My fault, Mike. Sorry. I was quoting the term “arbitration committee” but there, in fact, is no such thing.
You’re suggesting the founder of a 10,000 member HI organization should begin responding personally to individual complaints against member inspectors? If our membership averages 100 inspections per year, that’s 1 million inspections. There won’t be enough time in the day for Nick and the NACHI staff to handle the phone calls. Those issues are best left in the hands of the inspector, the legal system and or your insurance carrier.
On top of that it was reported that the inspector is not even a NACHI member .
Your inspector is not a member of NACHI and never was.
Nick Gromicko, CMI
Founder
World’s biggest, best inspection association
“PlanetNACHI… resistance is futile”
There is no need to reference a particular COE, SOP or HI Association in the IOA.
The contract is an agreement between the Company (Inspector’s Employer) and the Client.
As usual, Joe Hagarty is wrong.
A member of the public, to which each and every NACHI member has a duty to (in accordance with the COE) can inform the association whenever they feel there has been a breach to the code. These reports will be, and are, routinely investigated.
Often, it is found that the complaint does not fall under the COE but is simply a difference of opinion as to the quality of the inspector’s work.
But if an inspector solicits the client for repairs of issues he flags in a report, for example, a client may wish to report him for it. Such a report will be investigated. Likewise, should clients report incidents of discrimination, incidents in which the inspector shared the report without their permission, or incidents in which the inspector failed to comply with the licensing laws of his state, and other similar references to the inspector’s duties under the COE - the ESOP Committee has jurisdiction and will investigate.
Which part do you feel is incorrect since I referenced nothing relative to your post?
The Duty of the Inspector and the legal and contractual responsibility of a Company are not necessarily synonymous.
I am curious as to how many times the ESOP Committee has improperly involved themselves in conducting so called investigations.
And “curious” you shall remain, since such investigations that do not directly involve you are none of your business.
A member cannot hide behind a corporate veil or claim it is a “company” decision to charge one particular race a higher fee for inspections than another and escape their personal accountability to the association for complying with that ethical standard…while their “company” continues to display the NACHI logo, for example.
When members of the public complain to the association and that complaint falls under the area of ethics, they are investigated. We do not start threads or open the discussion for review. It is all handled quitely, appropriately, and in a manner that protects the interests of everyone concerned. Recommendations from the committee go to Nick, after the facts have been thoroughly reviewed, who acts in the manner he feels is appropriate.
Better find some other fight, Joe.
That sure is a strange assumption condsidering the courts routinely refer to the SOP/COE in some of the rulings. If a professional association is selling its members services as a certified assessment then surely the assessment must be done to a standard that the body is certifying its members too?
Statements made without basis in fact.
Thankfully other COE Committee Members do not share in your perceived display of unethical behavior.
As a point of reference I belong to another Canadian Assoc. which under its by-laws which members promise to follow which allow that association to investigate a member under very narrowly defined criteria, and that criteria is based solely on the SOP/COE infringements with regard to inspections.
This is why I have repeatedly asked on this forum specifically what the by-laws provide for in Nachi. Come to think of it maybe someone can post the by-laws with regard to what Nachi can do legally to members who breach the SOP/COE. If there are no rules to follow, then Nachi has no authority to investigate any member for anything for sake of discussion…
The association has applied a variety of sanctions, up to and including revocation of membership, for violation of its ethical standards.
In applying sanctions, the idea is to correct the situation in such a manner which is fair and that reflects best upon the remaining membership and its standards.
Our ethics code is enforced. This is something that ethical members will appreciate and unethical members will not, IMO.
No one wants to have a NACHI member in their own community who is actively harming the public.
But James,
Do the by-laws provide for such sanctions? Is it in writing and defined and are members aware of such provisions?
Yes James,
Answer Raymond’s question…
Guys, I am not trying to cause dissention, but…
If there are no written rules/by-laws then any action Nachi takes against a member maybe on shaky legal standing. Rules cannot be made up on the fly and enacted on a whim as this leaves the process open to abuse. I don’t think need to elaborate further. Been there, done that. 
The COE is in writing.
What would a member who violated them expect from the association? What do members who sacrifice, in some cases, to comply with them expect from the association when others choose to ignore them?
Only our chairman can speak for the entire committee, and I will let him weigh in on our charter and the authority by which we act.
I will simply tell you that we are properly acting within the authority granted to us when we investigate a complaint made by the member of the public as to the duties of a member of our association to that member of the public, as it pertains to our code of ethics.
James,
Have you read the Charter that you have referenced?
What is the extent of the Authority and by whom was it granted?
James
Do the by-laws support and grant the authority you say the committee has?
No one want inspectors running around and not being held accountable for SOP/COE infringements. Thats not the arguement. The concern is that if there are no written by-laws empowering the committees to act then the actions of such committees are not legal in the context of the courts review.
Exactly…
That’s exactly why the recommended removal of individual inspectors by the ESOP committee because of the lack of a NACHI logo or reference to the NACHI COE/SOP on a company website is flawed.
The inspector not the company is a member of NACHI. So the question remains - Can NACHI rigtfully find an inspector in violation of its COE’s because of a company’s policy or choice of ethical practices displayed on websites. Is the website in question a company website or an individual inspector’s website?
I personally like the coe drafted by NHITI which is strictly geared towards an entitys ethical practices and does not allude to any individual inspector and their association membership requirements.
The committee does not “act”, Ray. The actions that are taken are taken by Nick. His authority to “act”, IMO, is undisputed. We investigate and recommend.
Does NACHI have (corporate) bylaws, and if so, where can they be found? Perhaps we can all read and review them so this would alleviate and clarify the issue that Raymond has “politely” questioned.
Typically, the bylaws spell out the authority under which the association, its BOD, committees and its members are expected to act - respectfully in a responsible manner.
The COE is a set of guiding principles generally drawn up by the COE committee. Even armed with the COE, what guidelines or operating procedures does the members of the Ethics committee, use for general operation and ethics complaint purposes.
Furthermore, would a company that claims to employ NACHI members - indicating that their inspectors that are not NACHI members be in violation of the COE? Perhaps at least they deserve notice or a warning that the company is advertising its members that are non-NACHI inspectors improperly, and such exaggerated claims may cause harm to the public?