SSI Ethics Question

[kammel78]

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.

Yeah, I get the innocent until proven guilty argument, but I assumed you'd be held in suspension pending the outcome or something like that. Remove them from SSI's website or something like that. Most companies err on the side of being overly cautious when criminal charges are involved.

 

[tursiops]

Hey, the OP's from Louisiana...they are not completely on board with that Innocent until Proven Guilty stuff.....Napoleonic Code, and all that.

OP, now that SSI has been notified, let's wait until they do something or nothing. THEN is the time to make your case. How can you expect them to do something without having been told there is a problem?

 

[NAM001]

I'm just going by SSI's own published standards of ethics...

View attachment 465145

Let's use an extreme example to argue the waiting until convicted...If an SSI instructor was under investigation for assault and SSI did not suspend them, how would it look if that Instructor assaulted another person?

I wold say it is always a tough situation when things like this happen. You have to protect all sides of the incident till it is clear as to what has happened. The responsible use of that company standard should be a no brainer and should be followed. The problem comes when some one irresponsibly uses that complaint avenue on one shop or person to the the advantage of their shop or person or as a means to chase away competition. What ifs should happen on either side of the argument. Two accusations from one shop is totally different than 2 complaints form 2 unrelated sources and periods of time.

 

[NAM001]

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...

If it is non scuba related then no action till a conviction is obtained. innocent till proven guilty, wither ethically or legally.

 

[Magnus Lundstedt]

My opinion is that everyone deserves the benefit of doubt.

I say, if the alledged crime result in a conviction i court, then its time to take action, if any, but not before any conviction in court.

 

[kammel78]

Hey, the OP's from Louisiana...they are not completely on board with that Innocent until Proven Guilty stuff.....Napoleonic Code, and all that.

OP, now that SSI has been notified, let's wait until they do something or nothing. THEN is the time to make your case. How can you expect them to do something without having been told there is a problem?

Well, technically live in LA, not from LA, lol.

3 weeks, so I guess it's safe to say SSI is taking the wait and see approach.

It's interesting to me. If the crime were that the owner was arrested for was murder, would you still want to allow an accused murderer to be affiliated with SSI? What if they killed someone else while SSI was waiting for a conviction?

Does the severity of the crime affect the action? If so, where is that line drawn and who draws that line?

I get the innocent until proven guilty and that absolutely applies in certain situations, but we're talking the private sector. I would absolutely pull my child from a sports team where the coach was accused of molestation, conviction or not. I would certainly think twice about hiring someone who is currently being charged with stealing from their previous employer. It's about self-preservation.

It seems like about everyday now, someone is getting suspended or put on review from just being accused of wrongdoing, not even being arrested. The metoo movement and all that has put a lot of companies on edge where they react first and investigate later. And I'm not saying that's right, either. It's just an observation that we could probably debate for days.

 

[mmerriman]

It's interesting to me. If the crime were that the owner was arrested for was murder, would you still want to allow an accused murderer to be affiliated with SSI? What if they killed someone else while SSI was waiting for a conviction?

Does the severity of the crime affect the action? If so, where is that line drawn and who draws that line?

totally valid question. If I ran a club or organization and a member were charged with child molestation for example I would want to suspend that member until they were proven guilty or declared innocent. If they were cleared, I'd let them back in. In the interim I don't want my organization to viewed as one the supports an accused (fill in the black).

 

[NAM001]

totally valid question. If I ran a club or organization and a member were charged with child molestation for example I would want to suspend that member until they were proven guilty or declared innocent. If they were cleared, I'd let them back in. In the interim I don't want my organization to viewed as one the supports an accused (fill in the black).

Let me play devils advocate. If the agency suspended them then they must believe they were guilty.

How do you reinstate not just the member but the confidence of the public. With todays climate it is standard that if you were found not guilty ,,,, you go toff from a technicality. Not guilty and innocent are a far cry from each other. If an agency head was accused of tax evasion,,, what would happen to them. Should the company suspend them to avoid the legitimacy of their books, or leave them in place to say the company stands behind the person. Its unfortunate that image often forces action that the legality does not warrant.

How and who draws the line to say cross this and it reflects bad on your employer?????? And if the decision in the end, is the wrong one?????

Speaking only of cases here in my area those suspected of crimes such as teachers and student sex. they are put on admin leave wit the understanding that if found guilty they have to pay back the pay for the admin time taken. This is done to prevent cases of wrongful termination suits on the schools by the teachers. If found not guilty they return to their duties with free time off. Of course we all know how the public views it. The accused looses no matter what. Yet something has to be done when it comes to crimes involving your professional behavior.

 

[mmerriman]

Let me play devils advocate. If the agency suspended them then they must believe they were guilty.
.

No - tha'ts not necessarily the case - they don't have to believe they are guilty, but do not want to be affiliated with the accusation. Ideally a membership agreement (or employment contract would spell that out. In the case of PADI its based on conviction.Accept that a criminal conviction involving abuse of a minor either during or prior to PADI Membership is grounds for denial or termination of PADI Membership. 19. Accept that a criminal conviction involving sexual abuse of an adult either during or prior to PADI Membership is grounds for denial or termination of PADI Membership. I have seen agreements that base this on accusation. Whether the org thinks they are guilty or not doens't matter. THeir view is that the accusation tarnishes the org and they don't want it on them.

 

[gcarter]

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.

View attachment 465183


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.

If public knowledge, do you have a link to a verifiable news source?