NACD Instructor standards violation

[GDI]

Rick, I'm hoping you can clarify something. In the legal filing the groups attorney acknowledges receiving two certified letters from RN requesting to make arrangements for the return of the NACDs property, but states something to the nature of because there was no signature they couldn't be sure it was from him. The the way it reads to me is the group then decides to not make arrangements to receive the property back from him but to go ahead and spend valuable resources on legal filings and attorney fees. Why is that?

Sent via

Multiple attempts were made to arrange for handing over NACD property, RN choose to ignore any certified mail and other forms of communication to him. Or to respond in any other attempted format. RN's claim of oneway communication is not accurate. Certified mail, e-mails and even FB messages were sent well ahead of any legal filings.

---------- Post added July 17th, 2015 at 12:07 AM ----------

I seriously resent your comment about stirring the pot!!!! Since social media appears to be the one mechanism of communication of the NACD I am using it. Yes, there was request made 3 times to ask about financial records, but the NACD attorney turned it down. I am not going to give this person's name,but they monitor these forums, and if they choose to come forward that is their prerogative. Why would I ask? As mentioned somewhere on this thread the corporate filing has seen a serious decrease in capital, and as 20 year member I have an interest. I also have an interest in the sustaining funds that were donated with earmark for the NACD to purchase a property, and if those funds are still ear marked. As I said, I am not stirring the pot,but have what I consider a reasonable inquiry.

The procedural process was provided as requested. To my knowledge there is no current request to review the records being made by any member. To make a statement that such a request was made three (3) times and was/is being denied or "blocked" ? Yeah I have to question that one.

To My knowledge No request has been made to review any records since 2012. At that time the individual who made the request following the procedure was permitted open access to review the records.

---------- Post added July 17th, 2015 at 12:08 AM ----------

 

[ucfdiver]

Were these complaints formally submitted? Does it matter whether or not they were formally submitted? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm honestly asking.

There was an in depth discussion on scubaboard about this. Since Rick visits here fairly often, I have zero doubt he's seen the story where Marci posted a first hand account of this possible violation.

Rick, do you mind commenting on why Mike Oleary hasn't been investigated for a nearly identical violation which Rob has been suspended for?

 

[GDI]

Rick, I'm hoping you can clarify something. In the legal filing the groups attorney acknowledges receiving two certified letters from RN requesting to make arrangements for the return of the NACDs property, but states something to the nature of because there was no signature they couldn't be sure it was from him. The the way it reads to me is the group then decides to not make arrangements to receive the property back from him but to go ahead and spend valuable resources on legal filings and attorney fees. Why is that?

Sent via

First of all I am not a lawyer, Also important to note is that the NACD lawyers (that is right x 2) have graciously accepted to work pro-bono on behalf of the NACD membership. In fact during the 11 Apr BoD meeting these lawyers ensured that RN's rights were protected, that the documentation was correctly stated and referenced. RN sat immediately to my right but appeared not to take notice of this as the violation allegations were read. If it were me listening to similar claims I would have requested a hearing right then and there. This is important to know since RN two days in advance of the 11 Apr meeting stated he would resign if the lawyers remained as part of the organization. The same lawyers who only two years earlier made it clear exactly that the by-laws stated what needed to happen in the JR fiasco. How things change to suit oneself or ones needs.

In the chain of events following, RN resigned from the BoD and by default as the TD, however this did not remove the need to conduct a investigation of the allegations. RN was mailed a certified letter and regular mail letter of the allegations and an explanation of his options, that is having 14 days to request a hearing, an e-mail containing the information was also sent. RN did not accept the certified letter and has yet of this date to respond to any form of communication from the NACD, including not accepting a certified letter. RN was and is purely on send mode including his letters stating he required a notary confirmation of every BoD signature and suggested dates for returning the NACD property. Several attempts were made by the NACD to coordinate the return of NACD property even before RN sent out his first letter, RN would not even respond to the replies of his letters

These actions or rather lack there of led to the legal filing seeking the return of the NACD property. RN evaded the county sheriff in the deliverance of a court summons until the county sheriff attached the summons to appear at a hearing to his front door. RN's response to this was to send via certified mail a letter to the attending judge, unsigned and not notarized. Thus as I understand it, in leaglise his letters are not considered verifiable nor considered as a affidavit of a truthful statement. By the way RN went diving the day of the hearing, he had no lawyer to represent him just a unsigned, non notarized letter which he sent certified mail to the judge.

And the bad part of all this is It didn't have to go this route, RN could have simply handed over the TD computer and other items at first request and have been done with it.

BY necessary action when a instructor has a claim of violations against him/her an investigation shall be conducted. If witnesses make and back their statements that instructor can contest the claims at a hearing simply by requesting to do so within 14 days. Pending the hearing the instructor is placed on suspension, this is for safety and legal considerations and must be done. If the claims are proven accurate further actions against the instructor shall be taken, If the instructor takes no action, that is does not request a hearing, then it is deemed he accepts his status and a continued suspension is automatic.

---------- Post added July 17th, 2015 at 01:56 AM ----------

There was an in depth discussion on scubaboard about this. Since Rick visits here fairly often, I have zero doubt he's seen the story where Marci posted a first hand account of this possible violation.

Rick, do you mind commenting on why Mike Oleary hasn't been investigated for a nearly identical violation which Rob has been suspended for?

All that can be done is ask if they wish to make a claim, if they choose not to do so then the issue is closed. I believe I did ask

 

[nakatomi]

These actions or rather lack there of led to the legal filing seeking the return of the NACD property. RN evaded the county sheriff in the deliverance of a court summons until the county sheriff attached the summons to appear at a hearing to his front door.

First of all, as a member of the NACD I am completely appalled by the fact that you choose to share your dirty laundry with the membership and now with the public. Maybe having two lawyers work pro bono makes you think this is a good idea?

As to your claim above, I will say right now that this is not true and I know this for a fact.

Actually at the time the court summons were delivered, and weeks prior to that, I was staying at the house the papers were delivered to.
Let me tell you that they were not posted on the door, I was the one who received them directly from the server and handed them over to the defendant the same day.
This was also the first time I saw the server (or anyone representing the Sheriff) and I was there daily except during dives.

Now for the very important part that you chose not to mention. By the time these papers were served, the NACD property had already been delivered to the NACD in High Springs at the cost of the former TD. There are numerous witnesses that will confirm that the property was handed over to the NACD general manager who in turn, so I was told, handed it over to Larry Green.
In the light of that, the BOD decided to uphold that court hearing knowing that it was already in possession of their property, wasting members (and possibly taxpayers) money in the process.

Most of your remaining text is impossible for us to verify. But given your history of dealing with the truth and purposely choosing to ignore (or not reveal) very important aspects of it, I am doubtful that the rest of your account is anything close to truthful.

All that can be done is ask if they wish to make a claim, if they choose not to do so then the issue is closed. I believe I did ask

So basically you are saying that, in the case of RN, you felt compelled to act upon the alleged standards violations by pulling the most dubious ones out of the a**** of your own board and committee members.
And on the other hand, in the clear cut case of Mike O'Leary and Larry Green, you choose not to do anything even though the information has been laid out in front of you?
This is astonishing since YOU were the one bragging on this very forum that you wanted to do housekeeping and felt that you had to remove bad apples from your instructor roster.

 

[karstdvr]

Multiple attempts were made to arrange for handing over NACD property, RN choose to ignore any certified mail and other forms of communication to him. Or to respond in any other attempted format. RN's claim of oneway communication is not accurate. Certified mail, e-mails and even FB messages were sent well ahead of any legal filings.

---------- Post added July 17th, 2015 at 12:07 AM ----------



The procedural process was provided as requested. To my knowledge there is no current request to review the records being made by any member. To make a statement that such a request was made three (3) times and was/is being denied or "blocked" ? Yeah I have to question that one.

To My knowledge No request has been made to review any records since 2012. At that time the individual who made the request following the procedure was permitted open access to review the records.

---------- Post added July 17th, 2015 at 12:08 AM ----------

To not interfere with this thread I started a new thread, and where I greatly appreciate your response here, I hope that you'd continue the discussion there.

 

[GDI]

To not interfere with this thread I started a new thread, and where I greatly appreciate your response here, I hope that you'd continue the discussion there.

this thread the other thread I have no problem to continue the discussion

 

[ucfdiver]

All that can be done is ask if they wish to make a claim, if they choose not to do so then the issue is closed. I believe I did ask

Fair enough. Part of me had hoped the NACD was more proactively enforcing standards, but it is what it is.

 

[loquat149]

The same lawyers who only two years earlier made it clear exactly that the by-laws stated what needed to happen in the JR fiasco.

Why the BOD needed two new lawyers back then to convince them that the recommendation by the NACD's previous lawyer to dump Johnny Richards, DJur was the right course of action befuddles me, especially when it was painfully obvious to the rest of us at the time what should've been done. The sad thing is, these guys are still in charge...

Dave

 

[tbone1004]

Fair enough. Part of me had hoped the NACD was more proactively enforcing standards, but it is what it is.

If the standards stay a formal complaint has to be filed in order to investigate, how can they proceed? I'm not saying it's right, but they have to follow their by-laws....

 

[dreamdive]

I find it very laughable and an embarrassment to the NACD. It seems to me that this is highly political and I seriously doubt if any instructor was held to these standards that we would not have any cave instructors left in any organization. It seems to me that if they wanted him gone they could have just called and said so. I can't imagine anyone wanting to volunteer their time and energy for an organization that doesn't appreciate them. I think it would have also saved the NACD from getting a black eye. It was a very interesting read and is truly sad for the NACD that they have a BOD that is this incompetent.

OK! Free Foul Eggs and Rotten Salad Heads/Cabbage to any former NACD instructor who is not also deemed a target!!!

My question is if the NACD is actually going to show up at DEMA this year. According to the floor plan, they reserved a booth. Maybe I will open a stand in front of the hall selling foul eggs and rotten salad head.