[CAUT] CAUT testing model

[Fred Sturm]

On 10/27/07 7:54 AM, "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net> wrote:

> So we have folks working for too often insultingly low wages
> (presumably to get the health care and retirement package?),
> attempting to maintain too many often marginal pianos with no
> parts budget or cooperation from the administration, working
> evenings, weekends, and before dawn tuning for every scheduled
> concert or recital, all the while stirring the political soup
> as gently as possible so as to not disturb the vegetables at
> the bottom of the bowl. It seems to me that the standard is
> already largely accepted. I've been reading some of this
> thread, and since there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus
> on testing criteria for Cauterizement, I think it's time to
> ask what exactly are the professional goals of a Caut that
> differ from any independent tech other than being more
> narrowly limited by the conditions of employment. Isn't Caut,
> like Rebuilder, or Tuner, a subset of Piano Technician? I
> don't see anything indicating that the technical skill set of
> the Caut is in any way different from that of any independent
> field tech other than the difference in the politics. So maybe
> the testing should consist of making the evaluation committee
> feel good about the condition of the test piano without doing
> anything at all to it, considering the lack of time and budget
> available for it's maintenance and repair. The tech that can
> do that is the one they're likely to hire, presuming he'll
> work all hours for the offered salary and benefits package.
> 
> Has any of you ever seen a monument to a committee?
> 
> Me either.
> Ron N
> 
Hi Ron,
    Setting aside the facetious elements of your post (they _were_
facetious, weren't they? <G>), I think we all agree that a caut is simply
another piano technician doing the same tasks, leaving organizational and
political skills aside (along with a few other specializations, that might
include chops to deal with "historic" instruments, some teaching duties,
etc.). There is heavier wear and there are higher expectations than for a
typical home piano, but this is not unique to caut.
    So why should caut be coming up with a full (or relatively full) set of
tests of skills and knowledge? The answer is that we shouldn't, if this were
a rational world. We would far prefer to piggyback on a set of higher
standards created elsewhere in the PTG, and simply concentrate on those
things that are specific to caut. Hmmm, how many years do you think we will
have to wait until such tests for higher standards have been developed and
enacted, and we can piggyback on them? There's the practical rub.
    I think we should be clear that this is an experimental opportunity for
PTG. We are a small subset of the organization creating some sort of skills
and knowledge testing, for a fairly narrow purpose. We see how that works.
Maybe it flops, in which case we are just out a bit of volunteer labor, and
hey, what's that worth <G>? But maybe we are at least partly successful. And
that could inspire the organization as a whole to believe that it is, in
fact, possible to make changes, to do some of the things that people say
"ought to be done" but haven't been able to make any headway with. We put
those ideas in our long range plans, then put to plan on the shelf and go
about our business.
    For the 26 years I've been in PTG, changes in testing have happened at
glacial speed. I could make a good case for "slower than glacial speed" in
the case of tuning testing. And the consensus in the organization seems to
be that it is impossible to change this. There is an apparent "permanent
gridlock." I guess I see this as an opportunity to break that gridlock in a
positive way.
    There may not be a clear consensus, but we may be able to develop at
least a modicum of consensus in at least a number of areas.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico