sure, let’s open up all the forums, including the convention forum. and let’s also make sure that nothing contained in them can be edited prior to them being opened.
Hey Nick
The Foundation carries on most of its business on private forums and communication devices, I suppose you want to see all of that too!:roll:
Paul
Holy crap Nick!
NACHI TAPEGATE!!!
Blaine:
I have pdf copies of all nachigate posts. i suggest you do the same.
paranoya will destroy ya
If the MAB sticks through this my hat is off to them, I would not… But, hey, maybe that is the plan? :roll:
Somebody if feeding you BS, Nick. This was not formulated out of nowhere…
It is my understanding that the MAB reached out to the Chairman of the ESOP for input only to be snubbed. Oh well, crap happens. Anyways, there is nothing wrong with the proposal that the MAB crafted. Much like the CMI thing it can be improved on with time. We can eliminate the election of the ESOP committee. Who cares!!!
But as far as the rest of the document goes it should remain the same and be implemented immediately. However we may need to address the Vendor thing.
Our first step - give me the definition of a “vendor”, and let’s move on from there.
Gentlemen
Rules and laws are always made after something goes wrong.
Same with NACHI – lets not dig up the past – lets establish the rules that we will work with in the future – What is SS and what is admin communications. A lot of private communication is a matter of public record if requested – ie email to me from a citizen about a code issue. Notes that I take during that phone call are public record.
It is a good idea to open things up – Show me one issue that should not be public and lets make a rule to keep it private
Seems to me that one member was hit in the butt because he made an email or BB posting public.
I was very up set about this one but made the mistake of saying nothing
It was something about a “violation of trust” or something
– Lets go forth
rlb
The vendor thing is a tough one. So many at NACHI have the “weird” idea that if a vendor is making money, he must be doing something evil.
John, do you consider yourself or me a vendor? See, it is a tough question.
If a NACHI inspector cannot perform or offer to perform repairs on a property they have inspected for a period of 12 month for financial gain, then why should a vendor be allowed to potentially craft an agenda that he may profit from by serving on a committee.
No VENDORS ALLOWED.
Nick you don’t serve on a committee, you are the committee.
Jay, that is different than what Joe M. said. Clearly a vendor shouldn’t do that. But not to hold office at all?
Vendors are doing nothing illegal or immoral by interacting with home inspectors, or selling to them, or educating them.
But, this is the national association of certified Home Inspectors. I would think that a vendor is someone with the sole purpose of making money from home inspectors. Again, nothing inherently wrong with that, but they should be in a different category than the regular home inspector members.
Not the question at hand. Joe M. said the new proposal requires vendors to step down. Does it or doesn’t it?
You know if you didn’t go off and have a secret discussion on a closed forum somewhere then the fact that your new proposal comes only a couple weeks after it is learned that Joe Farsetta plans to become an industry vendor wouldn’t provide evidence to support my contention that your proposal’s purpose (in part) was simply to remove him from office.
This is why secret meetings that affect us all… stink.
Why didn’t Farsetta annouce his plans, or were they secret??
The proposal will not allow a vendor to run for or serve on a committee if they are a vendor. If they become a vendor after being elected, they are to step down immediately.
I think CMI did that.
Or was is tapes at the convention.