NACD Instructor standards violation

[Bennno]

Do not assume that any of the "Instructors" involved ...

Hi Rick, why did you put instructors in quotation marks? Were they NACD instructors? I think that is a pretty important point, especially when they are/were BoD members as well, don't you think?

 

[nakatomi]

Rick, since the NACD web site is still down, could you please post a list of current instructors with the NACD?

I would specifically like to see if you suspended Mike O'Leary for taking Intro to Cave divers into LOG and Hendleys castle.
Also I would like to see if Larry Green has been suspended for the alleged standards violations of omitting valve drills from a full cave class.

Finally, the current status of two of your witnesses would be interesting to see too. I think since they were such a major part of what you call multiple standards violations and instructors for the NACD at the time they committed these acts, they should share the same fate as the suspended TD.

 

[darushin]

Rick, since the NACD web site is still down, could you please post a list of current instructors with the NACD?

I would specifically like to see if you suspended Mike O'Leary for taking Intro to Cave divers into LOG and Hendleys castle.
Also I would like to see if Larry Green has been suspended for the alleged standards violations of omitting valve drills from a full cave class.

Finally, the current status of two of your witnesses would be interesting to see too. I think since they were such a major part of what you call multiple standards violations and instructors for the NACD at the time they committed these acts, they should share the same fate as the suspended TD.

Good luck with that, they will change the bylaws or create new positions for them to avoid kicking them out.

Daru

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[victorzamora]

I would specifically like to see if you suspended Mike O'Leary for taking Intro to Cave divers into LOG and Hendleys castle.
Also I would like to see if Larry Green has been suspended for the alleged standards violations of omitting valve drills from a full cave class.

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.

 

[karstdvr]

Nothing gives nor do I know of any such recent request or are you just trying to stir the pot?

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.

 

[nimoh]

it seems to me that by requiring a request to have a "proper purpose" without defining what constitutes a proper purpose, the BoD is free to deny any request.

 

[Jack Hammer]

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

 

[victorzamora]

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?

My reading was "Yeah, we thought that was him but wanted to let you know it's not signed. Despite those two (unsigned) letters, he hasn't gotten back to us on exactly how to get the equipment back (phone, text, email, facebook, etc)....so it's not like we haven't tried."

I should probably re-read all of the documents, but it's how the information looked to me.....they tried getting in touch with him after Rob said he was trying to give the stuff back but he wouldn't respond. THEN the filed the replevin.

 

[Jack Hammer]

My reading was "Yeah, we thought that was him but wanted to let you know it's not signed. Despite those two (unsigned) letters, he hasn't gotten back to us on exactly how to get the equipment back (phone, text, email, facebook, etc)....so it's not like we haven't tried."

I should probably re-read all of the documents, but it's how the information looked to me.....they tried getting in touch with him after Rob said he was trying to give the stuff back but he wouldn't respond. THEN the filed the replevin.

Which was my initial thought too. Then I wondered why would they put copies of his letters in the filing saying they don't know if it's actually from him and not include any of their letters, text, Communications etc?

Sent via

 

[victorzamora]

No clue. I think they're assuming it's him, but stating that they're not actually signed simply for accuracy purposes. It'd be great to hear the real reason from Rick. Rick, you there?