[CAUT] NASM review

[rwest1 at unl.edu]

Fred,

You're absolutely right, Fred.  NASM reviews can be a great  
opportunity that piano technicians shouldn't pass up.  If a director  
doesn't solicit input as to the state of the university instruments,  
a tech should provide a report.  It may be a way of not only getting  
more money, but of winning some credibility with administrators.

Richard West


On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>     Our last NASM review, I wrote an evaluation of the condition of  
> the
> pianos, and of its maintenance and replacement programs (the latter  
> being
> non-existent). I included in my report a recommendation for a rational
> on-going replacement program. This was done in collaboration with  
> my chair,
> and was submitted as part of the department's "self-evaluation." I  
> suggested
> to him that we take this approach to try to be evaluated as  
> "deficient" in
> this area, so that later we could use that as leverage with upper
> administration to get something done.
>     It worked like a charm. As a result, we got permission to  
> institute a
> student fee of $5 per credit hour on every music department class,  
> proceeds
> to go to piano replacement and maintenance. This happened after the  
> original
> proposal to have the university come up with such funds was quickly
> rejected.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
>
>
> On 10/16/07 12:37 PM, "Alan McCoy" <amccoy at mail.ewu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We are preparing for this review and I'd like to hear from anyone  
>> with
>> experience in this regard. Tips? Things you did that were  
>> effective? Things
>> you wish you had done?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> -- Alan McCoy, RPT
>> Eastern Washington University
>> amccoy at mail.ewu.edu
>> 509-359-4627
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>