<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16681" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV>Dear Karen Lile-</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Perhaps the best route would be to take your concerns to your regional vice-president, Bill Shull.</DIV> <DIV>Another possibility would be to contact the Members' Rights committee (Bill could direct you on this.)</DIV> <DIV>Still another would be to ask your chapter to bring an amendment to Council next year.</DIV> <DIV>I don't know the history or logic of the by-law you are questioning. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ed Sutton</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: <A title=klile@pacbell.net href="mailto:klile@pacbell.net">Karen E. Lile</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">To: <A title=caut@ptg.org href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">caut@ptg.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 3:04 AM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Subject: [CAUT] Requirements for contributing/posting and RPT status</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV> Ed,<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> I sent this email July 11, 2008 at 12:15pm today, before the many posts that have happened since that time. Kendall had read this, but didn't know it hadn't been posted, so he referred to it and later wrote his long message on membership in the guild.   But, I didn't post this correctly and it didn't appear on the listserve.  So I am sending it again.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> First of all, let me introduce myself.  I am an associate member of the Piano Technician's Guild and also the wife of <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Kendall Ross Bean</st1:PersonName>, with whom you have been having this discussion. I am not a piano technician.  However, I hire many piano technicians through our business Piano Finders and am familiar with many of the issues from the perspective of needing to know what work I am paying for, what problems come  up, what standards need to be maintained and how the work of technicians keeps my clients happy and maintains our reputation for quality work as a business. I am also co-owner of Piano Finders and the web developer for the <A href="http://www.pianofinders.com/">http://www.PianoFinders.com</A> website that has now had over 30 million hits.   We have instructed our staff to on a daily basis to respond to emails from piano owners and refer them to Registered Piano Technicians of the Piano Technician Guild for services in locales where we can't offer the services personally and where we don't personally know the technicians we are referring business to, except by their RPT status.  You made a couple of comments that I wanted to respond to: <As you know, piano technology is not a regulated profession in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>, 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?"> Being a member of the Guild, I am aware of its interests  It is important for the PTG to meet its needs of recruiting new members, derive income for its survival from regularly paid dues and to maintain a public image that sets a standard for piano technicians and offers professional technicians incentives to test and keep their RPT status. As a non-profit organization, it also needs to provide public service to justify its tax-exempt status.   I can see that people on this listserve are very active in their recruiting efforts.   Personally, both Kendall and I appreciate the fact that the guild has created a standard and that it offers testing procedures to certify that an individual technician has achieved that standard.  Piano Finders doesn't aspire to compete with the guild by testing technicians ourselves.  In this world of the internet, we would encourage technicians who are interested in receiving our referrals to new clients, to take the tests and become RPTs.  This allows people who don't know their work personally, to trust in their basic competence enough to hire them.  And it reduces liability issues for us as a business, because we trust that the guild does its job in certifying technicians.<o:p></o:p> You also said to <st1:place w:st="on">Kendall</st1:place>.<o:p></o:p> <By demonstrating willingness to be tested for basic competency, you motivate your younger colleagues to take competency seriously.><o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> <st1:place w:st="on">Kendall</st1:place>, did take his RPT tests and passed them.  I was the one in charge of the finances, who did not catch the oversight of the dues going unpaid.   I was running a large rebuilding shop with many employees.  I was in my late 20's at the time and I made a mistake by not being more aware of what the bookkeeper had left undone.  (I am now 49 and have many years of business experience under my belt.) There was a policy change in the PTG. The rule that excluded <st1:place w:st="on">Kendall</st1:place> was not in place when he joined as a new member.  And we were not aware of it until after he was told he couldn't rejoin without re-testing.   <st1:place w:st="on">Kendall</st1:place> didn't even know the dues had been left unpaid, that was my responsibility and my error.   To give some perspective, at the time this all happened, back around 1990 or so,  <st1:place w:st="on">Kendall</st1:place> had already contributed much to the Guild, having given lectures at many chapters and having spent several  years giving back to others.   Our business was well established and his reputation was based upon the high quality of workmanship he provided.  We were members of the Better Business Bureau in good standing and had a no complaint record.  I think that it is a mistake for the guild to penalize well qualified technicians whose membership has lapsed for whatever reason.  Especially those who are at the stage in their career where their efforts in the guild are primarily giving back to the organization.  Doesn't the guild want those members contributions?  Why make them feel unwelcome?  I don't really see how that serves the guild's best interests.  By asking former members to retest, and not asking other members to retest who took the same tests as the former members, what is this saying about the RPTs tests?  Why is one test good for one member and not for another?  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I propose that if the PTG wants to continually upgrade its testing procedures, that it follow the example of another professional organization I belong to for the ballroom dance teachers profession.  I went through several years of training to be  prepared to pass tests and be certified by this professional organization.  Since the time that I took that initial tests, they came up with several modifications to their tests.  But, they don't require me, or any other certified professionals to take the new tests if we don't want to.  The way they handle having different tests is to say that I passed X test on X date.   People who take the later tests receive a certificate that says they passed Y test on Y date.  And all of us, no matter what test we took, hold equal status for that category of certification.  If our membership lapses, we don't have to retest for any reason.  Our work and accomplishments are recognized as valid and we are welcomed back into "the fold" of membership when we rejoin without any punitive measures being taken against us.  They want our contributions to the professional community.  Also, having us as members, they can also say "She/He is one of our members" when that professional makes significant contributions to the community.  If the PTG wants to recruit former members, I propose they look to their rules and proceedures first and see what modifications to those rules they can make to show those former RPT members that they are all appreciated and respected and that their contributions are welcome.   I don't think Kendall is asking to be treated as a special case here.  I think he is concerned for the many others he knows who have also been excluded from the PTG by this policy.  Knowing Kendall as I do, I don't think he would be happy receiving a benefit and having others not receive it as well, who are equally deserving.   Kendall is concerned for the good of the community and usually puts his own interests last.  If you read the page Kendall wrote on our website telling our clients where to find a good tuner, he recommends RPTs as good tuners.  <A href="http://www.pianofinders.com/faqs/servicefaq.htm#r2">http://www.pianofinders.com/faqs/servicefaq.htm#r2</A> .  He and I have both been contributing to the guild by promoting its tests and even though we disagree with the rules regarding retesting, we still publicly recognize the value of what the PTG does contribute and promote its RPTs to our several million website readers.   Karen Lile<o:p></o:p> Associate Member PTG <st1:place w:st="on">Golden Gate</st1:place> Chapter, CA<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p>PS.  I also realize that these comments and this discussion is probably beyond the scope of the intention of this list serve.  However, since these issues were brought up by you and others and they impact us, I felt the need to respond.   </o:p><o:p> </o:p></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>