Dissension at DAN???

[Rickg]

The following link on an article about DAN was posted to another dive list that I belong to. It makes for some provocative reading.

http://indyweek.com/durham/current/cover.html

Has anyone else heard anything about this? I am completely in the dark on this.

Rickg

 

[DocVikingo]

I wrote an article on the situation that appears in this month's issue of Undercurrent http://www.undercurrent.org/ It's been a long simmering punch-up.

Have you specific questions?

Best regards.

DocVikingo

 

[Rickg]

Doc,

No specific questions. I have been a DAN member for the past 2 years and only recently let my membership lapse thinking to renew it prior to our next dive trip.

I was just wondering if one had any comments (either pro or con) on this article because there is always the option of going with another dive insurance other than DAN.

I'm also on online subscriber to UNDERCURRENT but am on travel at the moment and can't access the online website because I don't have my password info with me. I will read your article when I get back home.

Thanks for the info.

Rickg

 

[joens]

I had been hearing stuff about Mr Bennet for some time now and was considering switching to a different dive insurance but with him out now I will stay with DAN .
Joens

 

[DocVikingo]

DAN is entirely financially solid & its various insurance policies will continue uninterrupted.

This is at base a group of big egos pushing against each other in a somewhat childish fashion, not a fiduciary scandal. None of the charges leveled by various factions have resulted in criminal or civil prosecution, and in fact were not even sufficient for the courts to find that there was any factual basis for Dr. Bennett's removal. He simply agreed to retire to end the bitter bickering and resultant harm to DAN's image.

Not to fret.

DocVikingo

 

[daylight]

Doc,

I enjoyed your excellent article in Undercurrent. Your work is appreciated. I hope you are enjoying it.
I found the Durham article interesting but biased. As always, the media loves a scandal.

As one who has been through this type of organizational warfare at different times and places. it is not unusual at all. Greed and ego's always trumps common sense. I am encouraged that all parties are trying to preserve the intent and mission of DAN. I hope Bill Hamilton is up to the task.
I wondered on several occasions how one could be a non-profit and receive so many entrepreneur awards.

Many "non-profits" have larger compensation packages for the executives than the amounts quoted. The conflict of interest issue regarding AGI is a critical key issue. The rest of the issues can be relegated to emotion and egos resulting in an entertaining brawl.

Later,
Larry

 

[Genesis]

The AGI issue is extremely serious, IMHO.

That it has been kept under wraps for this long and not handled before now is also extremely serious.

DAN has a credibility problem with me on this point. I don't doubt that they do good work, and I don't doubt that their insurance is good, but the fact remains that interlocking arrangements like this are in my opinion, improper.

The cited article is long and quite-detailed in terms of exactly what kind of mud-slinging everyone has been doing under the table.

And Doc - there was no court ruling that there was no merit to the dismissal. The issue was settled by mediation in a confidential settlement; there was no judgement and no open, public trial.

As a result the facts behind the allegations levelled STILL aren't known, and likely won't be.

Unfortunately such settlements leave the cloud over the organization, as the nice, white, clear light of truth has not been allowed to shine in.

I haven't decided what I will do regarding my dive insurance when it comes up for renewal. If DAN wants to keep that business, they're going to have to earn it.

 

[raybo]

Let's see.... Levin & Case are out of AOL/Time Warner, Lot's of other examples of CEOs/COOs caught with their finger in the cookie jar. Greed~ The Great American Motivator. Seems like even the most well intentioned individuals are subject to it's claws.

Non-profit or for-profit, it's still big business.

Have to research this a little more to decide if it warrants a new policy/company.

 

[Mo2vation]

Who cares.

I don't buy from personalities - maybe some of you are closer to these guys than I am... these so called "Diving legends..."

WTF? Diving legends? Please.

I bought DAN for two reasons, and these alone: Service and Price. I could care less that the founder Bennett has been elleged to be a pretentious jerk.

Non-Prof, For-Prof...who cares. I don't choose insurance because the company is a good or a poor corporate citizen, or has legends at the helm, blah, blah. Insurance is about price and service.

I don't look for post consumer content on my paper towels and I drive a V8. Call me an ugly american consumer...fine. I'm hurt...

What matters to me is the wise stewartship of my money and they are the best value for my needs - so they got my cash.
When I shopped for car, home & property insurance I don't quiz the founders. It's all so much intrigue from people that think they're more important than they are. If I was an investor in DAN with the intent of a RETURN, issues of executive character, company conduct and global responsibility might receive my attention. Party nekkid, Bennett - just send the chopper if I get bent.

PS: $14 million ain't much for an international services provider, and $200k for its founder isn't unreasonable.

k

 

[DivePartner1]

Sorry, Doc but I don't agree that anyone is vindicated by the settlement of the Bennet litigation. Too much unsavory conduct was admitted.

Much of this is just indefensible. Not only the abortive attempt by the principals to surreptitiously buy DAN's insurance arm through a staw man, but the self-innurement in how the Cayman insurance company was run. And the resistance to audits. This is a non-profit?

For those of you that don't have time to read this tome, consider the following minor soundbit in the context of what you raised at your last DAN auction:

"Those of us who took a more altruistic approach began to find problems, and we had to go," says the staffer, who felt forced out a few years ago after questioning why the research side of the budget was consistently under-funded while Bennett and his top minions took Alaskan cruises and African safaris in the name of DAN. "If all this money wasn't spent on trips here and there, how much more money could be spent on research and 'divers helping divers'?"

I used to represent non-profits accused of misconduct and I'd forgotten what a cesspole of self-dealing, egos and private innurement so-called non-profits can be. Why should dive non-profits be different? It seems they're as bad as the worst of the lot.

I'll be pulling DAN's IRS form 990s and would like a better understanding of DAN's relationship with the offshore insurance arm. I wonder who or what really owns and operates it at the moment?