NACD Instructor standards violation

[bamafan]

Please help me to understand this.

I would bet almost anyone who is a cave instructor has formed a company for the purposes of providing that training and providing him or her the legal protection afforded by, say, an LLC. I have done that myself. Does that mean under this interpretation that any instructor who has formed such a business cannot be on the NACD BoD? If so, I am pretty sure that was not the intent of the rule.

From what I understand this was the rule put in place to get rid of Tom Mount. Anyway like Curt said why would anyone think they would actually abid by their own bylaws? Like everything else the NACD seems to do it was poorly done. Never forget they kicked Sheck Exley out too.

 

[cerich]

I would have thought that section of the by laws was to stop people from being on the NACD BOD while also being on the board, senior person of CDS, IANTD, TDI, NAUI whatever...not so much a shop/ind instr type thing.

That said, it's poorly written, but regardless, the bylaws only get examined in detail when things are either poorly being run or some individual(s) are making a power play.

 

[Wookie]

Interesting points. What follows is thinking out loud.

Let's look at the really big agencies--PADI, SSI, etc. Nobody directing them is spending their weekends running classes through their personal scuba instruction businesses. It would be untinkable that they would. It would be more unthinkable if they were also working for competing agencies. They are all receiving salaries from their agencies, so that is their job.

Big non-profits do pay a salary to their leadership--some are, in fact, ridiculously well paid. I was for a while the executive director of a 501 (c) 3 organization, and I got a salary while in that role. It was my job. While it was my job, I did not have any other job that would call into question my objectivity. When I was then hired by a company in a position that would present a conflict of interest, I immediately resigned.

Now let's look at a small, non-profit agency like NACD. It is a volunteer organization. People aren't getting paid to lead it. They have to have jobs outside of the organization to survive, and those jobs can provide a conflict of interest. There is a serious potential for problems of this sort.

The big agencies aren't non profits, either, and I'll just bet that if Drew Richardson is teaching a weekend class at his home, it isn't a TDI class.

 

[boulderjohn]

The big agencies aren't non profits, either, and I'll just bet that if Drew Richardson is teaching a weekend class at his home, it isn't a TDI class.

I, of course, did not mean to suggest (if I did) that the big agencies are non-profit. But you do raise a good point. If you are on the Board of Directors of Agency A, it would seem to me that you would be teaching all your classes for Agency A, unless there are classes that Agency A does not offer.

 

[Wookie]

I, of course, did not mean to suggest (if I did) that the big agencies are non-profit. But you do raise a good point. If you are on the Board of Directors of Agency A, it would seem to me that you would be teaching all your classes for Agency A, unless there are classes that Agency A does not offer.

I'd go a step further. If you are on the BOD for agency A, and you are bound to follow the standards for Agency A at all times, regardless of the class you are teaching by the rules of that agency, you'd likely stop teaching Agency B's classes, at least for the duration of the time you are serving on the BOD. Otherwise, you might be forced to resign.

 

[The Chairman]

I just work with what you give me Doc :cool2:

Don't sell yourself short... you're a good inventor as well. It's an art to create what isn't there. I could see you hosting a reality show about chasing conspiracies or even ghosts.

 

[The Chairman]

I That said, it's poorly written, but regardless, the bylaws only get examined in detail when things are either poorly being run or some individual(s) are making a power play.

It's a non compete type of thing and the industry is rife with them. If you're a NAUI or PADI Course Director, you're not supposed to teach for any other training agencies. I'm sure that what they meant was being a part of another agency, but that's not what they actually wrote. I bet that gets clarified in short order.

 

[Hetland]

It's a non compete type of thing and the industry is rife with them. If you're a NAUI or PADI Course Director, you're not supposed to teach for any other training agencies. I'm sure that what they meant was being a part of another agency, but that's not what they actually wrote. I bet that gets clarified in short order.

Is a non-profit mostly concerned about competition or conflict of interest? How many agencies were teaching cave classes when it was written?

On one thing we agree: the rule will probably be re-written before we hear a peep from the board.

 

[darushin]

Is a non-profit mostly concerned about competition or conflict of interest? How many agencies were teaching cave classes when it was written?

On one thing we agree: the rule will probably be re-written before we hear a peep from the board.

They are probably too busy rewriting rules to make the complaint against the current ones go away to be bothered.

Daru

 

[The Chairman]

Is a non-profit mostly concerned about competition or conflict of interest?

The distinction may be too small to matter. NAUI is also a 'non-profit', and they are in heavy competition with the other agencies. To be certain, I can think of at least four 'for profit' agencies that owe their genesis or re-genesis to the effin stupidity of NAUI's various boards; PADI, SDI/TDI, SSI and NASE. That Chris Richardson felt compelled to leave the current NAUI BOD because of their reluctance to change from being a Good Ol' Boys club shows that they have yet to learn their lesson. Whatever is done in secret may very well grace the pages of ScubaBoard. David Ochs has vowed to me that NAUI will never be a part of ScubaBoard, but he's only half right. The NAUI BOD's shenanigans may very well be posted here with or without his input or permission.

How many agencies were teaching cave classes when it was written?

The first, second, third or fourth re-write? I know of at least one volunteer who was serving on the NACD Bylaws rewrite committee but then resigned over their gag order. If things are to be transparent, then why the need for a gag order?

On one thing we agree: the rule will probably be re-written before we hear a peep from the board.

We probably agree on more than one thing, but only time will tell if the court of public opinion will have any effect in the long run. No, we don't allow agency bashing, but that does not include reasoned criticisms. Some of these very same people want to bash PADI. I know because I've heard and read them. However, PADI is sensitive to the opinions of the diving community. They've made some significant changes in the past couple of years due to input from various forums. What other agency can lay claim to that? That puts them way ahead of the Good Ol' Boys club that comprise a number of the current agencies.