Hello all, Since the list insists on continuing to discuss PTG political matters on this list (including some Board members) let me clear the air. The By-laws committee has recommended rejection of this proposal mainly because it is incomplete. It is a bunch of words on paper, but does not present any sort of proof that the CAUT committee either has the resources or the personnel to pull off this sort of an ambitious program. Council is essentially being asked to authorize the issuance of a credential by the PTG based on a bunch of promises. Among the things missing in the proposal are: 1. Any estimate of costs to the PTG 2. Any estimate of costs to individual participants 3. Any notion of available resources in terms of teachers 4. Any notion of qualifications for instructors and examiners 5. Any market research showing that there is sufficient interest on the part of the membership for such a program (given the costs involved). Fred Sturm's personal belief that there is such a market is insufficient reason for Council to commit the PTG to such an ambitious undertaking. 6. Any notion of what the exams are going to be like. Giving the committee a blank check to issue credentials or endorsements without any idea as to how they will be earned is not a good idea - something about pigs in pokes... 7. Any explanation of what the goals of this proposal are, whom it's aimed at and how it would benefit the PTG and its members. As far as item 7 is concerned - you see the proponents of this proposal disagreeing among themselves as to what they are after. If a proposal cannot provide to Council a clear set of goals - it is not ready for serious consideration. It seems that some of the things these people are after are quite different than was initially discussed by the framers of the proposal - so how do you expect Council to approve a proposal if you cannot provide a set of clearly stated goals? In my two stints on the By-laws committee, I have never seen any proposal presented with no explanation or statement of goals whatsoever - no matter how small or simple. Yet twice the CAUT committee has sent this complex proposal to by-laws with no such explanation. Both time the proposal was submitted right on the deadline - and the time frame being so tight, we had time to discuss and fix a few issues with the by-laws text (basically to clarify the proposal as it is) - and the time ran out before we could get to any more substantive issues, such as those listed above. So Jim Bryant is essentially right - this is the same proposal as last year, with some clarifications of text, but no substantive changes. I give credit to the CAUT committee for its cooperation and understanding in effecting those changes, but it was too little , too late. Jim Bryant is correct about another item. Had the CAUT Committee submitted quarterly proposals ass it was supposed to, many issues could have been discussed and resolved through the course of the year. Leaving it all to the last possible moment is what created the present situation - we ran out of time before we could deal with anything substantive. Some of these issues didn't even emerge in by-laws until a few days before our submission deadline. So, if we ignore the polemics being engaged in by one of the proposal's supporters (and I say quite frankly that with friends like this, the proposal needs no enemies) here is the conclusion of the By-laws committee report: "New credentials and endorsements should not be authorized by Council, nor should PTG resources be committed to an ambitious and labor-intensive program on the basis of plans and promises alone. Ambitious plans tend to get scaled down in the face of cold, hard reality, and premature approval could result in a program far inferior to that "sold" to Council. Council should encourage further work on this project -- but it should not enshrine it in the PTG bylaws until it is presented with the sort of evidence of the project's viability suggested above. *Bylaws committee also recommends *that Council consider passing a resolution, based on the above comments, encouraging further development of this proposal, instructing the CAUT committee that no proposal in this area is to be presented for Council consideration without adequate supporting materials, and listing such supporting materials." So, if Council does not kill this proposal outright and the proposal is sent back to the committee, a resolution will be presented to Council for approval, instructing the CAUT committee (or whoever takes on this idea next) not to bother it with any more by-laws revision proposals until they do their homework on the practical aspects of their proposal and present such supporting materials as listed above (and implement some other a bit more complex preliminary steps listed in the By-laws committee report.) Because what is being requested now is a blank-check approval for anything that the CAUT committee might concoct later in terms of exams, examiners, instructors, etc. The assessment of the by-laws committee basically that this proposal is not ready for serious consideration, since so many practical issues have not been dealt with. And seeing the direction taken by the discussion on this list tells me that the haven't even decided what it is they want to accomplish - one more reason not to approve it at this time. So, have fun discussing all the various ideas - this is very healthy and useful. Just please don't expect Council to approve this at this time - it isn't close to being ready for approval or implementation. It might be time of the PTG and its members to consider a very radical notion - these sort of issues should be thoroughly and widely discussed and somewhat settled BEFORE all kinds of time and effort is sunk into writing by-laws amendments - not after... Israel Stein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100514/f33947c6/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC