SSI Ethics Question

[tbone1004]

Both shops are SSI shops, the alleged burglar sold Mares the shop that was broken into did not sell Mares.

Does that really make a difference?

Mares=SSI for all intents and purposes, but the point of that was that making them a lot of money tends to put blinders on the agencies in general....

 

[tursiops]

It doesn't seem the OP is actually asking a question or wanting input, advice, or options; it appears he is looking for validation of his own opinion.

 

[kammel78]

It doesn't seem the OP is actually asking a question or wanting input, advice, or options; it appears he is looking for validation of his own opinion.

Actually, there was a clearly defined question. In everyone's opinion, SHOULD SSI, or any organization for that matter, continue to endorse someone under criminal charges.

It's a quite simple question, and I'm asking for opinions, not legal advice. You know, prompting discussion, almost like a message board or something...

 

[tursiops]

Actually, there was a clearly defined question. In everyone's opinion, SHOULD SSI, or any organization for that matter, continue to endorse someone under criminal charges.

It's a quite simple question, and I'm asking for opinions, not legal advice. You know, prompting discussion, almost like a message board or something...

Yeah, Right. You've blown off any responses that do not agree with your opinion, which is clear.

 

[kammel78]

Yeah, Right. You've blown off any responses that do not agree with your opinion, which is clear.

By blown off, you mean responded with reasonable responses and even admitted when someone was right?

And your contribution to the topic was what? If you don't like the conversation, don't participate.

 

[tursiops]

Are you an SSI instructor?

 

[kammel78]

Are you an SSI instructor?

SSI Instructor, no. SSI certified diver, yes. I honestly have no real understanding of SSI or PADI's business working.

Sure, I have my own opinion, but I'm honestly interested if this is normal. From my business, we tend to immediately distance ourselves from anything remotely potentially damaging from a PR perspective. I'd assumed it would be the same for this, but I could very well be wrong.

I researched SSI's published standards of ethics and it appears to me that anyone under investigation by a government agency is in violation. I assumed, as someone else mentioned, that they would probably suspend the person pending an investigation. This is apparently not the case and I'm interested in people's opinions of that.

I've got nothing against SSI in particular.

If you have an opinion on SSI's handling of this, good or bad, I'd love to hear it.

 

[rick00001967]

i do agree that there is a lot said in the standards about conducting ones self with honesty and integrity. and it is in there for what should be obvious reasons.
the first line of the standards you quoted advises that ssi be notified if convicted of a felony etc. in this case, it sounds as if there has been no conviction. there may not have even been charges laid.
so as much as i understand and appreciate your concern, i think we also have to consider it from ssi's side. they cannot suspend an instructor or discontinue an affiliation with a shop just because there is a rumor that the staff and / or owners may have broken the law in some way. ssi would need to be very careful, if they were notified about such a rumor, not to over react too quickly. if they did, they could be liable if it turns out there was no truth to the allegations.
if an ssi professional is aware of a breach of standards they are obligated to report it. you as an ssi diver could also take it upon yourself to contact ssi if you feel that strongly about it.
i would assume however, that no action would be taken until there was a conviction, or at the very least, strong enough evidence that it was clear that the standards had been broken.

 

[Carl_F]

Sure, I have my own opinion, but I'm honestly interested if this is normal. From my business, we tend to immediately distance ourselves from anything remotely potentially damaging from a PR perspective. I'd assumed it would be the same for this, but I could very well be wrong.

I researched SSI's published standards of ethics and it appears to me that anyone under investigation by a government agency is in violation. I assumed, as someone else mentioned, that they would probably suspend the person pending an investigation. This is apparently not the case and I'm interested in people's opinions of that.

If you have an opinion on SSI's handling of this, good or bad, I'd love to hear it.

I have zero opinion on SSI's handling of this. Why? I am only seeing/hearing what you're saying and I have no idea of the validity of the information. Also, the ethical standards are a list of items that "may" make the party ineligible for renewal or active status.

Also, since you have the standards, take a look at the definition of "Under Review".

Has SSI been notified in writing of the issue? If not, what would you expect them to do?

And as Rick said, the dive professional is required to notify if convicted.

 

[kammel78]

Wow, guys. You're way overcomplicating the issue, I guess to avoid having an opinion except to criticize the question.

It's a fact when someone is arrested and charged with a crime. Public knowledge and not open to interpretation. The charges are also public knowledge and not anyone's "side" of the argument.

SSI's standards also state that they must be notified if someone is "under investigation", NOT just convicted. A person arrested and charged with a crime is, in fact, under investigation.

SSI has also been notified in writing (okay, that you'll have to take my word for, but do you seriously believe the shop who was broken into would not report the arrest to SSI?).

None of this is "my side" of an argument. Just presenting what actually happened. The only supposition on my part was the possible motive for the alleged crime.

The IT and shop in question is still in active status. Also a fact and public knowledge, not "my side".

To recap, it's very simple. Crime committed, person under investigation, reported to SSI, no action taken (as of yet).

Again, I welcome all comments to the handling of this, but seriously, if you want to troll and criticize the question, go do it somewhere else.