Proposed changes to By-law No. 60 regarding annual registration fee

There should be no change as the current fee is already too high . Plus we have to pay for membership fee for sonography Canada and Ardms every year and liability insurance. Other areas of work for eg accountants get paid for their memberships and credentials by their employers which is not for majority of ultrasound technologists

After all ultrasound technologist were forced to enter CMRTO(2109) with no consultation and against our will, now the new CMRITO wants 37% increase in revenue ? I this a pyramid scam ? The PDF posted with other Ontario professional organizations is not relevant as you can not compare the registration fee of physicians pharmacist and other self employed, who by the way earn much more the us to our current fee. Also way even have CMRITO for ultrasound as we have Sonography Canada ???. No I am strongly against any rise of fee, actually we should decrease them below Sonography Canada fees as CMRITO do not offer any services ( accreditation exams CME insurance). And why we even need so many associations when we have a national one Sonography Canada. We should have only one association in Canada for each profession ( MRT thecnologist , Ultrasound, Physo ) same like the USA has ARDMS. By this I want to express my concern of how CMRITO had manage the finances (after absorbing without consent all ultrasounds technologist into association). Do we really need an office in downtown Toronto at top expenses or we need CME ? I wood like to see what was the result of activity of the Council members in the last 5 years that helps us do get better results in our daily work with the patients. In ultrasound since the 2019 i'we seen technologists without a valid vascular certification performing vascular exams in Ontario (that did not happened under Sonography Canada) as you guys asked an letter from employer signet by a physician what exams can the tech perform, and guess what? all clinics signed everything to their techs so that they can bill all exams. This I see this in the hospitals too. If all the quality of ultrasound went down in Ontario since we were absorbed by CMRTO ( I can tell you this as a senior US tech working in hospital for the last 20 years).

This is a very sharp increase. I think if you do need to raise the fee, to do so gradually. I feel with the fee going up so quickly, there will be many members that are on the fence of retiring, or who have come out of retirement, that will chose to not renew solely based on this fee. There could be many other professionals who are on the fence about switching careers or going back to school, and again will chose to not renew based solely on this fee. Because, why would they? This dramactic loss of MRTSs will only cause a financial loss to your organization as well to a profession that is already struggling to stay afloat. I know a lot of MRTs feel left out and jaded in this profession (from being denied front line pay in 2020 from the Ontario government, to always being mixed as nurses) this definitely feels like a slap in a face from an organization that is supposed to be protecting and promoting our profession.

Dear CMRTIO, Thank you for asking for our comments. I do not favour the proposed increase in the fee. With the growing inflation, where everything is shooting sky high. With the earnings at the same level and the expenses are way above your income. It is detrimental to increase another expense which will put a lot of mental pressure on the technicians and will discourage the new comers to step in this field as there is no set basic income bar for a technician. I don't donor favour the increase but would request CMRITI to look in this basic wage bar for technicians. Thanks,

By all respect, this increase of registration fee is way too much, and unbelievable, RN's and other healthcare professional related colleges don't ask for such registration fee, my comment to this increase is a absolute disagreement and a definitive NO. How much can I earn as a sonographer to pay a registration fee that high??????

I am a new grad and I am working on gathering money to buy my first home. It is awful news for me to pay more for CMRITO. I have to pay back my education loans. In general, I believe the price of the CMRITO registry is already high enough. there is no room for increasing it.

I strongly disagree with the proposed annual fee increase by CMRITO of 37%. This is a large increase within a one year span, especially for those with birthdays in January who now have very little time to save for the increase. CMRITO has provided little transparency as to where exactly this money needs to be allocated, as well as not shown proof of exhausting other alternatives for budgeting and cutting expenses before dumping this on the registrants. The cost of living is so high right now, with our wages not properly reflecting so. They have provided us a chart with other professional college fees, saying we are low on the chart. However, many of these colleges include: physicians, chiropractors, and dentist, who make much more money than CMRITO registrants. We are already very short staffed and burnout. We rely heavily on casual employees to help relieve this. I’m worried that many casuals may not renew in 2025 with CMRITO due to this increase. If this occurs, our health care system with crumble more than it already has. Please review alternative options for budgeting and expenses. Please consider a more reasonable increase of fees. This does not help registrants feel appreciated for all the hard work given over the last few years.

This "fee increase" is the most absurd and ridiculous proposal I have ever witnessed by an organization. I understand the various reasons why there may be a proposal to increase the fee, and with that being said, I would agree with an increase of $50 at most, but this big of a jump is ridiculous. I am not sure what the committee that is proposing this fee increase thinks we make as sonographers. Let me assure you, our salaries have barely gone up, and that too only for people that work in hospitals. Many of my colleagues and fellow sonographers that work in clinics are still being paid way below the standard and unfortunately since they can not find employment at a hospital, they are forced to live with that wage. I find this proposal a direct disrespect towards our hard work and dedication to this career. I am truly at a loss of words for how ridiculous this "fee increase" is. I would strongly suggest reconsidering, especially seeing how few and few people are interested in joining the field, and we are so shortstaffed and burnt out because of the increase in demands and heavy workload.

I could be very polite and respectfully ask you not to increase the fees but I am so outraged by this proposal that I feel it is impossible. Increasing the fees for an organization that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for us, sonographers, but "protects" the public from us, like we are a plague, is absolutely ridiculous. Sonographers are representatives of the most unappreciated medical profession! We need an organization that protects us from the public not vise versa! In current climate where there is a horrible shortage of medical professionals, do you not consider the fact that you will have no members left very soon if you continue on this path? What financial goals are you trying to accomplish? Please provide exactly where that additional 2.5 million dollars will go to after the increase! Why are we already paying so much? Please explain why there are no regulatory bodies with similar high fees in other provincies! Are we paying for living in Ontario as well? This 37% increase in fee proposal is devastating and disgusting. It comes directly from sonographers pockets. If you combine it with fees that we pay to other organizations, it comes up to a hefty sum we throw to the wind every year. How about this for a cost effective proposal that will help you reach your financial goals. Why dont you consider moving your headoffice from downtown Toronto to Whitby, or putting a stop to those useless audits you put health professionals through. We already have Sonography Canada, Accreditation Canada, and staff physicians that control our professional adequacy and integraty. I am so shocked by the shear nerve of this unfair proposal, and I encourage other sonographers to speak up not only about this crazy fee increase but also about CMRITO practices and usefulness!

How much do we earn to pay that much expensive fee? How ARDMS annual fee is only $95? While they are much more supportive and comprehensive. Unfortunately, CMRITO members, whenever I have contacted them, are so arrogant, rude, unsupportive, irresponsible, and selfish.

A $643 annual fee is absolutely ridiculous. $470 + HST is already too much. I'm a sonographer, and from a technologist's point of view, CMRITO does very little to help us in any way. They simply mandate proof of 25 hours of CME and have us fill out lengthy and bureaucratic forms every year., i.e. Jurisprudence, etc. They don't even offer liability insurance. We have to get liability insurance through Sonography Canada, another organization for which we have to pay annual fees. It seems CMRITO is geared toward and benefits the general public more than the technologists. If that's the case, funding should come from taxpayers not from the technologists who are simply trying to make a living. In 2021, CMRITO took in $4,737,326 and operated at a loss. If CMRITO can't operate on nearly 5 million dollars they should seriously look at their expenditures instead of looking to bilk more money out of their mandated registrants.

Dear Council Members of the College of Medical Radiation and Imaging Technologists of Ontario, I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed increase in the annual registration fee from $470 to $643, plus HST—a total of $726.59. This sharp 37% hike raises significant questions about the College's financial management and approach to fiscal responsibility. Questioning the Logic and Approach of the Finance Committee The Finance Committee has claimed that the partial rebate of fees in 2021 created a cataclysmic financial situation from which the College has never recovered. This statement is dramatic and inaccurate. According to the 2021 financials, the College ran a $400k deficit that year. However, this deficit was covered by the $3.05M held in reserves, which is precisely what reserves are for—to manage deficits without endangering the financial stability of the organization. The College’s target is to maintain cash reserves equal to 4.5 months of annual expenses. In 2021, the College had enough reserves to cover 9 months of operating expenses, far exceeding this target. The argument that the 2021 rebate caused a long-term financial crisis is an overstatement. While I am not personally in favor of the 2021 rebate, I do believe the College should disperse excess revenue from operations back to the membership on an annual basis. Without the membership, the College has no one to protect the public against—so we are, in essence, shareholders in a common interest, not debit cards for the College to use at will. Comparative Analysis: Value Proposition and HR Costs It’s important to examine these numbers in terms of the value proposition. We know the College employs individuals focused on protecting the public. However, when we divide the total human resource (HR) costs by the membership, we see the HR expenses incurred by the College to protect the public from each individual member. Based on your proposal, the College needs to spend $325.21 per registrant in HR costs to protect the public from me (or any individual member). Let’s compare this to our friends in the Laboratory and the Nursing Colleges: • Nurses are charged $269.39 in HR costs. • Laboratory technologists are charged $254.46. Is the public shield around medical radiation technologists that much larger? Am I considered more of a threat? The 14% rise in HR costs in a single year is not a result of inflation but rather mismanagement. Inflationary costs have not risen by such a large margin, and attributing this jump to inflation is misleading. I strongly suggest the Council direct management to cap HR expenses at $3.25M, aligning with the proportional HR spend of the College of Nurses, and focus on protecting the public in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. Exploring Revenue Opportunities: Lessons from Physiotherapy and Nursing Colleges When you examine the financial audited statements of the Physiotherapy and Nursing Colleges, they are performing better on the revenue side due to innovative and modern ideas. We rely on user fees and a little bit of interest (from the money I already gave you). • The Physiotherapy College administers its own credentialing exam and has sub-leased its space to generate additional revenue. • The Nursing College has monetized and modernized their credentialing exam process, reducing costs, increasing access, and improving timeliness to certification. Meanwhile, our exam process feels like processing X-ray films: first you wait, then you wait some more, and eventually you get the result. If it’s not the result you wanted, you face even more delays. As an administrator at a major hospital, I would prefer to hire people when they are ready to work—not be stuck waiting for an outdated exam process to conclude. Let’s take a cue from Nursing: • The NCLEX-RN exam can be written year-round at designated test centers. After the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO) determines eligibility, candidates receive an Authorization to Test (ATT) and can schedule their exam at their convenience. This modern approach improves efficiency, reduces waiting times, and ensures nurses can enter the workforce faster. The College has a narrow definition of protecting the public as seen through the RHPA. I think we do more harm to patient by having them wait for their Ultrasound, X-Ray, CT or MRI. You have an opportunity to build public trust in our profession and have decided to erode the trust of the very membership you serve. Financial Responsibility and Public Trust The College has a duty to protect the public interest, and sound financial management is central to this responsibility. The Council has failed to demonstrate adequate financial oversight. Despite growing revenues, expenses continue to rise unchecked, indicating mismanagement: • HR costs increased by 14% in one year, from $3.43M in 2022 to $3.92M in 2023. This rapid increase raises red flags about uncontrolled spending. • The decision to commit to a 10-year lease for office space, even though a virtual office model has been adopted, shows poor financial judgment. Maintaining high rent for underutilized office space is a significant financial drain. Financial stability must come from sound decision-making, not by shifting the burden of mismanagement onto registrants. Rising Revenues, Yet Continued Deficits Despite increasing revenues, the College reported a deficit of $212,791 in 2023. This is not due to a lack of income, but a result of poor financial management, as evidenced by escalating HR costs and unnecessary rental expenses. The College holds over $2.6M in reserves, with $1.86M restricted for emergencies. Yet, the decision to lock away a significant portion of funds without addressing current deficits reflects poor strategic planning. I challenge the College position of reserving 4.5 months of operating expenses into reserve to protect the financial stability of the organization. If the College were exposed to extreme financial risks or had an unpredictable annual revenues, this figure would be appropriate. However, we as registrants are mandated to pay our annual fees to the College and we are properly insured and legislatively protected from litigation under the purview of the RHPA. From a corporate risk perspective, the College is a safe bet. Reducing this number to 3.0 months is more in line with similar not-for-profit corporations. Also, historically, the College has held much more in reserve, which has allowed for the unchecked expense growth to occur year over year. I Am Not Your Wallet It is unacceptable to expect registrants to cover the cost of the College's poor financial decisions. As a registrant, I refuse to act as a financial lifeline for the College’s inability to manage its resources. The current proposal lacks a transparent, detailed justification, and I cannot support an increase that stems from wasteful spending, unchecked HR growth, and maintaining unnecessary office space. The Briefing Note presented to Council from the Finance Committee is littered with biased statements and focuses on a single solution. Alternatives are noted, but not transparently presented. This document needs to be redone in a more professional manner and should be circulated to others in the College who have the skills and judgment to help the College make the right decision. If I were chair of the Council, I would be sending this back to committee for more diligence. Call for Accountability: Health Workforce Regulatory Oversight Branch I formally request that the Health Workforce Regulatory Oversight Branch investigate the College's financial practices. As the regulatory body responsible for overseeing compliance with the Regulated Health Professions Act, the Oversight Branch should ensure that CMRITO’s financial mismanagement is not placing undue strain on both registrants and the public. The financial problems are not new and yet expenses have grown at double digits year-or-year. Council and the Registrar need government support and help before this mismanagement jeopardizes the public. Offer of Assistance Given the financial challenges facing the College, I offer my assistance in conducting a thorough review of its finances and operations at no cost. With my expertise, I aim to help the College balance its budget and achieve financial stability sooner, not by 2028. This review would ensure the College is making prudent financial decisions that protect the public while supporting its registrants. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I look forward to your response, one that demonstrates a commitment to responsible financial governance and thoughtful leadership. Kindly forward this to Council and publish on the feedback website. I attempted this, but exceeded the word limit. You have my permission to post my name as well. Sincerely,

I find it absolutely disgusting to anticipate this type of increase. At a time when families are truly struggling to make ends meet and to add an increase of more than 2% is unacceptable. As a worker whose employer won’t be receiving enough of wage increase to help support this change. There’s definitely needs to be a revamp of your system.

In this struggling economy a 37% increase in fees is absolutely unfair and putting our profession at risk with many registered techs leaving this field which in turn will affect patient care

WHAT SERVICE DO YOU GIVE TO US TO WARRENT SUCH A LARGE INCREASE. WE ARE BASICALLY PAYING YOU ALL A SALARY FOR NOTHING IN RETURN. THIS MASSIVR INCREASE IS A GIANT MONEY GRAB. WE SONOGRAPHERS BARELY HAD A RAISE. IF YOU WANT MONEY ASK FOR IT FROM THE TAX PAYERS NOT OUR AFTER TAX MONEY. IF YOUR EXPENSES ARE HIGH BECOME MORE EFFICIENT

Disappointed for increasing

It is not fair decision. My salary didn't increase even in 1 % but you want to increase it in 37%. How would you like your members to meet the ends and I am not talking about any financial stability. Please, re-consider your decision and take to an account very hard economical situation of your members. Thank you

I am against raising the fee. Unnecessary increase and a large increase at that. Already stressful to afford it and this would be an added stressor which is unecessary as we are essential worker. Also, this will make it more difficult to recruit others/new graduates when comparing to other provinces.

This proposed fee increase seems so high, especially considering how expensive the fee is already. Very disappointed that this is being proposed. I hope that CMRITO will make the decision that is in its members' best interest and leave the fee as it is.

This fee increase is far too high. It is unfair to expect members to increase our dues by this high of a percentage. This fee increase should not go forward.