Gee Bill, I was for it, but I was against it, but I supported it… well that’s your recollection to be sure. And I’m not clear on why the history of my support is so important. I always have doubted that there should be an RPT component to this CAUT-E endorsement. I was willing to consider it, but I did not and do not believe it will fly now. Yes I even voted for it (a simple confirmation vote of the proposal) in the Board room because CAUT was so adamant that it was necessary. So we tried that. At this point I’m sure that it is not good for additional certifications and that is because of the response at last year’s Council. I still think we must have gone to different meetings together. Do you not remember Larry Lobel and Jack Wyatt speaking? Have you not listened to Kent Swafford and Dale Probst. I’m afraid that you will learn about conjecture the hard way. I believe what you intend is that the proposal would get more support with an RPT prerequisite component. I’m sure that it won’t. The main agreement for this came from Bylaws Com and CAUT com, not the Board, and I must admit that at that time the floundering (in regards to additional certifications) Board wasn’t sure which way to go. (I don’t see much future in the blame game.) I would welcome your documentation to the contrary. I’m sure you must recall me telling you the very same thing last year before Council that I am telling you this year, RPT will not fly as a component. Last year I might have been happy to have been wrong, but I wasn’t, and this year I will be happy to be right because I have come to realize that the important issue is that further certifications be open to ALL members. I have never said that this is the opinion of the PTG Executive Board, just my own, others who I have named and the will of Council. Actually I should say that some of those named just don’t want the RPT component included in this endorsement. Or maybe some of them don’t want any additional certifications at this point. You can blame that on sloppy presentation or leadership or whatever but it should not be surprising at this stage. As for what you say we agree on you are 100% correct. And thank goodness for that. You have made an accurate statement regarding the three things that we do agree on. It’s really a good thing that we’re on the same side on the big things, and it’s a shame that you remain so blind and obstinate on the details. I think this has been a good airing and I promise all that this is the end for me and this debate. We’ll see what we will see in Vegas. Chris Solliday From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Bdshull at aol.com Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 4:50 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement Requirements Misperception - was Preaching to the... Hi Chris, I only have a few moments but this deserves a response.... Neither of us know whether the RPT prerequisite would get more support if dropped. That is conjecture, either way. But.... The RPT prerequisite for the CAUT Endorsement is a longstanding element the proposal from the beginning which was especially strongly insisted on by bylaws, and if my memory serves correctly, after extensive discussion you supported the RPT pre-requisite. Since then you have often taken the position you're taking now. Early on the CAUT Committee considered your idea - it was open to your suggestion - and the direction from board was for the RPT prerequisite. (I have the correspondence on this.) And as I said, bylaws has been clear about this too. In board LRP planning we considered that while there may be certifications which would not include the RPT as a pre-requisite, the CAUT Endorsement needed the RPT, and would support RPT marketing. That was part of the strength of the proposal, as long as it remained fairly simple and attainable. The relative merits of your argument aside, a decision was made for the RPT pre-requisite, with which you agreed to support, and have since strongly opposed. What you have to deal with in your position is to persuade RPTs to support a certification which stands alongside of the RPT (setting aside the "ubertech" argument, which doesn't go away either way, we NEED highly skilled, topline techs in the trade, what's wrong with acknowledging that?). I believe that if we were to separately award a CAUT Endorsement it should pick up the RPT along the way. There's no reason we couldn't design the certification that way. Anyone who is CAUT-E should have the skills and knowledge to be franchised. The organization needs these techs, and they need the PTG. And "brand dilution" cuts both ways. And yes, it seemed obvious from what he wrote that Jeff was arguing from a position which assumed that the CAUT Endorsement required advanced training and coursework in all or most of the specified areas, when all that is required is the RPT and passing a written test set. (And the simplicity of this proposal really does allay any fears of "ubertech.") Where you and I agree (may I be so presumptuous? :) ) is in the value of additional certifications in the PTG, the value of some kind of CAUT Endorsement, and in the importance of marketing the RPT. Maybe we can't agree on anything else...but is that an accurate statement? Trying, here.... If this was the dealbreaker for the board, it isn't clear in the board's opinion. And if it was, why didn't the board say so before any deadlines? It might be helpful if you were to flesh out your ideas so that we could see an alternative proposal reflecting them. This wasn't short, after all.... I didn't cover everything you wrote, but now I'm late...gotta go! Bill In a message dated 5/14/2010 1:01:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, csolliday at rcn.com writes: Bill, Well if it is SO easy, then just drop the RPT requirement and you will find a great deal more support. The RPT franchise can be marketed to institutions on its own merit. Of course there will be a few of your supporters who will disagree, but we must look for a way for the whole organization to participate in additional certifications. In fact just to get the record straight all additional certifications should be open to ALL PTG members. Then it IS as simple as taking some courses and some written tests. (It was Kent Swafford who said, “I thought this would be simpler.” Or words to that ...) This gives us the universality and flexibility to distinguish those in other area of expertise who will not be tuners as well. And it would allow us to include those very well trained (factory and other) CAUTs who are not RPTs but might want to become so if not forced to. In the face of self interest and political reality please ask yourself why the RPTs who will be voting in council would vote to make a few of their rank RPTs plus, or uber techs, or whatever you want to call it when you build only on the RPT franchise. Franchise ownership is a separate issue. And a much bigger prize. Why would an RPT who does not do much or no institutional work agree to giving an RPT a larger status than he or she has? Drop the RPT component and the endorsement makes sense with a few tweaks. The elephant in the room is , the CAUT endorsement should be open to all, as we have been suggesting to you for quite some time. Continuing to put your head in the sand and continuing to recite what you hope might come true over and over is probably not going to work. I don’t think btw that Jeff Tanner is unfamiliar with the proposal as you would digress. You should have been listening to what he and others have been saying on this issue for years, then maybe you would be familiar with what is reasonable and possible within the PTG structure. It always amazes me when piano technicians don’t listen. Chris Solliday From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Bdshull at aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:37 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement Requirements Misperception - was Preaching to the Choir Hi, Jeff, Your last few posts lead me to think you are not familiar with the CAUT Endorsement proposal requirements, and it might be that others have this same misperception too. It would be easy, if one is to just read Regulations and Codes Article IV, to come to the conclusion that the CAUT Endorsement might only be attained by attending the CAUT Academy courses and taking the 4 written tests. However, this is a mis-read of the proposal. The core of the proposal is in bylaws. If you don't have the May supplement you may go to the PTG Page members area, and follow the links - resources, forms and documents, Council 2010, Organizational/LRP: http://www.ptg.org/members/docs/2010/2010_Council_Agenda_Section_4-Organizational-LRP.pdf The only requirements in order to obtain this endorsement are that one be a Registered Piano Technician, and that one pass a written test on CAUT-related subjects. The CAUT Endorsement is designed like a certification, similar to the RPT; preparation for it is not proscribed but a CAUT Academy is offered with comprehensive curriculum. This is similar to the RPT itself, where a variety of paths or combination thereof can lead to the CAUT Endorsement - trade schools, apprenticeships, the Randy Potter course, the PACE lessons. A CAUT Academy curriculum will be developed and offered, and each segment will be followed by written tests. This road to the CAUT Endorsement will be an incredible opportunity to master the knowledge and skills needed for college and university work. However, there are no proscribed courses to obtain the CAUT Endorsement in this proposal. I would expect that all of the excellent training programs - the Theodore Steinway Seminars, the Little Red Schoolhouse, etc, that you've referred to could be of use in preparing for the CAUT Endorsement, as they address many of the skills required in the college and university setting. These courses are limited in their applicant pool, while the PTG does not, and can not place anti-competitive restrictions on its certifications. Further, the CAUT Academy curriculum would be CAUT-comprehensive in nature, unlike anything else available. I would also expect that the CAUT Academy, specifically tailored to the college setting - and not manufacturer-specific - would be an ideal preparation for College and University work, as it will be taught by leading technicians in the field. The time may come when the PTG community would approve of additional testing beyond a written test, but the development of skills tests is a large project. Testing must meet a number of standards, and a process of beta-testing would also be required. Needless to say this has been the subject of considerable discussion in the committee, as well as in conversations with the board and bylaws. It was felt that this approach to CAUT Endorsement requirements would not be onerous or unachievable by qualified members (RPTs). The CAUT Endorsement testing would also provide the candidate with an assessment of areas needing further training or education. But there are only these two requirements - RPT status and the passing of a written test. I hope that you might see that this might satisfy your concerns. Some have considered this a "watered-down" and ineffective proposal, but your arguments actually make the case for the proposal as it is presented, not onerous, not complex, not unattainable, but still a reflection of a commitment to a certain knowledge base, as well as a commitment to continued growth and participation in the CAUT community. The curriculum component of this endorsement is voluntary. Even if the applicant doesn't attend the CAUT Academy, the curriculum is important in that it defines the skills and knowledge base needed for CAUT piano service, and should be an excellent source of CAUT-specific training and education. Anyone who hasn't studied the proposal should look over the curriculum ; they will see the wide range of areas the CAUT technician works in. At present it is only summarized in "regulations" as: The CAUT Workplace: Administrative topics. Concert Tuning and Preparations. Historic instrument Tuning and Maintenance Special Topics in Servicing Institutional Instruments A detailed outline of this curriculum title "Components of Endorsement" was provided last year to council, and I expect that similar supporting documentation in the form of of a beta Policy Handbook with a fleshed-out curriculum will be provided this year, too. Regards, Bill Bill Shull, RPT, M.Mus. CAUT Committee Member In a message dated 5/12/2010 3:23:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tannertuner at bellsouth.net writes: Yes, a certificate of merit from CAUT. Not a doctoral degree in every conceivable facet of the trade plus tangents into other trades. If nothing else, schools might also encourage their tech to attend Yamaha and Steinway training seminars, which the CAUT degree would not, could not recognize. And since there is no way for a CAUT endorsement to recognize other training programs considered highly respected and viable by university faculties and performing artists, it renders the PTG CAUT endorsement uncredible. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Ilvedson" <ilvey at sbcglobal.net> To: <tannertuner at bellsouth.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Preaching to the choir;was University of Idaho Piano Tech Vacancy > If schools want to do on the job training, that's what they'll do. They > do need to be aware of the talent pool out there and a certificate of > merit from CAUT could start their education. PTG/CAUT needs to be > bombarding music departments with this info. If nothing else, schools > might require their tech to attend classes with PTG... > > David Ilvedson, RPT > Pacifica, CA 94044 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100514/b4830bef/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC