__A set of Criteria for MH Speakers__

I'll get to the bigger question you posed about who will take responsibility for Thorsten case studies etc.. in a moment.

Some other things came up for me through this discourse which I think are important to mention.

The main point being it's about a Speakers credibility to a newcomer 

A theoretical understanding of a subject does not denote the person speaking about the subject to be an expert or have the 'embodiment' to be credible to an onlooker

This has certainly been demonstrated to me and many of or students and colleagues have commented

In my opinion a speaker should be working with META-Health within a practice over at least 18-24 months and have embodiment which means that they have resolved some (2-3) health issues through use or application of META-Health and related methods.

Their healing experiences and client healing experiences would be useful information for both presentation to the general public and case study's (with permission) of course

These additional criteria I feel makes the potential speaker credible to an any onlooker and gives them confidence about as well as the pragmatic competence to discuss their experience from META perspectives

Of the three part questions you posed Thorsten

__Who will you do the Job?__

In my opinion there are more than one type of job role here and that's part of the problem when we don't have clearly defined roles with the associated duties and responsibilities

So in terms of case studies it should be the responsibility of the Master trainers to review and mark the case studies of their students no matter what level they are at.

Once master trainers are satisfied that their students case studies meet the IMMA standards for the level being presented the student should be responsible for the entry on to the IMMA database

this can be part of their criteria for qualifying as this supports their commitment to the IMMA
Also this reduces administrative burden while keeping a line of accountability ( although we would need to create a data entry policy)

In this way the master trainers represent and uphold IMMA standards and are responsible for ensuring the competency and qualification of all the levels of people who enrolled with them

This in my opinion is not the job for the certification committee or board as their role should be less tactical or operational more steering the IMMA Ship towards a brighter future by devising more intelligent strategies, systems, solutions and policies and inspiring the community

I guess the MT, MPExpert Level would be the only exceptions where the Standards committee would need oversight and the power to police where necessary

From my perspective an MPE should demonstrate methodological excellence in META-Health Analysis and Therapy and this should be demonstrated to the board practically

An MPE should not be specialised in specific area of health concern such as anxiety as this a significant movement back towards the organisation of clinical medicine with all the failings of reductionist approaches

Surely then there should be a MPE Trainer Level
I feel the current level being designated as expert is incongruent 

__The possibility of outsourcing evaluation __

This idea has potential although as you state it brings a question over IMMA Non-Profit Status

I wonder if the employment of a consultant on an external contract could work?

The other possibility (my favoured one) is that we make sure that trainers review and mark their own students work.

This also creates a feedback loop for the trainer to become clear about their students understanding and where there may be educational/ competency/ awareness gaps that need to be bridged.

This route also ensures that the Master trainer stays close to the students learning experience and helps with the ongoing improvement of course materials and training methods which can be shared back with the certification committee to create a training improvement feedback loop

__Review by META-Health Researchers?__

This proposal is interesting but the researcher level isn't appropriate for someone working in health care as researcher the title could be purely 
Academic in their interest

someone would also need to be an active consultant working with clients to have the pragmatic understanding of the fit between theory and its application in practice

So consultant researcher yes

But then we're talking about another level of META-Health professional

META-Health consultant who would have to be a master trainer and does research and develops the field of META-Health ummm

If you meant who will review the case studies for database entry this should be part of a marking schema policy for master trainers so they can advise their qualifying students as above

Master trainers have responsibility for the data entered by their students

So we would need to educate all master trainers so they can educate their student practitioners etc...

All the best