Our Marketing Department was designing a brochure with both CAHPI and InterNACHI logos equally displayed on it when the inspector was informed that he would be kicked out of CAHPI if he distributed the brochure.
Reason given by CAHPI’s Sharon Mayes was that it can’t have an InterNACHI logo.
Thanks Nick! The games go on full force.
Why would they create yet another reason not to remain a member of CAHPI? It’s nuts.
Nick that is contrary to the Charter in Canada. And since CAHPI has and is or has been recipient of government funds then the charter applies to them. Freedom of association and freedom of thought, and freedom to associate with who one chooses.
They have no power to make such arbitrary rules and it should be challenged and the MCS should be made aware of this matter.
OAHI/CAHPI tried this stunt with me when I used CHI, they reported me to ASTTBC, and I challenged it and OAHI ended up apologizing.
Given the former internal corruption of some at the executive level of CAHPI they are in no position to dictate anything, less they open Pandoras box.
CAHPI is open for a lawsuit with that dictate, and if I remember correctly there is nothing in the CAHPI bylaws which permits discrimination, and that is what it is DISCRIMINATION!
And who is Sharon Mayes, what position does she hold?
Okay here is a copy of the CAHPI bylaws. Do you read anything pertaining to dual memberships? I don’t and the bylaws do not provide for discrimination.
Maybe you should have Ms. Mayes call me because I would love to challenge her and her zealots.
Nick, what province is the individual residing?
And the President of CAHPI/ONTARIO OAHI said we need to have more cooperation with all associations .
Its only a policy and likely not enforceable.
I think the member in BC should disobey the policy and see where it goes.
The member has a right to an appeal for any disciplinary action that may result from a discriminatory practice.
Nick are you going to let this matter slide? Its a disturbing precedent otherwise.
I also think the insurer for directors and officers liability policy would like to know about this matter, and it might be a good idea to register a complaint with CAHPI and ask them who their insurance company is. I doubt the insurer would back up CAHPI given the suggestion its limiting the members rights.
Also a complaint should be filed with BC Human Rights Tribunal by InterNachi and the member.
After a return comment like that maybe we will get another Exodus out this fine Association too. So much for keeping the peace. CAPHI seams to feel they should still have control of the Industry.
No surprise as this is what they tried with CMHC and know have exclusive NCH but what is it worth after the media got hold of the President and the mistakes made with training.
Internachi members should be all over this slight. No association has the right to tell a member what logos go on their biz cards, or social media, or other forms of advertising, that is solely the decision of the member(s).
It would be interesting to say the least, should Nick choose to bring the full brunt of his tenacity and the full weight of Internachi and square off with CAHPI.
The timing could not be better.
I emailed Alan Carson tonight to see if there is something he can do about this.
What is a caphi logo?
Is there really such a thing?
Why be bothered by such an insignificant concern…?
Why should restrictive dictates which most likely would not withstand legal scrutiny stand? I strongly believe and have good cause to believe CAHPI is bias against any other association, I also know that CAHPI management showed lack of leadership because there were concerns a number of years ago dealing with mismanagement and bullying by the board of directors. Old habits die hard.
It is not insignificant to the member, and since its contrary to laws it should be challenged.
Been there done that.
Perhaps we should all use the logo until such time as CAHPI backs down. They cannot and would not challenge us all. Two can play the game as well as one.
I have found instances where a logos are restricted. Here is such an instance.
Business and Member Cards – ASHRAE Rule of the Board 1.201.025.1
This policy applies to all Member and ASHRAE professional certified individuals business cards. It does not apply to business cards prepared at Society headquarters for use by the Executive Committee and staff.
A. The name “ASHRAE” and the ASHRAE logo are trademarks of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.*
Use of the ASHRAE name and/or logo shall not imply or be used to imply in any way, ASHRAE’s
endorsement of the member’s company, products or other commercial interests.
B. These trademarks may not be used except as
- For an ASHRAE Member Card – a business card outlining only ASHRAE member affiliation, service and contact information provided
a. The member whose name appears on the card must be a member in good
standing of the Society.
b. The ASHRAE logo and tagline may be used as long as it follows the ASHRAE Logo Guide
c. No company or organization logo, other than the ASHRAE logo, may appear.
Nothing about competing logos on website, social media and any and all marketing and advertising materials.
So in my view the policy is still to restrictive.
Sharon Mayes seems to be a Director of CAHPI (BC).
CAHPI BC 100 after next month.
I can’t believe some of the stupidest things companies try to do to separate themselves from the best.