[CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed?

[Richard West]

I like your email, Jim.  It helped clarify my thinking, anyway.  Your
three items are no longer at the top of my priority list for change.
That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement.  I have just
come to accept certain things.

1. Testing - We have a workable test and a great crew administering it.
Change will take place.  The committee will hear suggestions and work
with them to either accept and use them, or reject them as unworkable. I
believe the testing system we have in place is working, at least well
enough for me to be willing to let it be for awhile.

2.  Associates - We have a category system that has remained unchanged
for over 20 years.  As far as I'm concerned it's a topic of discussion
because of a few disgruntled members who can't leave it alone.  I can
understand the sentiment to some extent, but I see this as going against
the inclusive spirit of PTG and the value that Associates bring to this
organization.  There has always existed a misdirected punitive
inclination in PTG.  Fortunately that has never been a dominant
attitude.  We would be better focused if we aimed at marketing the
RPT rather than diminishing the Associate classification.  I won't
say any more about that because the discussion of Associates winds up in
pointless debate over category options, most of which have been rejected
in Council. This discussion is akin to debating how many angels will fit
on the head of a pin.

3. Categories - I would like to see more internal categories, but I also
think that our efforts should be more directed to marketing the RPT. And
until that is done, multiple categories are of less importance. I agree
with Israel that a plethora of categories will only confuse the public.
  Also defining the qualifications for other categories will take a lot
of work.  The rebuilder category, for example, has already been
investigated and there have been a whole lot of problems defined.

Therefore, my priority list starts with marketing RPT and spending
some money to do that.  Second on the list would be to expand our
educational publications, top to bottom.  Revise PACE, develop a
piano service textbook, that is better than Reblitz, continue to
refine the PACE checklist,  etc., etc.  I think PTG is in a good
position to address both of these items.

We had an informal moritorium on categories a few years ago.  I would
expand that moritorium to testing and Associate bashing.

Richard West



On Feb 7, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Jim Busby wrote:

> List,
>
> You may choose to call the issues "problems" or, in my opinion, "ideas
> to strengthen PTG", but here is a "nutshell" of the issues as I see
> them; (If I missed something please let me know.)
>
> 1. Testing (CTEs, fees, reimbursements, etc.)
> 2. Associates (Name use, advertising, progress in guild, etc.)
> 3. Categories (Two, or more?)
>
> I don't want to sound too simplistic because I know each of these is a
> whole can-o-worms, but can't we come together on the fact that each of
> these issues should be addressed, separately?
>
> It seems that there are two definite camps; those who want change and
> those who either don't, or are at least reluctant to effect change.  
> This
> keeps an amount of "checks and balances" in place. It also seems  
> that we
> get bogged down in these discussions because we throw everything in  
> the
> pot together and this leads to endless 90 degree turns which lead us
> nowhere.
>
> I, for one, could live with PTG as it is, but would REALLY like to  
> seem
> more categories. Something to help the organizations to stretch out a
> bit.
>
> Jim Busby BYU
> _______________________________________________
> ptg-l list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/ptg-l