Statement?

[Bdshull@aol.com]

Michael,

I think it is a good idea for the Guidelines to include a section on the 
reporting structure.  However, the "ideal world scenario" sometimes doesn't 
work, so the Guidelines should include alternatives.  Some time back (maybe 
years) there was a post from a technician whose intractable, long term 
problems wer solved when administration placed the piano service personnel 
placed under facilities management/plant engineering.  The obvious 
similarities of activities helped considerable in the technician obtaining 
budget, parts, etc.  In this type of scenario the administrator who the tech 
reports to is in facilities, but a functional relationship with the music 
department exists.  There is a lot to recommend this.  The tech job is a 
little less politicized, the tech is respected as a professional, etc.    

Bill Shull, RPT
La Sierra University

In a message dated 4/23/02 5:54:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
jorge1ml@cmich.edu writes:

<< Hello,
     IMHO the "Guidelines" should in include the following or similar
 statement:
 
 "We strongly recommend piano technicians report exclusively to the
 department chair, director, or dean of music   Because the service is
 vital to the well being of the entire school, and must balance
 appropriately the needs of all constituencies, it should not be
 subjugated to a lesser authority.   This  helps to ensure that, as
 highly paid professionals, technician time and resources are used most
 wisely."
 
 
      I believe reporting structure is critical to our success, salary,
 status, growth,  and all other perks.   This conclusion is based on my
 experiences,  (17 years full-time at CMU, 4 years contracting two other
 universities, and growing up the son of a CAUT with thirty plus years at
 MSU).
 
 Comments?
 
 -Mike >>