NACD Instructor standards violation

[tbone1004]

the other 3 resigned.....

I'm more curious on what happens after a suspension, if they can just stay permanently suspended or not

 

[nakatomi]

the other 3 resigned.....

I'm more curious on what happens after a suspension, if they can just stay permanently suspended or not

Actually from what I understand one of them resigned and left before the vote. The second of the three, Rob in fact, had to leave too (which was announced in advance) and the vote to suspend was held after he had left. Which leaves the third of the resigned BOD members who, I would assume, voted against the suspension.

 

[BabyDuck]

answering someone upthread (james, i think) - rick asked in pm quite nicely if i wanted to report a standards violation and i told him emphatically 'no'.

again, i don't think we did anything wrong. if it is decided by the powers that be that we did, things need to start fresh from here with an official notice to instructors that from now on x, y, or z won't be tolerated. i will do my utmost to not be party to a 6+ year old class being used as a weapon.

 

[GDI]

Rick, Thank you for sharing that. Perhaps you could also clarify my question as to why there were only 4 BOD members voting on the suspension and who was they were.

To everybody Let us be clear on something. First stop speculating what was and what wasn't who did and who didn't. Rob Neto couldn't vote because of the situation, As far the remaining BoD members I can only say this. One BoD member resigned prior to the vote, a second BoD member abstained, the remaining 4 BoD voted.

The Vote was as per the QA procedure and process. Rob Neto did depart early as he said he needed to, but not until after he had heard the findings of the investigation being read. Rob Neto can say otherwise but he sat between myself and the Lawyer, who was very clear questioning each point as she heard it read ensuring accuracy and reference to the NACD's standards and ethics.

In accordance with the QA process Rob Neto was suspended pending the outcome of a hearing if so requested by the instructor of question. Rob Neto never requested a hearing within the 14 days. From the bylaws

c. Decide specific action and notify the instructor in writing of such intended
action. The instructor will then have fourteen days to either accept the
intended action or request a formal hearing. Failure to respond in writing in
the allotted time will be taken as acceptance by the instructor of the intended
action.

The rules of the bylaws were followed. The very rules that Rob Neto signed off on in his time as TD. If the NACD BoD are to be faulted for following the rules, so be it. The allegations could have been challenged, it was Rob Neto's unwillingness to follow procedures that cost him

The now public court filings have nothing to do with the suspension, Rob Neto resigned the next day on 12 Apr from the BoD and by default the TD position. The court proceedings are about NACD property and I shall leave it at that.

 

[nakatomi]

In accordance with the QA process Rob Neto was suspended pending the outcome of a hearing if so requested by the instructor of question. Rob Neto never requested a hearing within the 14 days.

He requested that you provide him with specifics on the charges asking for:
- dates of the alleged violations
- the names of the students involved
- the witness statements

It's kind of essential to have this information in order to understand the nature of the allegations, right?
The dates alone, and a student name or two, would allow him to look up the class in his logs and know what type of class it was, the prior certifications of the students etc.
It's impossible and pointless to defend yourself against an entirely blank accusation.

The rules of the bylaws were followed. The very rules that Rob Neto signed off on in his time as TD. If the NACD BoD are to be faulted for following the rules, so be it.

I doubt the bylaws were followed. Based on the documents you sent to the members, the investigation was not done properly at all, or (in my opinion) there wasn't even an investigation in the first place.

The allegations could have been challenged, it was Rob Neto's unwillingness to follow procedures that cost him

It's not possible to build a defense on blank accusations, you and your lawyers know that. It's a witch hunt.

As to this costing him, I believe you fail to understand that all this is entirely at the expense of the NACD.

 

[Aotus]

Olli, I see your points, but Rick has said several times, in several places, that he could have asked for the trial. That was the first step. He didn't, even though the bylaws specify that he must in order to proceed in his favor. Why in the world did he not? If it were me, I'd be asking if there was a way to ask now, even well after the 14 days. Even if not in the bylaws, that's were I would hope the humans on the BoD would talk about how they could accommodate. If he really has no interest in pursuing the trial though, there seems to be little else to discuss (though that rarely stops a discussion..)

 

[The Chairman]

Why in the world did he not?

I can think of several reasons why he might not ask for a trial. Should I enumerate a few?

1. He's guilty as charged.
2. He's frustrated with what he sees as a flawed process.
3. He feels ambushed by an agency he's tried to serve selflessly.
4. He feels that this is nothing but a witch hunt designed to humiliate him.
5. He's tired of the politics and no longer feels a desire to be an NACD instructor.
6. He's been blind sided and does not have enough information to begin to defend himself.
7. He's tired of being publicly eviscerated here and elsewhere. He hasn't posted on SB in ages and that bothers me.

I could go on and on, with any number of speculations about why he would not want to be a part of what he believes to be a kangaroo court, but these should give you some pause to think. FWIW, these are my thoughts and not from Rob. No, I have not talked with Rob about this specifically, but I know him well enough to feel comfortable in creating this list. I have been a student of both Rob and Rick, so I find myself in the unenviable position of having two friends involved in this crap. Such is the Scuba Industry and the Cave Community is no exception.

 

[Bennno]

... , but Rick has said several times, in several places, that he could have asked for the trial.

For what? When people throw you under the bus, would you expect to get a fair 'trial' from that same group? Seriously, don't you think a 'trial' would be a waste of time? Have you read the report?

Why do you think Rick doesn't want to comment on whether those witnesses that took the courses mentioned in the report were NACD instructors and BoD members or not? That part you don't find strange?

I mean, it's great that the president of the NACD is answering stuff here but he's kind of cherry picking the questions he wants to answer... or people the wants to talk to, it's one or the other.

 

[nakatomi]

Olli, I see your points, but Rick has said several times, in several places, that he could have asked for the trial. That was the first step. He didn't, even though the bylaws specify that he must in order to proceed in his favor. Why in the world did he not?

He repeatedly asked that the BOD substantiate their claims so he can prepare a defense. To my knowledge they received his request for information in many different forms and on several occasions, including by certified mail (Rick even put a copy of one request in the documents sent to members).
I would definitely call that willingness to participate in an investigation.

You wouldn't honestly expect anyone to drive four hours to a hearing without even knowing what he is accused of exactly and without being able to look up the dates and prepare himself?

The NACD BOD screwed this one up, not the accused.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

Nakatomi: Who is the NACD BoD member you have filed a complaint against with NACD as stated over on CDF and what is the complaint that you posted about this morning?

Now that this discussion is also on CDF it becomes more difficult to follow. CDF will delete anything that personally offends any mod over there so I do not ask you this question there.