Please disregard this message/thread. I mistakenly sent two copies, when I intended only to send to PTG-L. Sorry about that. Richard Barbara Richmond wrote: > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC