Please leave me out of it. I am staff.

jschwartz1 · March 14, 2006, 7:36pm

Nick:

What about Russ Spriggs?

gromicko · March 14, 2006, 7:46pm

Russ Spriggs is not an employee. He is paid as a sub-contractor for each trip he makes on behalf of NACHI. He does not work at NACHI’s offices. He does not receive a W-2.

jschwartz1 · March 14, 2006, 7:59pm

Is Joe Farsetta a sub-contractor for NACHI?

Has Joe Farsetta been a sub-contractor for NACHI?

gbell · March 14, 2006, 8:02pm

I thought that the ADRS belongs to Joe F.

gromicko · March 14, 2006, 9:25pm

No, Joe Farsetta has never been paid a penny from NACHI. Indirectly the only thing I can think of that he got from NACHI was the start up $ to build the ADRS which we wanted. A nice project I might ad.

jschwartz1 · March 14, 2006, 9:28pm

Thank you for answering the question Nick. ADRS is a nice project.

gromicko · March 14, 2006, 9:41pm

Jay can you call me now, dial Lisa Endza’s phone in www.nachi.org/contact.htm I just got off the phone with Farsetta and with Bowman. I think this is all about to be settled.

jschwartz1 · March 14, 2006, 9:46pm

Left you a voicemail.

gromicko · March 14, 2006, 10:10pm

OK. John B. and Joe F. have asked me to decide what to do and both have agreed to abide by my decision. I spoke with Jay and he had no objection. So here goes, and my call is by no means based on the facts…

John B. and Joe F. stay at their positions, no suspensions. Same with Joe B. and anyone else involved. Everyone adopt a level of conduct befitting the world’s biggest and best inspection association from here on out and let the past be the past. If it doesn’t help NACHI, don’t say it. I also ask that fellow members do the same.

Warning, don’t get the idea that I am now the arbitrator at NACHI… I’m not. I simply agreed to make a call this one time at the request of the parties most involved.

Move on now and don’t bring the matter up again.

jonofrey · March 14, 2006, 11:14pm

tgardner:

Nick,

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

The thing is, it appears now that:

The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to receive all claims or complaints of ethics violations.

The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to investigate all claims or complaints of ethics violations.

The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to prosecute all claims or complaints of ethics violations.

The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to judge all claims or complaints of ethics violations.

The ESOP commitee has the responsibility to act as jury for all claims or complaints of ethics violations.

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

Tim,

Good post. The MAB represents the membership as they are mostly duly elected and have played by the rules. I would think that they need to play a bigger role here. The membership should decide what that would be.

My opinion.

gporter · March 14, 2006, 11:23pm

THank God it is over. Spring is in the air. The ice is melting. Hi Joe H. you can still ask me questions. I am still waiting for your pic for my locker

jhagarty · March 14, 2006, 11:47pm

Agreed.

Moving forward, the MAB needs to be given more authority in the interaction process with regard to Members and Membership issues.

jhagarty · March 14, 2006, 11:49pm

Are your Supervisors at the Correctional facility where you work aware that you request photos from Men on the internet to hang in your work locker?

gporter · March 15, 2006, 12:03am

They encourage us to have a mentor and NACHI MEMBERSHIP I have selected Joe. I can just hear the song “Best Friends” playing in the backround as you and I are riding a bike to our next inspection. Drinking Beer at Hooters and watching “Brian’s Song” and crying togather.

dedwards · March 15, 2006, 12:24am

:shock:

rbennett · March 15, 2006, 12:43am

I will mentor Gerry

This is just so we can get two couples in one hotel room at the next out of town NACHI event

My wife does not snore but I do - it does not bother me a bit

All kidding aside not a bad idea as long an all parties only meet on the internet

rlb

tallen · March 15, 2006, 12:46am

OK Gary, you are starting to scare me!:p:p

mroe · March 15, 2006, 4:04am

Hey Gary, do they have a cell with your name on it and soap on a rope waiting for you?