DAN Responds

[crofrog]

Are you suggesting it should just be eliminated, rather than changed?

Read the black and white.

I'm asking you to provide your understanding of what function governance serves in an organization.

"Change in governance? What about this instance suggests to you that there was a governance problem?" because based on that statement, I don't think you understand what role it plays.

 

[tursiops]

Then why was the video necessary?

It wasn't.

 

[crofrog]

Actually, they made the changes before being blasted publicly. Rather an important distinction....

Considering in the video Gus and Woody mentioned they had already been talking to Bill Ziefle, I'm sure they knew a video was coming and had an understanding about what the reach of that video would be.

 

[O-ring]

Then why was the video necessary?

Clicks...

 

[SlugLife]

I see so many comments like this so I’m not singling you out with this reply.

So let me get this straight they didn’t do what they were suppose to do, got blasted for it publicly and are now making changes. I agree the changes sound like they should help. Assuming they’re followed, that being said if the SOPs they already had in place where followed then this would have happened in the first place.

I didn’t really see any changes in their governance, internal audit, or quality programs.

So let’s all imagine this was the company you worked for and they said they were going to make those changes. I’m guessing not many of you would have a high degree of confidence in them solving the underlying issues that led to the situation in the first place.

This is a fair critique. I do appreciate and give DAN credit for their response being (paraphrased) "we messed up, and are taking steps to improve." That's 100x better than a statement about "We acted properly, here's how the customer was demanding services they weren't entitled to." or worse "see you in court."

However, I've also been on the receiving end of the runaround enough times to know "talk is cheap." I have also been very close to organizations that were stellar, but practically overnight became garbage. I even donated many times to one organization for years, whose current actions and management I now consider evil. Whether DAN follows through or not I don't know, but they have a good reputation and have historically provided many valuable services to the dive community. I'm hopeful they are genuine and follow through (but hope is cheap).

If I was in Woody's fins, an eventual reimbursement and nicely written letter admitting fault, would be appreciated, but wouldn't right the situation. I suspect the #1 reason Woody pays for DAN, is the same reason I do, that in the event of a Dive related emergency, they can arrange proper and timely care and connection to experts, better than my own health insurance or showing up at a local hospital. Being reimbursed or having costs covered is important, but a much lower priority for me personally. I don't know how a letter some time after the incident helps Woody in any tangible way. It is of course possible that behind the scenes DAN is doing more to work with Woody, and naturally, those efforts are usually done privately at least until they're resolved.

 

[L13]

Read the black and white.

I'm asking you to provide your understanding of what function governance serves in an organization.

"Change in governance? What about this instance suggests to you that there was a governance problem?" because based on that statement, I don't think you understand what role it plays.

Ok. Let me simplify my question so you aren't confused.

Which member or members of the the DAN board of governors, or even their executive staff, would you like to see replace and on what basis?

Presumably, if you think a change is needed, you can point to one or more of them failing in some way during this incident.

Or is this just a case of "something happend, heads must roll." And "the heads must be at the top of the chain, to prove we are serious."

 

[crofrog]

Ok. Let me simplify my question so you aren't confused.

Which member or members of the the DAN board of governors, or even their executive staff, would you like to see replace and on what basis?

Presumably, if you think a change is needed, you can point to one or more of them failing in some way during this incident.

Or is this just a case of "something happend, heads must roll." And "the heads must be at the top of the chain, to prove we are serious."

You've made it obvious you don't know what governance is. Maybe chatgpt it or something.

 

[L13]

Then why was the video necessary?

Considering in the video Gus and Woody mentioned they had already been talking to Bill Ziefle, I'm sure they knew a video was coming and had an understanding about what the reach of that video would be.

So when should they have corrected the problem? Immediately? of after the public outcry?

If they acted immediately on discovering the problem, what should they have done different. They couldn't control whether DT would make a video or not. According to that same video, DT never suggested that they were DT, and never suggested that they would make a video about it. Bill may very well have recognized them, but what should he have done differently at that point? What evidence do you have that he would have acted differently at that point if it were you or I? (you may be right, but there is no evidence)

 

[L13]

This is a fair critique. I do appreciate and give DAN credit for their response being (paraphrased) "we messed up, and are taking steps to improve." That's 100x better than a statement about "We acted properly, here's how the customer was demanding services they weren't entitled to." or worse "see you in court."

However, I've also been on the receiving end of the runaround enough times to know "talk is cheap." I have also been very close to organizations that were stellar, but practically overnight became garbage. I even donated many times to one organization for years, whose current actions and management I now consider evil. Whether DAN follows through or not I don't know, but they have a good reputation and have historically provided many valuable services to the dive community. I'm hopeful they are genuine and follow through (but hope is cheap).

Except they have already acted as well. They have already fully reimbursed Woody. They have already paid for all his ongoing costs. They have already done every thing for which doing is already possible.

If I was in Woody's fins, an eventual reimbursement and nicely written letter admitting fault, would be appreciated, but wouldn't right the situation.

Except DAN has already done that! It was done in less than a week! It was done before the video even came out.

I suspect the #1 reason Woody pays for DAN, is the same reason I do, that in the event of a Dive related emergency, they can arrange proper and timely care and connection to experts, better than my own health insurance or showing up at a local hospital. Being reimbursed or having costs covered is important, but a much lower priority for me personally. I don't know how a letter some time after the incident helps Woody in any tangible way. It is of course possible that behind the scenes DAN is doing more to work with Woody, and naturally, those efforts are usually done privately at least until they're resolved.

DAN has already done all of that for Woody before the video cam out. The only things left to be done are their promises to do better in the future for the rest of us.

 

[crofrog]

This is a fair critique. I do appreciate and give DAN credit for their response being (paraphrased) "we messed up, and are taking steps to improve." That's 100x better than a statement about "We acted properly, here's how the customer was demanding services they weren't entitled to." or worse "see you in court."

100% agree.

However, I've also been on the receiving end of the runaround enough times to know "talk is cheap." I have also been very close to organizations that were stellar, but practically overnight became garbage. I even donated many times to one organization for years, whose current actions and management I now consider evil. Whether DAN follows through or not I don't know, but they have a good reputation and have historically provided many valuable services to the dive community. I'm hopeful they are genuine and follow through (but hope is cheap).

Yes. Exactly.