On May 11, 2010, at 6:18 AM, JIMRPT at aol.com wrote: > As I understand it the only thing submitted to the Board were done > so as fait acompli.... I don't know this for a fact as I am not > privy to CAUT COM/BOARD communications. If this is so there must > have been little chance for Board to offer guidance. The cautcom list included as subscribers the executive board and the board liaison to the caut committee (Larry Messerly this year) as well as Michael Reiter (at our request). I believe that members of the by- laws committee were also subscribed. So, shall we say, lots of people had an opportunity to lurk, listen, see what we wrote to one another. And, had anyone wanted to, they could have offered input. By-laws people did. There was zero participation/input from the board with the exception of Messerly. I have no desire to get into a blame match, but I do want to set the record straight. The endorsement was not a cautcom initiative in the first place. It was a committee charge given us three years ago. We spent a lot of time and energy working on it. Personally, I have spent all the time and energy I am willing to spend working on it (as a formal credential). If the organization wants to created additional credentials beyond RPT, that needs to be clearly established and decided. We thought it had been established through the long range plan. Apparently the current board has had second thoughts. We have acted as a "stalking horse" for the organization, presenting a possible additional credential, working through some of the issues involved. It's up to council to decide whether to pursue this direction further or not. And up to the board to decide whether or not to provide leadership in this direction. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100511/a5e8ddb5/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC