Please leave me out of it. I am staff.

Just a brief history for those newer to NACHI:

Years ago membership wanted to have more control over NACHI and complained that I was “too involved”. So we did everything we could do… including setting up committees for everything, launching local chapters and giving members full control over their chapters, spinning off some chapters as their own separate entities, creating a leadership, hiring staff, etc. I dropped out of the members-only section of the message board completely so members could discuss things without my influence. We bought key leadership their own cell phones. As Chair of the BOD for the non-profit, tax exempt corp NACHI Inc., I issued a grand total of zero directives in the past 5 years. I have barely given my opinion on issues, much less direction. I turned over accounting to a CPA and spun off or signed over everything else that I could. I became solely staff, head of staff, but staff nonetheless. Recently I even hired outside management consultants. At one point, before Blaine ordered me to drop the title, I gave myself the title of Janitor to emphasize my desire and commitment to be merely staff.

I understand that some of you have been at odds with each other lately over nothing staff can help you with. I will remind you what I said years ago regarding this situation… be careful what you wish for… you might get it. So you all work it out, preferrably without involving me (even by mentioning my name). You got your wish.

Now let me have my wish and leave me out of it please.


Did you leave yourself out? I am so confused.


Can you elaborate on this? What chapters were spun off as their own seperate entity? What is their relation with NACHI/NACHI National now? Are they run completely autonomously (no direction or requirement to follow NACHI National’s directions)?

Ben, Yes. That announcement was made by John and only posted by me at his request. I will admit that I was pleased to learn this as I hate to see anyone leave or step down. I prefer more step up.

Emmanuael, Yes, I can elaborate. New York, Chicago, and other chapters have spun off as their own separate organizations, incorporated, with their own checking accounts, legal counsel, By-Laws, etc. See…

I just got off the phone with Joe Farsetta, Chair of the Ethics Committee. He proposes that I act as an arbitrator so that individual members who disagree with any committee decision have an avenue of appeal. In that rarely needed capacity I would agree to participate, should you so want me to, and provided that we create an off message board appeal form so that I’m not continually asked to settle every little argument publicly.


The MAB can handle Farsetta’s request.

The MAB is better suited for this, since they are elected by the membership.

I think you all should elect a sort of Supreme Court, elected by the membership, who you all can go to to handle disputes or something.

I have to agree with Blaine and Jay, we allready have a committee of our peers that is more than able to handle ethics complaints, and as John has said all along the ESOP committee should not be judge, jury and executioner over their own ethical standards



So where is the problem then? If Gerry is right and we already have an Ethics Committee to handle ethics complaints, what is the argument?

The MAB should oversee any committee or chair and have final say on issues that can effect the status, rights or position of any member, that is the reason they were elected and that is what the membership now expects.

We can no longer be subject to the caprices of a single individual in matters that could effect the business status of one of its members.

Are we reading something into this that is not there??

In my mind an arbitrator is someone that just tries to get people together --They do not change something or pass judgment

How would the MAB be better at this?? Arbitrators do not take sides. Are we not just looking for someone to try to get people back on the same page??

The MAB might want to take on an automatic review of all COEC actions even if not disputed just to be part of the checks and balances.

This would also take the MAB out of ball game of doing what the COEC is chartered to do

Remember a lot of resources are being used to take care of these issues and this will cause people to NOT want to get involve in the future when it comes time to volunteering their time.

The more we get caught up in little crap issues it takes away for our primary mission


I have no problem with you or someone that you get to volunteer on a case by case bases to help you out as an arbitrator


What am I missing here???


Please someone correct my thinking or let me change yours

We need an arbitrator to get us all back on the same page

Anyone want to volunteer??

Later inspection time



The have proven a valid point. There are those that get paid from NACHI (We know who) and those that volunteer (MAB). Would you rather have a volunteer or someone who gets paid for projects writing policy, educational CDs, and an arbitration service?

Follow the money and you will find your answer.

I have just been contacted by someone that is into the thing called arbitration and depending how the rules are set up an arbitrator can make a judgment

The MAB could always be counted on to be very impartial. They could get voted out of office if they do not reflect the opinions of the BB members.

It is also to be noted that it is very hard to get a group of people to agree on something while one person might try to get in and out of an issue too soon



Not looking to bust your chops here, but please explain the difference between being a NACHI member and NACHI staff?

NACHI members are inspectors. NACHI staff are employees or volunteers who work under my supervision for the association.

Of the staff, the ones that are paid NACHI employees are: Lisa, Dee, Krystal, Chris M, and Chris’s assistant webmaster.


If you believe that the basis of our CoE is to protect our profession, the public, and to help insure that members deal fairly with each other in the marketplace in regards to business practices, then I agree this is a non issue, pick a name out of a hat and go with it.

But, if you believe the ESOP’s recent unchartered expansion into personal dispute resolution where the ESOP committee can exercise power in the removal of another member over personal non-business issues. Then we need a member elected body like the MAB to provide the necessary checks & balances to protect the members from this capricious committee who has obviously outgrown their charter, have taken sides and have lost their objectivity.


I originally posted this in the Members Only section, so you probably have not seen it.

The thing is, it appears now that:

  1. The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to receive all claims or complaints of ethics violations.
  2. The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to investigate all claims or complaints of ethics violations.
  3. The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to prosecute all claims or complaints of ethics violations.
  4. The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to judge all claims or complaints of ethics violations.
  5. The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to act as jury for all claims or complaints of ethics violations.
  6. The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to adjudicate all appeals for findings of ethics violations.

There is a problem with a system having the same people acting as Investigator, Prosecutor, Judge and/or Jury, and Appeals reviewer for the same complaint.

Many States require membership in a nationally recognized home inspector association as a condition of licensure. The above, if capriciously applied or abused, could endanger a member’s ability to retain his or her license to practice. It really smacks of totalitarianism and in my limited knowledge of the most recent processes, appears to exhibit all of its’ potential faults.

I, personally, have a problem with absolute authority in any area to start with. So I won’t just complain, I will offer a solution as well

Another, more transparent, method might be:

After receiving a formal complaint, the ESOP committee would refer it to a multi-member panel chosen from the General membership via the Membership Advisory Board. This group would be charged with the duty to investigate evidence from each side of the complaint and present all evidence back to the ESOP commitee, the complainant AND the person accused of the violation.

After reviewing this evidence, the ESOP committee would determine if there is merit to the claim, act as prosecutor, and present the complainant’s case to a five (at least) member panel, four from the general membership (also chosen by the MAB) and Joe Ferry or other duly appointed NACHI’s attorney.

This panel would act as judge/jury in the matter, and after reviewing the evidence for and against an accused violator, find whether an ethics violation ocurred, and mete out any punishment according to an established policy.

Appeals to a finding of an ethics violation should be heard by a panel of the MAB appointed representatives (none of whom were involved in the original case).

What do you think?

It is my opinion that the Ethics and Standards of Practice committe should set and know the standards; not wield any power over another member, other than as an expert reviewer of evidence in a complaint.

Ethics violations are a serious matter and the NACHI membership should strive to protect the reputation and career of both parties of a complaint. Only representatives of the general membership should decide an ethics violation case, regardless of the ESOP commitee’s makeup.

Tim Gardner