MAB - Ethics Committee Draft Proposals

[Nick Gromicko]

Let's see, how about Gary Johnson? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about Mike Rowan? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about Keith Swift? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about Bob Brown? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about John O?... Ah, no... he's a vendor.

So you have to be free of all vendor relationships to hold a position at NACHI under this new proposal?

[Jay Schwartz]

[quote=gromicko]Let's see, how about Gary Johnson? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about Mike Rowan? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about Keith Swift? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about Bob Brown? Ah, no... he's a vendor. How about John O?... Ah, no... he's a vendor.

So you have to be free of all vendor relationships to hold a position at NACHI under this new proposal?[/quote]

Nick:

Correct.

[jmichalski]

Yes, the idea is to avoid the inherent conflict of interest between lining ones pockets and serving the membership.

No one faults any of those guys for using hteir talents to run a business outside home inspection. In fact, if any of them wantto offer advice on the BB about how to do so, what they do, offer services, etc - good for them and NACHI.

But allow vendors to set policy? No. That would be like allowing Enron to write the energy policy...oooops.....I guess we did that. How did that work out?

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by gromicko

So if you force Gerry, John, Joe, and every other member, who is also associated with a vendor, to step down... who is left? I'm assuming this also means that anyone stepping up to fill the slots can't be associated with a vendor either. Am I correct?

Did you even glance at the proposal?

Are the words too big for you to understand?

Or are you just asking questions you already know the answer to so you can proceed off topic to take the heat off your failed argument against enacting the will of the membership and allowing their voice to be heard?