As one of the first commenters on this topic, I've been greatly impressed by
the thoughtful comments provided by all.  I know many of you, and respect
your opinions.  However, I still believe that this move by the Board, for
whatever reason they made it (which we have only been able to second guess
since no polling of the membership was done before the decision), will
inevitably diminish the prestige and luster of the CRM designation.  I don't
know how you measure the effect, and I don't know how great the effect will
be, but I am convinced the effect will be negative rather than positive.  

As has been clearly pointed out by several commenters, this profession is
essentially learned through experience, not formal education.  Yes, you can
study certain aspects of it - management theory, technology, budgeting,
logistics, change management, etc. - but to put it all together and practice
well the art and science of records management requires DOING it over a
period of time. You can read all you want, but until you have compiled a
records inventory, written a records schedule and gotten it approved,
shelved out a records center, or set up an electronic recordkeeping system,
can you really claim to be an expert records manager?

So, Peter asked how does this change diminish the value of the CRM?  Gregg
Long said it well in his post - over time we will have more CRMs with less
actual experience.  Employers who hire these people will notice their
inexperience, and will likely conclude that the salary premium that they
awarded for the CRM designation was a poor investment.  When the next CRM
applies for a position - me, for example, with 24 years in records
management and 13 years of management and analytical experience before that
- the employer won't automatically assume that the CRM means I'm a good
candidate, worth more than the basic starting salary.  My resume might
impress him/her, but my credential - not so much as it might have before.
The value of the CRM for me, the job seeker, will have been diminished by
the employer's previous experience.

As William Lefevre and others have rightly pointed out, the Board members
and other volunteers work extremely hard for little tangible reward.  I
sincerely appreciate the work they do on behalf of the Institute and
members.  But I am disappointed that they took this action without
presenting it to the membership.  Just to make sure I didn't miss the memo,
I went back and checked the Spring edition of ProfessioNotes.  I found no
mention of this initiative to lower qualification standards among the list
of 12 Strategic Business Plan initiatives.  But I did find the following
quotes:

" I'm confident that our current certified records managers indeed value
their designation.  What's maybe more important is that their employers
understand and recognize the value of certification."

" The Certified Records Manager designation is one by which persons involved
in records and information management could be measured, accredited, and
recognized in accord with criteria of experience and knowledge established
by their peers. Our 36-year history of successful certification is one
recognized by many and valued by those that achieve it." 

" The Board of Regents will provide reports to the membership concerning
ICRM strategic initiatives, and I welcome your comments, suggestion or
questions."

Since this topic has generated so much interest and discussion, I think it
would be appropriate for the Board to provide a report to the membership on
this initiative.

Greg Schildmeyer, CRM
Jefferson City, MO/ Washington, DC

-----Original Message-----

Gregg M Long JD, CRM said:

The key point is that all three of these respected certifications require
substantial educational achievement in courses directly relating to their
practice prior to certification. Given the relative scarcity of formal
college and university based RIM education, this type of requirement would
not be practical for  the CRM. Which is what made the professional
experience portion of the CRM so vital. In my opinion the CRM was actually
better in some ways than these other professional accreditations, precisely
because it required substantial and varied professional experience, and not
just education.

Lowering entrance standards will equal more CRMs with less actual
experience, which will equal an overall devaluing of the certification. In
the exact same way that having a BA now means far far less than it did 30 to
40 years ago. 

As a CRM, I am also disappointed that the ICRM did not (to my knowledge) ask
for comments from CRM's prior to making this decision.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]