<HTML>In a message dated 6/13/03 10:55:59 AM Pacific Dayligh= t Time, hoffsoco@martin.luther.edu writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I fear that any CAUTerizing cer= tification will come to pass just after Council agrees as to what constitutes "rebuilding". i.e. I ain't holdin' my breath.</BLOCKQUOTE> Linking the two is frequentl= y done, but unlinking the two would be more helpful.   The challen= ges in not just what constitutes rebuilding, but what might constitute a reb= uilding classification, and how it might be tested, are far greater that tha= t of a CAUT credential.  Besides, a case can be made for the CAUT credential NOT requiring council ap= proval as another "classification," but instead being the product of the CAU= T Committee working with the Institute Committee to augment existing classes= with more specialized CAUT classes to provide a core CAUT Curriculum which = simply provides certification to those who attend sufficient classes within = subject groupings.  (whew)  In other words, RPT classification, CA= UT curriculum credential.  The CAUT Committee has already submitted an = action request to the Board along these lines, and the board has asked us to= develop the proposals further.  The CAUT Committee is discussing what = that curriculum might include, and welcomes CAUT list contributions. Bill Shull <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Conrad Hoffsommer, Decorah, IA </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>