MAB - Ethics Committee Draft Proposals

[Joe Farsetta]

After reading both draft proposals regarding the ethics complaint process, authority of the ESOP Committee, its membership, and autonomy, I must say that I cannot support either proposal in its current form.

Just as independent counsel to the president of the US, or BOD of any corporation acts at the discretion of the Chairman of the BOD, so does ESOP. Always has, always will. Additionally, ESOP can never be elected. Members of this committee cannot be chosen based on popularity.

As far as acting on any comlaint, this process must remain squarely in the hands, and within the authority of ESOP. The proposals, as crafted, are not within the purview nor authority of the MAB. The proposals as crafted by the MAB were done so without the counsel or input of ESOP. This, in and of itseld, is most perturbing. In the 3 1/2 years that ESOP has been in existence, it has acted even handedly, and without malice or prejudice. It will continue to do so.

If the MAB wishes to be a part of the process, that is fine. It may do so in an advisory capacity only.

I am recommending that the proposals as crafted be rejected.

The COE, applicability, and administration, including the complaint/resolution process, must remain independent... and shall remain independent; absent of undue influence, private agendas, and political pressures.

[Russell Spriggs]

Seems to be a reflection of the Executive, Legislative & Judicial Branches.
In that light, one can complement the others.

[rwills]

Response to Joe F post:

After reading both draft proposals regarding the ethics complaint process, authority of the ESOP Committee, its membership, and autonomy, I must say that I cannot support either proposal in its current form.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised Joe!

Just as independent counsel to the president of the US, or BOD of any corporation acts at the discretion of the Chairman of the BOD, so does ESOP. Always has, always will. Additionally, ESOP can never be elected. Members of this committee cannot be chosen based on popularity.

Why would not ESPECIALLY this committee be elected? Being that the fate of members would lie in the hands of choices made by this committee? Do you not now choose the members on your own popularity scale? Surely you do not choose people you dislike!


As far as acting on any comlaint, this process must remain squarely in the hands, and within the authority of ESOP. The proposals, as crafted, are not within the purview nor authority of the MAB. The proposals as crafted by the MAB were done so without the counsel or input of ESOP. This, in and of itseld, is most perturbing. In the 3 1/2 years that ESOP has been in existence, it has acted even handedly, and without malice or prejudice. It will continue to do so.

The ESOP should not be the judge, jury, and hangman on complaint issues. Being that they write the rules only shows that the rules should be imposed by another body, NOT the ESOP.

If the MAB wishes to be a part of the process, that is fine. It may do so in an advisory capacity only.

This should be decided by the BOD and the NACHI membership.

I am recommending that the proposals as crafted be rejected.

To Whom?

The COE, applicability, and administration, including the complaint/resolution process, must remain independent... and shall remain independent; absent of undue influence, private agendas, and political pressures.

"The COE, applicability, and administration, including the complaint/resolution process, must remain independent..." Your own words! which is why we feel it should be independent of the ESOP. If ever there was a private agenda, it showed in the fiasco of the ESOP trying to evict members without due cause.

The MAB wrote these documents because first we were asked to by the BOD and several members. That is what we were elected to do. The old days of NACHI with a handful of members is now past and we have a much greater need for fairness to all members. Remember I was part of that ESOP team that helped write the COE in the early days of NACHI. If this is to be a member driven org then members need to decide what is best as an org overall!

[Gerry Beaumont]

Hi to all,

Bob, I am in total agreement with your comments. Its was a lack of percieved credability of the ESOP committee in the past which led to the review by the MAB. I for one would much rather that the MAB members who are this organizations elected voice of reason, investigate and rule on any ethics breach charges against members.

In every developed society one is governed by a group of ones peers, not an appointed Junta.

Regards

Gerry

[Ted Allen]

Get em BOB!!



It seems Joe F. want's his little group to run the whole show.

I wonder why.

[Nick Gromicko]

Todd,

Joe Farsetta doesn't want to run anything, much less the "whole show." If you must know... I have had to beg him over the years to continue doing what can be reasonably coined as the dirtiest job at NACHI. A job he does very well but one that brings him nothing but grief. With the best interests of NACHI in my heart... I will continue to beg... on my knees if that is what it takes.

[ekartal5]

Nick,

It shouldn't be a dirty job. The fact that it is may be a direct result of constant friction between boards and NACHI members. Why the friction? What's causing it?

[bkelly1]

It sounds as if he wants it to be like the supreme court. With lifetime appointments they are the final say so. They have the ability to change, and do what they want.Don't foget un-elected. The constitution is a mere ball of wax in the hands of the judiciary. Which is what this will be if not controlled.

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Todd,

Joe Farsetta doesn't want to run anything, much less the "whole show." If you must know... I have had to beg him over the years to continue doing what can be reasonably coined as the dirtiest job at NACHI. A job he does very well but one that brings him nothing but grief. With the best interests of NACHI in my heart... I will continue to beg... on my knees if that is what it takes.

Nick,

You are one of a kind for sure and maybe you know something we are all unaware of. If it were up to the membership Mr. Farsetta would hold no office within NACHI he is unelectable, has disgraced himself and would have long since been gone. Furthermore FWIW if you were to suddenly depart he would be the first to go. Truth.

[Richard L. Bennett]

Sounds like Mr. Farsetta has upset you somewhere along the line. Ethically speaking is it ethical to talk about someone the way you do Joe

Wake up smell the flowers

The world is not a bad place to live

rlb

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by rbennett

Sounds like Mr. Farsetta has upset you somewhere along the line. Ethically speaking is it ethical to talk about someone the way you do Joe

Wake up smell the flowers

The world is not a bad place to live

rlb

Richard,

Are now seeking an appointment to the ESOP committee?

[Richard L. Bennett]

No - did not know that they were looking

If the world would see the videos of my life I would have to have my identity stolen. In reality I have no problem with anyone (even Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon) from an Ethics point of view - Problem I have is what people do about it. We all do some things in are life that are not ethical - This is life

I think I like the religious approach - confess and the problem goes away

rlb

[William J. Decker]

After reading both draft proposals regarding the ethics complaint process, authority of the ESOP Committee, its membership, and autonomy, I must say that I cannot support either proposal in its current form.

The MAB was asked to write this document. Sorry you cannot support a document that was worked hard on, with a great deal of thought and soul searching by the MAB, NACHI's only elected body (and, therefore, the only truely representative body of the membership of NACHI as a whole, as oppsed to the ESOP membership.)


Just as independent counsel to the president of the US, or BOD of any corporation acts at the discretion of the Chairman of the BOD, so does ESOP. Always has, always will. Additionally, ESOP can never be elected. Members of this committee cannot be chosen based on popularity.

One problem with your analogy. The President of the US is democratically elected. The Counsel to the President is appointed by that elected President. Likewise, the Board of Directors of a corporation is elected by the 'membership', (i.e., the stockholders). NACHI has no elected President or Board of Directors. Faulty analogy, and therefore irrelevent.


As far as acting on any comlaint, this process must remain squarely in the hands, and within the authority of ESOP. The proposals, as crafted, are not within the purview nor authority of the MAB. The proposals as crafted by the MAB were done so without the counsel or input of ESOP. This, in and of itseld, is most perturbing. In the 3 1/2 years that ESOP has been in existence, it has acted even handedly, and without malice or prejudice. It will continue to do so.

Of course the proposal is not in the perview of the MAB. This entire exercise was undertaken in an effort to change the process. That is what we asked to do. This document is about change. Your argument is that since the MAB does not currently have the authority, it never should have it. Another faulty argument.


If the MAB wishes to be a part of the process, that is fine. It may do so in an advisory capacity only.

I don't believe that this has ever happened, and I doubt it will under the current setup.


I am recommending that the proposals as crafted be rejected.

The COE, applicability, and administration, including the complaint/resolution process, must remain independent... and shall remain independent; absent of undue influence, private agendas, and political pressures.

I would ask, "independent" of what or who? Is it not much more likely that there would be "undue influence, pritate adgendas and political pressures" from the current process?

Please, understand. I am not trying to make trouble or rabble rouse. I am only pointing out that your arguments are invalid to the question and trying, along with the rest of the MAB and, I believe, NACHI membership as a whole, who we were elected to represent.

Hope this helps.

[Ted Allen]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Todd,

Joe Farsetta doesn't want to run anything, much less the "whole show." If you must know... I have had to beg him over the years to continue doing what can be reasonably coined as the dirtiest job at NACHI. A job he does very well but one that brings him nothing but grief. With the best interests of NACHI in my heart... I will continue to beg... on my knees if that is what it takes.

Why don't you let the membership decide? This is a member driven organization after all isnt it? Or is it run by one single person?

[jmichalski]

Nick, If Joe does an outstanding job, then he would be elected to continue on in the position he currently holds. Incumbents are rearely ousted if even marginally effective.

This proposal would relieve you from the need to have to beg Joe F. for anything as it establishes a procedure by which the membership can generate a continuing and respsonsive method for handling problems, violations or disputes.

As defined, the process is clear, the format for filing complaints will not be a mystery and there is a fair amount of accountability and responsiveness to the membership.

Joe F's comparision does not work as the ESOP Committee should be here to respond to the membership, not serve at the pleasure of the president (or in this case ED). If that is the intent (to serve Nick and his wishes) then I have not correctly understood the purpose of the ESOP committee.

These proprosals provide checks and balances. They are not perfect, but they are a significant improvement over the current system.

As an MAB member, the primary cirteria I use to juedge new ideas or proposals is: "Is this better for the membership?"

In this case, the answer is yes for the following reasons:
1) It provides clarity to the process, defining procedures and outcomes as well as timetables for such.
2) It prevents those who would make money off of NACHI or NACHI members (vendors) from holding positions of authority that could impact any decisions involving NACHI.
3) It provides accountability and resposiveness by making positions elected, recurring and establishing term limits.

These are all good. These proposals have my support for those reasons.