<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Oct 9, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Hi Jeff</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">The below paragraph is to my mind very good thinking. I agree that the RPT designation is a basic skill designation and from the perspective and qualifiers you sketch below would be more then willing to put my John Henry to any vote for allowing Little Red School House, Steinway Training Schools, or schools like Bennett Street as good enough to bypass the test. Then, all these other classifications we've been tossing around, in and out of discussions... etc can suddenly find meaning... and quite a bit. As highly qualified specialists.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>And to boot the PTG could quite easily enhance its membership numbers by way of the inclusions under RPT you mention. This might also provide a means of resolving the associate issue once and for all to virtually everyones satisfaction.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Yes indeed... I like this paragraph below.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Essentially... the RPT would become what it really is... a journeyman designation.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Masters designations in each specialized area<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>(and I think the three you mention are a great starting point) could be made quite stiff to pass... and touted with certainty as dependable bonified<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>certifications.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Cheers</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">RicB</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Unfortunately, while it makes sense for endorsing a technician's skill level, it ain't so simple. The problem wouldn't be so much political as an issue of dues. PTG has a rule in place to keep RPTs from being able to achieve the status and then pay dues whenever the member wants to. Allowing other avenues to be recognized for RPT would severely complicate the dues thing and put PTG in an uncomfortable position of being able to predict how many members are going to choose to remain members this year.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>So, in essence, we can't do the right thing because we need your money to survive as an organization.</DIV><BR><BR><DIV> <SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>Jeff Tanner, RPT</DIV><DIV>University of South Carolina</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>