Why is this on CAUT? Barbara Richmond ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Roberts" <kpiano@goldrush.com> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed? >I agree with you wholeheartedly Richard. I was told by an esteemed RPT that > no one knows what a RPT is. I find that true. Most of my clients think we > are all piano TUNERS. Marketing what we have and adding only one or two > more > classifications that are also marketable would be the way to go, in my > opinion. > Why would I become a RPT if I have to market it myself? I can make up all > kinds of fancy sounding titles and no one is going to know the difference > except the guy across town who has the real one. If I have better > marketing > I will run him out of business if there isn't enough for two. > > Keith Roberts > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard West" <rwest1@unl.edu> > To: "CAUT >> College and University Technicians" <caut@ptg.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:15 AM > Subject: [CAUT] Re: [PTG-L] Clarity needed? > > >> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC