CaRVTA's October board meeting addressed a number of different matters. Among membership recruitment activities, the Board will be mailing a letter at the beginning of November to the many RVTs who may not be aware of our
accomplishments and goals. We are also researching membership cards that can be produced and e-mailed to members.
The Board discussed the ramifications of co-sponsoring events with other groups, so that
the CE provided would be accredited. We decided that we would most likely need to
charge other groups a small fee to cover the expenses involved in keeping the required
records. Board Members Sue Brodbeck and Jayne Camic volunteered to join the CE Task Force.
Board President Pam Maurer reported that the Association’s attorney has offered to write an on-going column for
our newsletter regarding legal issues of interest to members. It was agreed that the first
article should cover the topic of RVTs as Independent Contractors.
There was discussion about continued organization of the Strategic Planning Meeting to
give Board members an opportunity to meet in person and set short- and long-term goals.
It was agreed that the meeting should be held at a location convenient to an airport, most
likely in San Jose. We discussed inviting our attorney to review the proper operations
of a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization, as well as Rebecca Rose, CVT, from the Colorado CVT
association, to discuss how to grow our Association, and Caroline Andrew, MBA, our web developer and marketing
consultant, to discuss association marketing and social networking. The meeting would most likely be
held in April. There was discussion about trying to find a sponsor to help defray some of
the cost of the meeting.
Finally, CaRVTA’s Past President, Jennifer Boyle, submitted her resignation to the Board. The
Board is very grateful for all the hard work that Jennifer put in as a Board member and
President and wish her well.
CaRVTA Continues Working Toward Title Protection
At the October 2011 California Veterinary Medical Board meeting, the Title Protection Task Force, which consists of members of CaRVTA, CVMA and the
VMB, reported on its current progress. The Task Force had been asked to come up with regulations to further define the
language of Section 4839.5 of the Practice Act that states that,/p>
"No person shall use the
title registered veterinary technician or veterinary technician or any other words,
letters, or symbols, including, but not limited to, the abbreviation R.V.T., with the
intent to represent that person is authorized to act as a registered veterinary technician,
unless that person meets the requirements of Section 4839 (is actually an RVT).
lengthy discussion, Dr. Tom Kendall reported that the Task Force members unanimously agreed that no further
regulations were necessary, since the language of the statute was sufficiently clear. It
was also agreed that the real problem was one of education.
To that end, CaRVTA and CVMA agreed to educate their constituents that the
terms technician and tech should be used only to describe an RVT. The term unregistered assistant is awkward and never used. Task Force members agreed that the term veterinary assistant is more appropriate and
suggested that the term be changed in the Practice Act. The VMB voted to approve the
recommendations of the Task Force.
Micro chip bill SB702, sponsored by State Sen. Ted Lieu, passed both the California House and Senate only to be vetoed on Friday, Oct. 7, by Gov. Brown. The bill would have required that dogs and cats adopted or reclaimed by their owners from a shelter have a microchip implanted for future identification.
Sen. Lieu said in a statement in the Los Angeles Times that his legislation would save taxpayers millions of dollars. He noted that California shelters impound more than a million dogs and cats a year and euthanize about half of them, many because their owners are not found. "Sadly, this heartbreaking trend will continue," Lieu said.
Gov. Brown's veto message stated:
"Under current law, local agencies can—and should—require animals to be microchipped before being released. There is no need for state law to mandate the procedure, which would then require the state to pay for it."
The bill clearly states that the microchip cost would be covered in the adoption or impoundment fee at the shelters. In fact, these fees are already in place at all municipal shelters.