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.