Guidelines

[Ken Eschete]

Dave,
Every institution has a obligation to protect and preserve the assets of
the institution.  Neglecting the roof is no different than neglecting the
pianos.  Every School of Music has a Net Worth, and to a large extent, that
includes the most expensive pieces of equipment --- the pianos.  Protecting
your assets is Standard Business Practice and it will stand up to scrutiny.

Ken Eschete
Northwestern

>Don:
>
>I tried for a while to justify the cost of maintenance as "saving money"
>because we're keeping the pianos in good condition.  However, I don't think
>that really will stand up to close scrutiny.  Good quality pianos will last
>a long time whether we regulate them or not.  It's just they won't serve
>the artistic purpose for which they were purchased.  If we're trying to
>teach students just to push the right buttons at the right time, we could
>get electronic keyboards.  Allegedly we're trying to teach artistic playing
>which you can't do on some of the pianos we all work on.
>
>Changing the oil in the car will save money in the long run and this is the
>model we imply when we try to convince the bean counters that maintenance
>saves money.  If the artist teachers, and artist department heads can't
>convince the bean counters that maintenance is needed for the educational
>value then we're probably doomed.
>
>Music Schools are expensive to run.  The governing boards of our schools
>decided years ago to have a music department.  If they can't afford a music
>department now, they need to do enough fund raising to support a music
>department.  You can have 200 students in a History class, and the students
>provide the books they need.  In the Music Department, a performance
>teacher can only have a dozen or so students before he is full.  That's
>expensive.  These students and teachers use pianos that are expensive.
>Raise the money.  I never say it out loud, but my feeling is: "if you want
>a music department raise the money and have one.  If you can't afford to do
>it right, shut it down."  I know, I know, that's the extreme, but.....
>
>dave
>
>*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>
>On 4/13/00 at 3:50 PM Donald R McKechnie wrote:
>
>>List,
>>
>>Thanks to all that responded to my request for dialog regarding the
>>Guidelines. Keep it coming! So far it appears that the formula should
>>stay as is. We will keep this topic open until the end of the forum in
>>Arlington. I propose that at the forum, we put the question of the
>>formula to a vote. If there is any dissension from those who cannot
>>attend speak now. Any revisions to the Guidelines will be completed this
>>year. (I hope :-) We also need to come up with a way to get endorsements
>>as was done the first time.
>>
>>The argument that the bean counters need to see specific information on
>>how they are losing money is worth pursuing. Those that have used the
>>Guidelines successfully are to be congratulated. But, it is really hard
>>to break down the doors at some institutions. Believe me, I have tried.
>>If something can be incorporated into the Guidelines to help technicians
>>get through to the bean counters, it is worth pursuing. Please give this
>>some thought and send any suggestions to the list or me. I plan to put
>>some sort of chart together to add to my justification here at IC. If it
>>turns out to be useful, I will share it with everyone to see if it looks
>>like something we can add to the Guidelines.
>>
>>Ken Eschete's analogy of comparing the maintenance situation to the
>>temperaments was great. I wish I could use that on the powers that be.
>>Oh well, I will have to come up with something else.
>>
>>Don McKechnie
>>Ithaca College
>
>
>
>
>David M. Porritt
>dporritt@swbell.net
>Meadows School of the Arts
>Southern Methodist University
>Dallas, TX 75275


--
Kenneth P. Eschete
Northwestern University
k-eschete@nwu.edu