Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Well Andy, I don't think it's legitimate. And if you and the powers that be, don't feel that the membership needs to know how specifications/classifications are determined in IT, then get an offical statement to that effect. And, if there's no guarantee of competitiveness in IT, why are PCAs even being discussed?
The 'no guarantee' thing gets trotted out when it's convenient, and gets trampled all over when it's not. Either take it out, or deal with it.
You know what it is Andy, I'm just not an "end justifies the means" kind of guy. I also get very nervous when people tell me they're doing something 'for my own good', but I don't really need to know how they're doing it.
I am curious though, w/ the massive moves that are proposed (and more comming), why is there such a resistence to creating another class in IT? Seems like that would piss off the least amount of people.
Or, just correct the weights and keep calling it Errors and Omissions.
I hear you, I understand the basis for your issues, and I think that when you look at the bigger picture we are justified in our position. Let's agree to disagree. I would say there is no need to keep taking shots at us or the CRB. If you want a formal explanation, write the CRB. I have tried to give you one and you refuse to accept it. You don't have to accept but you should at least give us a break on this board. If there is a groundswell that favors your position, open the debate again but I think you are in the minority.