<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:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" 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 12 (filtered medium)">  <style>  </style>  </head> <body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Kendall:<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Well, I’d have to say you feel strongly about this.  3,438 words!  Wow!  (and no, I didn’t count them…that’s what software is for.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I’m responding to two of your messages all in one for economy of work and bandwidth.  In your second email of the evening you said:<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Is it really true that only RPT's with a current, paid up RPT certification card should be allowed tune people's pianos? ;-) .<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I admit,  I'm having a little trouble with this marketing concept. (-as are some other technicians I know. Tell me it isn't so.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I’m sure you were being facetious.  PTG can’t regulate who tunes anybody’s piano.  PTG does say that “we have tested the people who are RPTs and found they are competent to tune your piano.  The rest of the world might also be competent, we just have no way to know.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I’m also sure that since you think PTG’s method of determining who should have the RPT credential is flawed, you have a better way.  You didn’t mention what that might be.  Lots of what it shouldn’t be, but not what it should be.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Should PTG go back to the good-old-boy days “he passed some tests at one point so he’s got to be good.”  Organizations can’t run on random, ad hoc admissions policies.  Qualifications policies have to be clearly delineated and uniformly executed or chaos results.  Along with that chaos would come lawsuits from anyone who wasn’t similarly credentialed on past good deeds or good connections.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Kendall, your obvious intellect belies your illogical rant below.  PTG is not being arrogant in setting policies and sticking with them.  That’s the only way an organization of 4,000+ people can operate.  If the policies are wrong, join and work to change them.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Your post below sounded like PTG should either loosen up the credentialing criteria for everyone, or grant you an exception because of who you are.  I really can’t believe you meant either one.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Maybe I’m just 3,438 words confused.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> dp<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> David M. Porritt, RPT<o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:dporritt@smu.edu">dporritt@smu.edu</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Kendall Ross Bean Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:18 PM To: 'Ed Sutton'; 'College and University Technicians' Subject: Re: [CAUT] Thoughts on being a Guild member or "non-member."<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Dear Ed~<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I have enjoyed your posts on the listserves very much over the years and I sincerely appreciate your taking the time out from your busy schedule to address some of my concerns. <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I appreciate very much your input, and while I agree with much of what you say, I must most respectfully disagree with some of your ideas. As Jim Bryant once said "I always have a problem in disagreeing with a person I like and respect."  ;-)<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> By the way, I understand Karen (my wife) is writing you concerning your comments. Please be reassured that she has her opinions and I have mine. (-in other words, this is not like I am siccing my Rotweiler on you, although you may feel like it after she gets through! ;-).  You have my sympathies!)  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> In regards to your comments:<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 1) Thank you very much for the history and background. This very pertinent information would have helped me (and others) much more had it been posted on the CAUT info page, which I consulted before deciding to post. Often, because of the way sites are set up, and a lack of available guidelines about what is appropriate, it's: "make the mistakes, then we'll tell you what we expect." Oh well, I guess that's life. -no hard feelings. Also, I wasn't aware I was cross-posting every thought to both lists. As a matter of fact, I tried to make a concerted effort not to do this. If you take a closer look at my recent posts on both lists, I think you will see that, except perhaps for the subject titles and the initial post, they are quite different. But I do have more of a sense now for what is "expected" or appropriate behaviour, (even though I'm still not exactly sure what it is.)<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 2) Very eloquent indeed, and I agree with you about most of what you say here, except for what the most difficult problem facing the PTG is. The problems you enumerate are indeed happening; I have observed them from outside the PTG now, as well as inside. The problems definitely include the multiple  and conflicting standards by which young technicians are judging their own work, or their need for improvement, including but not limited to: a) customers who may not know what competence really means, and who tolerate low standards; and b) experienced technicians who seem to be doing quite well without the PTG. (It's possible, you know.)<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I agree that motivating people to a higher level of excellence is a major challenge, especially when Providence seems to be rewarding them for efforts which fall so short of the mark; or when "subaccomplished" technicians feel they are doing, or have done, enough, and asking them to do more is considered an imposition. (Young technicians are like that. Actually, come to think of it, older ones are too.)<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> In making the following remarks, I need to emphasize that I am not at all "against" the Guild. I respect the Guild for many of the wonderful things it does, and the wonderful members who give so generously of their time to help others. I experienced this firsthand when I was a member. The Guild has much to recommend it. These comments of mine that follow are given from the point of view of someone who has been both in the Guild, and outside of it, and who has spoken with those both inside, and out of the Guild. My hope is that these observations about how the Guild is perceived often by non-members, or former members who have chosen not to renew their membership, may be in some way helpful in understanding the feelings and thoughts of people who have difficulty seeing either how they have anything to offer the Guild, or how the Guild has anything to offer them. <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I would like to see the Guild succeed. I just perceive that many of the problems I see the Guild struggling with have been of its own making (this is true of most all organizations, in my experience). And I have noticed that many of the members of the Guild tend to refrain from practices or behaviors that the Guild seems to endorse, that they perceive would offend others or tend to alienate them, so I am aware that the Guild is still in the process of defining itself and its mission, and its processes and practices; a dynamic and adaptive organism, which is good.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> One of the real issues here, Ed, for me, and others, if you really want to know, is the implied punitive nature, and the double standard, behind retesting. Who must be retested? Basically those who are considered "delinquent" in paying their dues. The ones who regularly pay their dues do not have to retest. That's the double standard. (I have to admit, in our state, they do this with driver's licenses too. If you let your license expire (by not paying your "renewal" fees), then you have to take the driving test again, whether you need it or not.) To deny that there is a penalizing or punitive aspect to this system, designed to enforce compliance, is to deny reality. People who have their Guild dues (or their driver's license fees) paid up do not have to retake the test (even though maybe they should, as well). But I think that the insistence on retesting, or the revoking of RPT status, for non-payment of dues, is an inappropriate vehicle for encouraging compliance, and results in many other problems for the Guild, and a lot of "otherwise valuable" experienced technicians who leave the Guild or never renew their membership because they resent being treated like children. It also causes both the test and RPT status to be placed in the wrong light, as a reward or punishment (a behavior modification device, if you will). If everyone had to retest regularly, like airline pilots, it would be a different matter, and I don't think you would have all the problems with people not wanting to retest or rejoin because they felt they were being unfairly singled out or punished. They have already passed the test and achieved the RPT status, and you cannot deny that the Guild makes a big deal of that status. But then the Guild revokes the status over the issue of dues non-payment, which is sort of like using a cannon to swat a fly, or, if you don't accept that analogy, then it is raising the act of dues nonpayment (for whatever reason) to the level of a crime of moral turpitude. -You pick.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> And please do not discount or marginalize the amount of time, travel, preparation, effort and expense it takes to either test, or retest. If it were truly easy, I'm sure you would have many more technicians than you do flocking to the Guild. The truth is, young technicians usually have to have a lot of help and sponsorship in taking the tests, or few of them would succeed. As you get older, tests and retests are just a pain, and something that is really difficult to justify, based on all the other demands on your time. -Especially if you see little or no need for them. The RPT "basic skills" tests really only cover a tiny fraction of the subject matter (tuning, regulation, minor or local repairs) that regularly confronts those in the piano professions. Rebuilding, major repairs, refinishing, appraising,  piano moving, sales, purchasing, inspecting, assessing, bookkeeping, financing, and many other critical aspects of the piano business are simply not able to be addressed in this limited testing. Many of us do not spend the bulk of our time tuning or doing minor repairs and adjustments in the home, so the material in the test becomes less and less germane to our fields of endeavor. One serious question that needs to be asked as the Guild becomes more involved in different aspects of the piano world, is: how big a deal is RPT status and what is its true place in this organization? Think of all the Associate Members. Are they regularly pressured (I'm sorry, encouraged) to attain RPT status?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> There is a also a big difference between a technician who has seen the value of, and already passed a certain test, balking at having to retake it; and one who simply doesn't think he needs it in the first place. You ignore or overlook this distinction when you say that less accomplished technicians look at role models and say "why should I bother? -He doesn't," The first technician, who HAS taken the test (and passed), can still say to the younger tech, "you need to take it, and pass it, like I did (at least once.)" But to require people to take the same test over and over again, for purely punitive or compliance reasons, while letting others off the hook, is not something I can support. I know the Guild now encourages (or has in the past) voluntary retesting because of the new "modern" tests. You cannot deny that not having to retest has become essentially a form of reward for paying your dues on time, so you have no other recourse, with those who comply. You cannot compel them to take the new tests. You can only exert pressure.  The key operative word here I think, is voluntary, (as opposed to being compelled to retake, in order to be recognized by the PTG). <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> 3) You misunderstand what I meant by jumping through hoops. This means something that others require you to do that is either unnecessary, or perceived by the person made to jump through the hoops as being unnecessary. Allow me to elaborate:<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Based on what you have already said, you are no doubt aware that there are plenty of very competent piano tuners, technicians, and rebuilders who either have never belonged to the Guild, or who no longer belong to the Guild, because they perceive it is unnecessary, at their advanced stages of competency, to have to take "Basic Skills" tests, either for the first time, or over again. I mean, really, Ed, what message is the Guild sending when it takes this position that everyone must take their "Basic Tests?" You submit that these are basic skills, and indeed, imply that every technician worth his salt should have them. That's the problem, right there. Anyone who understands "basic" psychology should readily be able to see that no self-respecting tuner/technician who has been in business for years and is considered competent by his clientele is going to agree to take a test questioning whether he possesses these "basic" skills. It's assumed that he has them. (It's different of course for apprentices and beginners, (and technicians who don't know what they are doing) -for whom the test was really designed.) The problem arises when someone who has already "arrived," and their clientele and the public have also acknowledged that they have arrived, is "questioned" by the Guild in this way. This includes those who have already passed the the RPT test, and the Guild has acknowledged as "qualified", but whose membership has lapsed. To question, to require to submit to a test of "basic" skills, is to not recognize. Really. I don't care how you reframe this, this is the way that those advanced technicians, whose membership you are trying to solicit, think. You may say you are simply "confirming" those skills, but this is not how those technicians see it. And if, for some reason unrelated to competence, (say nervousness, or an unfamiliarity with the test process or requirements) they do not pass the test, does this really say anything about their competency or their skills, or simply that for some reason they could not comply with your requirements in the prescribed time? You see, it's really not so simple after all.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Until you try to understand the position of those you are trying to recruit into the Guild, or back into the Guild (whose skills and gifts you do need, by the way) and stop trying to convince them of the Guild's "irresistible" logic and position, I don't think you are going to get the results you desire. I humbly submit that you need to acknowledge that many of these sincere, and competent, and knowledgeable, and experienced technicians do have legitimate (to them) reasons for not wanting to become involved with either testing, retesting, or the Guild. Most of them, in my experience, have little or no animosity towards the Guild, and wish the Guild no harm. Many of them, indeed, would like to become involved in the cameraderie of an organization like the PTG: Being a piano technician can be pretty lonely at times. But what they perceive as the politics of, or the punitive and controlling aspects of the organization often scares them off. As long as you discount or marginalize their reasons, and simply focus on your own reasons that they should test or join, and ignore their legitimate objections or concerns, you will be alienating people you really don't want to. <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Sometimes simply acknowledging that someone else "has a good point", or that something is "a genuine problem" can go a long ways in winning them over. -If that's what you want to do. (Ever read Dale Carnegie? ;-).  )<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I hope you don't mind if I pose some hard questions for a moment, ones you may not have considered.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Recently a sincere individual on this listserve wrote me that he felt that becoming an "active RPT" and belonging to the PTG would be to my advantage in the marketplace as "we make further enroads marketing the RPT." I don't think he understood how this might be offensive to some people, especially to those who, for whatever reason may have decided not to belong to the Guild. He really had the best of intents, I am sure. Proselyting is one of the areas where many organizations get into hot water, because they do not initially understand how they are impacting others.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I think in "marketing" RPT "status" the Guild (or the individual members of the guild) need to be especially careful in how they characterize those who don't have, or no longer have this "status" - those who are not members of, or no longer members of, the Guild. As I said, in my experience, these folks are not necessarily animostic towards the Guild nor wish it harm in any way. They just want to be left alone to do their piano business in peace. Why should the Guild want to cause them harm by its "marketing" policies and practices? And yet it inadvertantly does. Does the fact that individuals don't belong to the Guild or have RPT status make them "inferior?" We all know that is downright silly. And yet that is one of the implications, the meta-messages, of "marketing RPT status".  <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Question: Does the Guild encourage those having their piano tuned to make sure and check whether the tuner has a paid up, current RPT card? Yes? Well, and then the Guild wonders why so many competent, established technicians don't join, or why some of them want nothing to do with the Guild. When the Guild behaves like this, effectively marginalizing those who don't belong to the Guild or who don't have a paid up dues card, what recourse do those outsiders have but to marginalize the Guild and its tests?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Churches, too, often inadvertantly offend potential converts by their proselyting behavior. They certainly don't mean to, in most cases. But offend they often do. "You need to belong to OUR church to go to heaven." or "You need to belong to our church or you won't get blessings." Instead of motivating people, this tends to turn them off.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> There has been some heated discussion on the listserves about some of Steinway's recent apparently exclusionary marketing tactics, as well. For a moment I would like to make some comparisons between some things I perceive that Steinway is currently doing, and some things I perceive the Guild doing. Just like I have for the Guild, I have a great respect for Steinway and it's history and, what I perceive to be its mission; and yet I see Steinway doing some things that baffle me, that seem like they might be counterproductive to what Steinway is trying to accomplish, at least in a public relations sense.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Is it true that only Steinways rebuilt at the Steinway Rebuilding Facility are valid? That only Steinways with 100% Genuine Steinway Parts are really Steinways? The question has been asked whether Steinway employees who are also Guild members can endorse these marketing tactics with a clear conscience. -Supposedly the Guild has different values. And yet the idea of  "Genuine Steinway" and "Genuine RPT"  seem uncomfortably similar. An organization that considers itself, at least in some areas, a public benefactor needs to be careful how it throws its weight around. Members, former members, and nonmembers alike are all subsets of the "public." Self-preservation is one thing. But self-preservation at the expense of others is something else entirely. Both the Guild and Steinways are members of, and dependent on, a larger community. Alienating members of that community can only cause problems down the line.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I see one of the problems as being that the Guild seems to be sending a mixed message. At the crux of the conflict: what exactly does RPT status represent? Is it an unselfish or selfless opportunity to better serve others, without recognition or reward other than the joy of a job well done; or is it a status symbol, carefully controlled, that can be used to enforce collection of dues and ultimately can be used to admit or deny an individual access to the piano community, regardless of their competence or qualifications? (-or maybe both!) I can't tell you how you perceive this issue, but I can tell you how I, and others who have found themselves outside the Guild and have shared their feelings with me, perceive things. And public perceptions are important. (That's why organizations like the Guild and Steinway have P.R. departments.)<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> What about this business of "active RPT"? (perhaps a poor choice of modifier). Does that mean I am an "inactive RPT"? Or just no longer an RPT at all, or anything even close? -Am I no longer able to do the things an RPT can, as far as piano servicing abilities? What exactly is the Guild trying to convey here? I really would like to know, because I do want to know how the Guild's "marketing" position impacts me and my business, and the businesses and livelihoods of those of my associates who are not members of the Guild, just like I am trying to become aware of how Steinway's latest exclusionary tactics are ultimately going to impact me and my business.  Does either the Guild or Steinway see how they may be alienating people by this exclusionary stance?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I think it would do the Guild well to try and clear up the confusion, and try and avoid the "us vs them" metaphors and implications, in advertising, marketing, recruiting, or wherever. (That goes for Steinway as well.) This type of competitiveness does not reflect well on the Guild, I feel. (Or Steinway). -Or win them friends. I really perceive the Guild as a cooperative endeavor, rather than one driven by competition. (At least it was when I first joined). Perhaps organizations sometimes mistake competition for self-preservation.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Just because a person does not belong to the Guild, does not mean he is an adversary, or the enemy. -Or is inferior in some way. (Or just because someone does not work at Steinway, or no longer works at Steinway, does not mean they are not qualified to rebuild Steinways). Unfortunately this is often what is inadvertantly communicated as a result of the process the Guild (or Steinway) has chosen to accomplish its mission. <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> My wife Karen, whom I admire very much, is fond of saying - "Sometimes the means we have chosen to solve a problem are also what's causing the problem."<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Based on what I know of the Guild and its core values, I really don't think it means to do this.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I might very much like to join you again. But I need to make sure that my friends and associates who are not members, and who may ultimately choose not to join the Guild, are not marginalized, discounted, or negatively impacted by some of the Guilds practices, especially as pertains to marketing "RPT," and itself.<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Sincerely~<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> ~Kendall Ross Bean<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> <div> PianoFinders<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <a href="http://www.pianofinders.com/" title="http://www.pianofinders.com">www.pianofinders.com</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> e-mail: <a href="mailto:kenbean@pianofinders.com" title="mailto:kenbean@pianofinders.com">kenbean@pianofinders.com</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Connecting Pianos and People<o:p></o:p> </div>  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center> </div> From: Ed Sutton [mailto:ed440@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:46 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Requirements for contributing/posting<o:p></o:p> <div> Kendall-<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 1) <a href="mailto:Pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech@ptg.org</a> was originally created by the College and University Technicians group as a way to discuss their issues and problems.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> It became very popular and heavily used, so the CAUTs decided to give Pianotech to the world at large, and to move their discussions to a new list serve, CAUT. When people cross-post every thought to both lists, it defeats the purpose of CAUT, which is to serve a dedicated community in a concise manner.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 2) As you know, piano technology is not a regulated profession in the USA, and many people take advantage of this to cheat the public with lousy work. PTG is based on the premise that we can become a voluntary self-regulating profession. Our most difficult problem is motivating less accomplished technicians to attain and demonstrate basic skills. "Why should I when all my customers know I'm competent?" "Why should I bother when somebody as great as So-and-So (everybody knows he's great) doesn't bother?" <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> By demonstrating willingness to be tested for basic competency, you motivate your younger colleagues to take competency seriously.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 3) Jumping through hoops? Do you think the exam skills are hoop jumping? They look to me like the basic skills we use every day to do professional work. Did your dentist jump through hoops...or perhaps take some exams to show basic knowledge of dentistry?<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> I hope you'll join us and contribute some of your skills and knowledge to the work of building and maintaining this wonderful craft.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Ed Sutton (RPT)<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> <div> ----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> From: <a href="mailto:kenbean@pacbell.net" title="kenbean@pacbell.net">Kendall Ross Bean</a> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> To: <a href="mailto:caut@ptg.org" title="caut@ptg.org">'College and University Technicians'</a> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:18 PM<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Requirements for contributing/posting<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> Dear Chris:<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> (Sigh.) <o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Must I join your club, and jump through all the hoops (RPT requalification), and become a bona fide CAUT, (and stay away from purely technical discussions!) in order to have anything of value to contribute?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Or can I by this point be considered to have achieved some degree of stature in the technical and musical communities, in spite of the apparent absence of such prima facie endorsements?  (i.e. - haven't I done enough already?)<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> (On the CAUT info page it says that CAUT is a "community service", and also that it is an "open list, allowing anyone to subscribe or submit posts." Did I somehow misunderstand?)<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Can't I just be a guest for now?<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> (It's okay, if my contributions are not pleasing or wanted I can go somewhere else... ...sniff... ;-)  )<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> ~Kendall Ross Bean<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> <div> PianoFinders<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <a href="http://www.pianofinders.com/" title="http://www.pianofinders.com">www.pianofinders.com</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> e-mail: <a href="mailto:kenbean@pianofinders.com" title="mailto:kenbean@pianofinders.com">kenbean@pianofinders.com</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Connecting Pianos and People<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> "The reward for jumping through hoops is... ...more hoops".<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </blockquote> </div> </body> </html>