<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Don, Bill, Fred, et al, Given the history of PTG categories, I hope that the title issue doesn't become a problem.  There could be a lot of good titles that would suit various insitutions better than others.   But for our Guidelines document we should pick one title that works for us but doesn't have to be the definitive title used by every institution.  We just need our term to be clear to those reading our document. Perhaps we could even improve our Guidelines by including a section on "titles" that essentially lists all possible titles that have been used or might be considered by an institution without making a determination which is best.  Institutions might fight this helpful in creating, redefining, or upgrading technicians' status. Richard West     Bdshull@aol.com wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Don, Somehow I missed this email, but I agree that "lead technician" and "head technician" is suitable language and that we should move on.  I also am thinking of the contract situation, and the language works there too, usually.  Some of the recently written text additions cover the subject, and I am interested in what you all think about it too. Bill In a message dated 9/24/02 9:02:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dmckech@ithaca.edu writes:     <blockquote TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">All, Given the responses so far on this issue, I would like to bring up the following for a vote. Lead or head technician has been the most common usage I have seen over the years. To keep the Guidlines consistant I suggest we go with Fred's reasoning to use lead technician. However, a short paragraph stating the diffent titles that denote a skilled professional can be added to the text. I like the term director but as I stated in my last post, that will never happen at Ithaca College. Whatever the institution's policy on titles we should encorage the administrators to consider an approriate title, again within the bounds of what is meant by a highly trained professional. Can we all agree on this addition (to be written by one of our designated writers, Bill or Fred) is the best course of action to take? Let me know as soon as possible so we can move on to the next item on the agenda. I would like to get started on the additions that Bill made (and Fred edited) on long range planning and the models. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Rolf von Walthausen & Nancy Larson <pianos@traverse.net> Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:57 am Subject: Re: Title > I think Eric's experiences, observations and frustrations are probably > representative of many.   Although I wouldn't recommend spending a > great amount > of time discussing the advantages and pitfalls of various job > titles, I think > Paul, Don and Eric have a point about this being an issue worthy of > mention in > the Guidelines. > > My personal favorite is the term 'Director' (e.g. "Director of > KeyboardMaintenance", Director of Piano Technology", etc.) as it > accurately describes a > piano technician's position, skills and responsibilities within the > institution.  It conveys not only the duty and level of authority > technicianshave, but makes it possible to assign personnel in > departments with multiple > positions titles of "Assistant Director" and "Associate Director" > much like the > typical designations used for faculty. > > One of the basic principles of good management is that levels of > authority and > responsibility be equal.  Too often they are not and, as Paul > points out, could > likely be one of the primary sources of our lack of recognition, > pay and > authority among our peers within the faculty and administration. > > Just some thoughts from a technician-administrator turned > administrator-technician :) > > Rolf > > "Wolfley, Eric (WOLFLEEL)" wrote: > > > > > Maybe a statement like "job classifications should be in line > > with other positions within the institution requiring high levels > of skill > > and experience". > > > ></blockquote>  </blockquote> </html>