationally board certified or massage
therapists/bodyworkers. In fact, they were all
nationally certified. In addition, the comment that the
NC chair was a friend and colleague [of mine] was true,
but if investigated further it would have become known
that this individual was a fellow RN/board certified
massage therapist and we had worked together seven years
ago at a state university nursing school located in a
large Midwestern city, a good distance from my location
in Indiana. The NC chair was selected based on being an
individual highly regarded within the nursing and
massage therapy communities for her professional,
In hindsight, I should have delegated actions regarding
the NC to Chair-Elect Neal Barry, but at the time I
appointed the NC chair, I had no intent of submitting my
name for consideration for the election slate. As NCBTMB
board dynamics changed, so did my decision to submit my
name for consideration. This decision occurred in
mid-September, not in May when the committee was
MT: Did Elizabeth request information
about the election process for several months prior to
taking action? To your knowledge, what were her concerns
related to the election process?
JD: Shortly after I became chair in May 2004,
Ms. McIntyre shared concerns that election guidelines
and criteria for the public member were not specific
enough; she also asked fellow board members to identify
those attributes needed by public members. At that time,
Ms. McIntyre did not mention any concern regarding the
criteria for slate selection for board members.
It is important to note that the previous Leadership
Development Committee, of which the NC was a component,
had ceased functioning at the May 2004 board meeting due
to both co-chairs and members resigning because of their
limited abilities to devote time and energy to the
committee. In order to meet the deadlines for the
election process, a Leadership Development Task force
led by a newly elected board member, was initiated to
assess the needs of the board and develop a process
whereby a more comprehensive leadership development
process could be put into place. This new approach to
leadership development was not fully developed and
presented until Jan. 2005 and, therefore, was not in
place for use by the NC. The guidelines the NC used were
those of the previous year, which had not created any
concerns or problems. But Ms. McIntyre felt that the NC
members were ill prepared, as they had no previous
interaction and exposure to the board and could not
fully assess and evaluate the needs of the board.
Maybe more attention should have been given to the
initial concerns of the public member criteria, but at
the time there were many more pressing issues impacting
future NCBTMB directions; however, I take full
responsibility for any shortcomings in this area.
MT: One of McIntyre's complaints was
that the names of the NC members were kept confidential.
What was the reason for this?
JD: Once the NC is in place, it is the
directive that all board members are to distance
themselves from any involvement so that any perceived or
actual influence will not occur. I am not aware of who
told Ms. McIntyre that the names were unavailable, which
may have been due to protecting the committee members
from being harassed or quizzed by potential candidates.
Ms. McIntyre did state that as a board member she had
the right to know who was on the committee, but again,
as a potential candidate, any contact by her with the
committee members may have been seen as undue influence.
Ms. McIntyre did state that when she heard that the
individual she recommended for consideration as a public
member was not selected, she contacted the chair of the
NC and asked why this occurred.
MT: Was there any conclusive evidence
to support McIntyre's allegations of unfair election
JD: Any time activities of the board or its
members become questionable, it is imperative for the
board to respond and investigate. The nomination process
was discussed at a board call; it was suggested that the
board hear the NC's side of the story but the majority
of the board rejected this option. In addition, there
was a question posed wondering if Ms. McIntyre had been
selected, would this situation still have occurred?
There was no conclusive evidence that a conflict of
interest was present regarding myself or the selection
of the NC chair.
It was noted that committee members recused themselves
from any discussion regarding individuals they knew. In
a recent (early March) conversation with the former NC
chair, she reiterated that the members took their
responsibilities very seriously and were committed to
submitting names of those individuals who would best
serve the profession and bring additional talents to the
MT: To your knowledge, were there flaws
in Elizabeth's application that would have kept her off
JD: Ms. McIntyre's application process was no
different than others that applied for consideration.
Any flaws reflected either in the application or
interviews are confidential within the NC. This
information is never shared outside the parameters of
the committee structure; I am unable to comment on any
flaws, as I and other board members were never privy to
MT: Do you believe McIntyre is fit to
continue for another term on the board?
JD: Each board member brings positive
attributes to the table that, when utilized to the
fullest, can bring about positive forward movement to
the organization. Unfortunately, less-than positive
behaviors are also included. As chair, it was my
responsibility to assess and utilize all those positive
talents in achieving various goals. Ms. McIntyre was
chosen to chair two task force activities based on her
abilities to organize, assess and deliver the results in
a timely manner.
Is she fit to continue for another term? That is a moot
point. My departure from the board, as well as Mr.
Barry's resignation, opened the door for Ms. McIntyre to
become chair-elect, bypass the nomination process,
bypass the election process via certificant votes, and
be assured additional time on the board with the
subsequent position to chair.
MT: You and Neal Barry resigned your
positions as chair and chair-elect at the same time. An
NCBTMB press release cited "personal reasons" for the
departures. Did your resignations have to do with the
events of Elizabeth McIntyre? Is there a "real" story
behind the resignations?
JD: Any decision affecting my personal, family
or professional life is seldom based on just one factor.
The decision to resign from the board and my withdrawal
from the election process primarily resulted from a
long-term and increasing challenge of compromised
mobility in my ambulation. I determined that an improved
quality-of-life needed my full attention, and this took
precedence over further volunteer activities.
I also assessed the amount of energy and time (16-20
hours per week) that I spent as chair over eight to nine
months and determined that my energy would best be
served if allocated to my needs, rather than a board
whose dynamics had changed related to its direction,
interpretation of its mission and blurring of the roles
of board members; a board who was constantly responding
with either a form of management by crisis or inertia of
decisions; where communication styles often impeded
progress of timely decisions; where the board was
without the consistent support of an executive director;
where a lack of trust for the duly elected board
officers was stated by several board members; and where
there was an inconsistent utilization of a
knowledge-based, decision-making process.
These factors, in addition to my own personal health
care needs and family responsibilities, formulated my
decision to submit a full resignation rather than share
my time and energy addressing the challenges faced by
the board at that time. Mr. Barry's resignation occurred
two days following mine. I am unable to respond as to
MT: In developing the new exam
eligibility requirements to be implemented on June 1,
NCBTMB surveyed 500 nationally certified massage
therapists. If there are 100,000 massage therapists
nationally, this number represents only 0.005 percent of
the massage therapy population. If only 500 therapists
were polled for the entire profession, isn't that a
small sample of therapists to create widespread
eligibility requirements for the entire profession?
JD: I would agree that 500 surveyed massage
therapists appear to be a small number. In discussing
this with the former director of certification, it was
explained that even if larger numbers had been used, the
end result would have been the same - the only
difference was in the number of responses.
For example, a question is asked of 500 people and 90
percent responded with the same interpretation; the same
question is asked of 1,000 individuals and 90 percent of
them responded with the same interpretation. It's the
small number that gets your attention. Although
thousands of surveys were mailed, only 500+ completed
surveys were returned. That in itself says a lot.
It has been argued that only faculty should be surveyed
since they teach what beginning practitioners need to
know, but in essence, NCBTMB surveys those who are
actually at the table, those practitioners who see
clients on a regular basis; those who - as we used to
say in nursing - are "in the trenches."
MT: Are you satisfied that the new
eligibility requirements are appropriate and fitting to
the process of certification?
JD: Massage therapists/bodyworkers provide
services to consumers who present with myriad of
pre-existing physical conditions. Today's consumer is
usually well-educated in his/her desire for an adjunct
to his/her current health care regimen or a stand-alone
service. It is imperative that practitioners know the
usual and customary contraindications, but the consumer
also expects the therapist to have some knowledge of
their particular challenge. Therefore, increased hours
in A & P, pathology, and business ethics make for a
Others will argue that therapists employed in spas
and those providing relaxation massages do not need
additional educational preparation. Well, prove to me
that all clients using spa services do not have
physical/medical challenges. Regardless of where one
practices, an educationally prepared graduate makes for
increased credibility with consumers, regulators and
members of other health care professions.
MT: Where do you hope to see the NCBTMB
in the next five years?
JD: My thoughts go beyond a five-year plan.
Given the expansion in the number of massage therapists/bodyworkers,
the following would be my desire:
1) The development of a national core curriculum to
reflect the expansion of both the scope-of-practice and
diversity of services provided. This means an increase
in the number of education hours or the development of
an across-the-board competency based education. The
basic educational program would provide a solid
infrastructure on which the practitioner would build
advanced education to specialize in whatever area
2) The movement of educational programs into an
associate's degree/undergraduate degree format, possibly
through alignment with current privately owned programs,
and the movement away from corporate-owned schools;
3) All states would have licensure and practice acts
reflecting the profession;
4) Each state would have its own separate board of
5) The development of a consortium of all state
massage boards, which would develop a national exam to
be used by all states as a measure of minimal safe
6) The eventual removal of the tie between national
certification and licensure to practice at the state
7) A return to the voluntary approach to national
board certification, as seen in other health care
8) Board certification for faculty members,
administrators and researchers. Their areas of expertise
are not tableside and should not be evaluated using the
same criteria as hands-on practitioners;
9) That NCBTMB actively pursue a collaborative
dialogue with Canada, Europe and South America in
developing an international certification program.
MT: And what are your plans for the future
and your career?
JD: My personal plans are to spend more time
with family and friends, and develop strategies to
reopen and expand my private massage therapy and
hypnosis practice. Professionally, I will revisit career
goals I established seven years ago when I left the
academic world of nursing education. I may again return
to areas of my expertise - health care, continuing
education consulting, or the speakers' circuit for
presentations on the integration of CAM and nursing. Or,
I may just enjoy the role of student again...so many
options, so little time.
MT: Any other comments?
JD: As I stated in my resignation letter to
the board, I wish them well in their individual and
collective efforts as they implement positive strategies
that will affect the future of the NCBTMB.
* * *
To contact the NCBTMB with questions, comments, or
suggestions for improvement, readers are asked to direct
communication to the attention of the "chair of the
For more information about the NCBTMB, visit