[CAUT] durability (was funding)

[Fred Sturm]

On 10/2/06 3:49 PM, "Rick Florence" <Rick.Florence at asu.edu> wrote:

> Thanks for the info Fred.  Yes, I'd say it's time UNM stepped you up to full
> time.  What good is a budget for parts if you have no time to install them?
> 
> Rick
Hi Rick,
    Budget has gone mostly for inventory replacement in the 2 1/2 years we
have had the course fee (which produces most of that $100,000/yr). In part
this is to retire the loan program after 12 long years (Hallelujah, it
happened this fall! No more sales, no more raw pianos every year, no more
hassle with dealer arrangements!). And there will continue to be heavy
replacement for two or three more years until the oldest worn out stuff is
replaced (mostly uprights, but a few grands). Then I'll shift to a different
mode and allocate a fair portion to contract tuning and some contract
rebuilding/remanufacture, and spend more of my time on action parts
replacement. I'm not sure I want to be full time at the U. Half time suits
me fine.
    I do think all institutions should have an annual budget for inventory
replacement, and doubt that more than a handful actually do. Otherwise you
get into the emergency mode thing where you make an enormous purchase every
few decades, and then all your inventory ages to an even state of decrepit.
Much better to have a wide range of ages and cycle instruments through
different usages. And, yes, I do believe pianos should be replaced with new
ones eventually, contrary to the thinking of some of my colleagues <G>.
Although I also believe that a fully re-manufactured piano -
board/bridges/block - assuming high quality workmanship, can be equivalent
to new. But rebuilding as in shimmed boards and blocks re-pinned to 5/0
doesn't cut it, and there's a lot of that in our field. I think replacement
is preferable. 
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico