A secret MAB forum members can't see. Is this rumor true?

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Brian:

When NACHI was comprised of Less than 100 Members, We were Home Inspectors helping Members. We were only a discounted few.

With upwards of 5000 +, we are viewed as Home Inspectors helping Vendors.

The Line was Crossed.

The Ethics Committee is now suspect through Nick's initiation of this Publicly Posted Thread.

Nick:

Who and Which Companies Owned by Ethics Committee Members are you seeking to protect?

[Ted Allen]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Todd - you are one funny guy.

Thank you.

[Nick Gromicko]

Joe, can you please give me one freakin' example of NACHI helping vendors without getting something in return for NACHI members? I'd be happy with one example.

[Nick Gromicko]

I just ran through www.InspectorMALL.com and count a grand total of ONE vendor whom I have a personal relationship with outside of NACHI... and it ain't Joe Farsetta. I've only met Joe 3 times I think, each for about 5 minutes at the bar waiting for his chapter to start and all we did was tell jokes.

Again, give me one example of NACHI helping a vendor without us getting something for NACHI members in return... Just one.

[Nick Gromicko]

Furthemore, I just ran through www.InspectorMALL.com again and count a grand total of ZERO vendors I have any business interests with.

Again, give me one example of NACHI helping a vendor without us getting something for NACHI members in return... Just one.

[Nick Gromicko]

In lieu of you being unable to name one vendor NACHI helped without us getting something in return for NACHI members... lets just drop the whole vendor thing.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by gromicko

If the Ethics Committee started a secret forum which led to them crafting a proposal to unilaterally and without MAB's permission remove the head of the MAB without his consent... yes... I think the forum that reveals the discussion that resulted in such a weird proposal should be made public.

Again, no one person is required to relinquish anything. That person may stay on and stand for election.

If they have a financial conflict of interest, it is only ethical that they not be in a position to affect policy or decisions of the organization.

Again, derisive terms and mis-stating the premise and facts do not make them any less factual. The last desperate grasps from a man who is clearly losing an argument.

I might ask, why is the title so important to you/Joe F.? Can he not serve as an advisor to you in a non-official capacity? Are you suggesting that there are no non-vendor members of high ethical standards among the general membership? Now THAT'S weird!

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Furthemore, I just ran through www.InspectorMALL.com again and count a grand total of ZERO vendors I have any business interests with.

Again, give me one example of NACHI helping a vendor without us getting something for NACHI members in return... Just one.

It isn't about what vendors provide. They can continue to provide (and they will always profit, you can be sure) they just cannot serve as elected representatives where they have any decision making or policy making ability.

Even our own HI/vendors readily admit that there is a strong appearance of impropriety and a great potnetial for conflict of interest where vendors are allowed to impact policy and procedures.

It appears that you seem to need these people to serve in positions to which you appoint them and cannot bear the idea that the membership does not necessarily want them there (or that they may not be best serving members interests.)

[Nick Gromicko]

Joe M: You nailed it dead on. I do not think removing them is best serving member's interests.

Especially removing our long-time head of Ethics simply because he owns a portion of a company that intends to sell defect-recognition CDs. That is weird, no?

[jmichalski]

No, it isn't. It is what all responsible organizations do - remove those with financial conflicts from teh decision making process.

And actually, tht is not at all what I said. you have the right words in all the wrong order. I am beginning to suspect that you read every 5th word and try to make sense of that for yourself.....

[jmichalski]

If it is the input from these people that you value so highly, call them as friends or advisers. They do not need to be officials in the organization to assist you.

As for what the membership wants, I think the fact that you are a lone voice in the wilderness on this should tell you something.....

[Nick Gromicko]

I have a 15 year history of only doing what is best for NACHI members and they know it.

Want to make it fair? Let's hold a referendum and let them decide. You write your plea for support. I will write a response in the same or less number of words. You can edit your argument all you want. Then when ready we will put it out for vote to the entire membership with no anonymous voting.

OK?

I'll kick your ****. The landslide will be laughable.

[Nick Gromicko]

In fact... you can run the referendum from your secret server.

[jmichalski]

So you can use your name and position to influence the voting? That hardly sounds fair. And why no anonymous voting? So those who want to hold a grudge and wield the ESOP ax can go after those who voted againast them? (there is also a pretty recent history of that).

The small sampling we have tested online as already spoken in two versions of polling (75% and 80% currently) in favor of the MAB proposal.

Again, yours is the lone voice of opposition here. Listen to what the members are telling you.

[Nick Gromicko]

Yes, lets listen. I won't even campaign for my position. I'll just write my argument against your proposal in the same or fewer number of words as you use to argue for it.

Why do you refuse to listen to the members? Lets hold a referendum Michael.