membership
Raise the Voting Paddles! APHL Extends
Membership Benefits
by Linette Granen, MT(ASCP)DLM, director, Membership and Marketing
E
ighteen years ago, the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors (ASTPHLD) acquired a new name, the Association of Public
Health Laboratories (APHL), and a mandate to serve all laboratory professionals at state public health laboratories. This change was the impetus for others
directed to making APHL a more inclusive organization. In 2016, this process culminated in a vote by APHL members to extend full membership rights to
local and associate institutional members. For the first time, local public health, agricultural, environmental and food safety laboratories could raise their paddles
to vote at the annual APHL membership meeting along with their state colleagues.
One of the champions of this cultural transformation is Tamara S. Theisen, BS, MT(ASCP), Laboratory Services Division director for the Saginaw County Department of
Public Health and recently elected co-chair of the Local Laboratory Committee. Tammy shared her perspective on the significance of the 2016 vote in a recent interview.
What does the achievement of full membership status mean for local
and associate institutional members?
Going forward, how can APHL support local and associate
institutional members?
To me, it means that our colleagues have recognized the contributions of
local and associate institutional members and shown that they value our
participation as full partners in the association. And this change will benefit all
of us. It will strengthen information exchange and collaboration among labs of
all sizes and types, making the public health laboratory system more efficient
and responsive.
Since workforce development is such a critical issue for public health
laboratories, APHL can encourage labs to share expertise and training
resources. Training is a huge benefit to local labs, which often have negligible
funds for this purpose. APHL also can help states with laboratory facilities
at both the state and local level to improve collaboration and identify
opportunities for joint initiatives. Perhaps state and local labs could pursue
some funding opportunities jointly. Now there’s a radical idea!
Tell us about your role in strengthening the position of local and associate
institutional member laboratories within APHL.
First, I want to emphasize that I am only one of the many APHL members
who have worked to expand APHL membership. There’s too many to mention
names, but my thanks to all, including those on the board of directors and
committees which, by the way, now include representatives from local and
associate institutional labs.
I became involved in APHL in 2004 when Dr. Ming Chang recruited me to serve
on what was then the Data, Information and Survey Committee. In committee
meetings, I found myself asking, “Does this apply to local labs?” and “What
about the locals?” When I joined the board three years ago, the issue of voting
rights had come to the fore after Dan Rice, who was then director of the New
York State Food Laboratory, ran for president. Under the old bylaws, his own
constituents couldn’t vote for him. So I continued to ask questions!
APHL also can help local and associate institutional members to communicate
the value of our work to decision makers. APHL’s new ROI tool will be a great
asset to labs in demonstrating our worth. I’m a member of the group testing it,
and I can’t wait for the database to expand so that the tool can be applied to
smaller institutions like my own.
You sound optimistic about the future of the association and
its members.
Yes, I am. Over time, new opportunities will emerge as a result of this decision
to equalize members’ standing in APHL. I look forward to each and every one.
Local lab representatives hold their voting paddles from the APHL Member meeting
28
LAB MATTERS Summer 2016
PublicHealthLabs
@APHL
APHL.org