The Future of PTG

[Bill Spurlock, RPT]

OK. Enough is enough. Sorry to have to add to the political pollution of this
list, but the diatribe by Wim Blees, placed on the list by Fred Tremper, demands
an answer. I don't believe such material is appropriate to the purpose of this
list, but this and recent similar offerings have appeared, and fairness requires
some response.

Wim writes:
>. . .  the President announced to Council that a "Long
Range Consultant" would be hired.  What Leon failed to mention at the
time, [was] that in order for the consultant to do her work, she has to meet
with the Board for 4 days to explain what she wants to do. . . . however, it is
not going to be her agenda that the PTG will follow, it will be the Board's
agenda that she will accommodate, and will be made to look as if it was her
goals. . . . the Guild will be duped into thinking that a "professional"
consultant has recommended that we follow a certain path, while it is really
going got [sic] to be the path of a few members who are currently in power.

This is totally false information, and can be confirmed as such by a call to
your RVP. There is no conspiracy or deceit here. The hiring of a planning
consultant is a very common activity, and certainly a responsible course for
organizations with membership and budgets the size of ours.

>When Fern Henry first told me about the Marketing idea, I thought it was
great. . . .  At the time it sounded like a terrific idea, but now looking
back on it, it was not a marketing strategy for all the members, it was a
marketing strategy for a few members, for their own benefit, but paid
for by the PTG members.

Again, totally false. The entire purpose of the marketing program is to serve
the members, particularly to promote RPTs. To ensure accountability to the
members, it was brought to Council as probably the most well-researched proposal
they had ever seen, so they could most intelligently evaluate it and vote. Fern
Henry deliberately included people opposed to the marketing program as advisors
to the first marketing committee, again to ensure openness and accountability.
Ideas for committee projects were solicited from the membership to ensure the
program benefitted them. The 1993 member needs survey solicited (and yielded)
further member input. The claim that "it was a marketing strategy for a few
members, for their own benefit, but paid for by the PTG members." is false,
malicious, and unfounded. Few programs have received the scrutiny and repeated
Council and member endorsement that the marketing program has.

> The Marketing Committee, and especially its chairman, who has strong ties to a
former President, became so strong that for the first time . . .  a committee's
response to a Bylaw change was allowed in the agenda book.

False, malicious, and laden with innuendo. I was marketing committee chairman
for one year, in 1993-4. I wrote the Bylaws committee offering my comments on a
proposal they were considering. Chairman Wade Johnson later phoned me, saying
that he and his committee agreed with my comments and asked if he could include
a portion of my letter with the committee's own comments. I said I had no
problem with that. The appearance of my comments in the agenda book was entirely
due to Wade Johnson's initiative, not mine. Wade pointed this out at in Council.
If Wim doesn't like committee comments in an agenda book, he should take it up
with Wade, and not insinuate that I am forcing my views on Council.

> That same person has been promoting the development of the
Associates through the PACE Program. . . .  that is another program that was
announced at Council that it existed.  There was never a discussion, or a
vote, to implement the program, until after it had been established.

Again, the truth takes a holiday. I, Michael Travis, and hundreds of members are
promoting continuing education for the benefit of all members, and to encourage
Associate upgrading, through writing and implementation of the PACE Program.
This program was brought to Council as a well-planned proposal. It (PACE
articles, PACE Checklist, PACE Lessons at chapter level, etc.) were NOT
"established" before Council. The first PACE articles appeared two months later.
Council DID discuss and vote to endorse the program.

>Then came the Vertical Action Curriculum.  Again, this program was
announced as being in existence.  The Board even instructed the President
NOT to implement the curriculum until after Council had approved it. But
again, the President announced at Council that the curriculum had been
published, and was available.

Absolutely false. This idea was discussed the year before by Council. For the
truth about the Vertical Curriculum, watch your December Leader Letter and
January Journal, or call your RVP. The vertical curriculum is a book. The 1994
Council designated funds for educational projects. Council motions to restrict
the types of projects were all defeated. Board then entered into an agreement
with LaRoy Edwards to write a book on vertical regulation. Council approval of
such a project came the year before.

>Now comes this Long Range Planning consultant.  Again, it was announced
that we are going to have one. . . .it was not voted for, and Leon
never mentioned at Council that it was going to cost the PTG another
$10,000 to train the Board. . . and guess what is going to happen next.  A Long
Range
Committee will be established, under the pretext that the consultant
recommended this.  And guess who is gong [sic] to be chairman of this
committee.  Why?  To make sure that her ideas of where the PTG should go
will be implemented.

There is too much misinformation rolled up in this paragraph to even discuss
intelligently. Those interested in the truth should call their RVP. But  the
allegation that "a Long Range Committee will be established . . . [chaired by
Fern Henry] to make sure her ideas of where PTG should go will be implemented.",
is way over the edge. The idea that Fern wants to still be so involved in
running PTG, after her monumental efforts and struggles on the members' behalf
for so many years, is laughable. At least it would be if the Wim's comments
didn't characterize her efforts as self-serving. I am in a position to state
unequivocally that Fern Henry has had quite enough of taking the type of abuse
displayed here, and is not about to accept any further committee positions.

What is the future of PTG? I must say that I am afraid it looks right now like
it's one of trials by innuendo, and of spreading unfounded, malicious rumors.
How can we expect good people to want to serve in PTG offices if this is how
they will be treated? I implore members to be very careful about abandoning
fairness and your responsibility to check out the facts with all parties. We all
stand to lose big if we don't reject the politics of anger and bitterness. Let
us aspire instead to further progress and success.

Bill Spurlock, RPT