<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="Street"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="address"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space;-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> Jeff,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I’m beginning to understand better the PTG position of a CAUT Credential being for RPTs only. While personally I would like to involve non PTG CAUTs somehow I think it would be a fatal error for PTG to allow it. Once a “back door” is opened it can never be shut. (IMO)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This kind of reminds me of our border “problem”. Just a thought. No emails please.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Jim Busby BYU<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:31 AM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Job Opening, <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">U.</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Michigan</st1:PlaceName>, <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ann Arbor</st1:place></st1:City><o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> On Oct 9, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> Hi Jeff<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Steinway</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Training Schools</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, or schools like <st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Bennett Street</st1:address></st1: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.  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. <o:p></o:p> Yes indeed... I like this paragraph below.  Essentially... the RPT would become what it really is... a journeyman designation.  Masters designations in each specialized area  (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  certifications.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p> RicB<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> So, in essence, we can't do the right thing because we need your money to survive as an organization.<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> Jeff Tanner, RPT<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">South Carolina</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>