You know Nick you act pretty childish sometimes, and it is not very professional nor “Leadership” like. You are making fun of something I picked up on today that is a valid mistake you made. You call that section Inspectors, when in fact it is Members. That is how simple it is to fix. But you would rather sit here with you home boy Nate, and attempt (and weak at that) to make me and others out to be wrong in some way? Sorry, won’t work.
It’s your board, change it or not, but it is wrong, plain and simple and YOU and Chris know it.
Jim … Nick, Chris and Thornberry have carefully crafted a revision to the code of “ethics” that allows you to make any financial arrangement that you wish with any contractor you wish to use your inspection to refer the contractor and receive kickbacks, and conceal it from the client. It is a new NACHI benefit.
Carefully read the new “Rule #7” and think about how much money you can make recommending additional insulation, referring the insulation contractor to your client and collecting a nice lump of money on the side when the contractor is paid. This new system is available not only for alarm systems contractors paying kickbacks … but for every contractor. While the code of ethics can never be enforced anyway, such arrangements with contractors is now officially endorsed.
Nick, Chris and Thornberry are a team and you are fighting a battle that you cannot win.
Your choices are NOT to try to control a message board. Your choices are to participate in this or similar kickback scams … or promote your pledge not to participate in these types of scams.
If you are not a part of the sale of private information for compensation network … let the world know you are not. You will not get too far in that effort by arguing over whether or not a crook should be allowed to post on a message board, IMO.
It’s clear from both Nick’s and Chris’s lack of engagement on the Thornberry issue, the issuing of the sham COE and VCOE that they are all in bed together.
They can’t defend it so they won’t.
Instead they will just play dumb and hope few notice.
Thornberry really should have been at the margarita party.
Chris is an IT guy, Nick is a pitchman and Nathan is mining for clients.
Where does it say that an inspector must inform his client that, as a result of his referral to an alarm systems contractor, that the inspector will get his $200 kickback when the contractor that he refers as a part of his inspection makes the sale?
For example, Inspector X tells his client in his report that he needs CO detectors due to natural gas appliances … and there are insufficient smoke alarms in the home and several are not operating. He then tells the client that he will be referring an alarm systems contractor. When he arrives, the contractor shows up with the intent of upselling a complete alarm system. The inspector, as a result of his secret agreement with the contractor, gets a $200 kickback on top of the products and services he already received for the referral.
That is a possibility Jim, but that would still not have any influence on the integrity of the report, so it just doesn’t appear on my “worry radar.”
I predict that eventually we’ll have to address (within the COE) repair contractors or any contractor that has an interest in the report itself. In other words, we want to do what we can to assure consumers that they are getting an objective report, free from repair contractor influence. Alarm salesmen may be a nuisance (unless of course the consumer wants an alarm system… which many do), but they aren’t interested in offering financial incentives to inspectors who deem roofs to be in need of replacement.
This phrase is far too open to interpretation. “To protect the safety of others”. This can include a number of things. Example: Appliance recalls.
"The InterNACHI member shall not release any information about the inspection or the client to a third party unless doing so is necessary to protect the safety of others"
The InterNACHI member shall not release any information about the inspection or the client to a (roofing contractor or insulation contractor) unless doing so is necessary to protect the safety of others, to comply with a law or statute, or both of the following conditions are met:
the client has been made explicitly aware of what information will be released, to whom, and for what purpose, and;
the client has provided explicit, prior written consent for the release of his/her information.
I can sell my client’s data to anyone and collect as much as I want under this “ethical” provision without telling him anything about my compensation. I can sell his info to every contractor for every defect I report on … and be within the requirements of this revision.
I see what you are saying Christopher, but we had to lean on the side of safety, even if it permits a slippery opening to perform an appliance recall check without client permission. I have never received such a consumer complaint, but if it becomes an issue, we might have to deal with it.
Michael, nothing in the COE prevents members from making the disclosure on a separate piece of paper to counter any possibility of their clients complaining. And of course nothing prevents you from going above and beyond the minimum requirements set by the COE.
