NACD Resignation Controversy: Split from Etiquette thread.

[TSandM]

I had not realized that the resignations occurred at the meeting. As a non-local member, I sure wish the minutes of the meeting would be posted, so I could at least understand the issues involved. Were they personal or policy? Nobody is saying anything, which leaves me feeling awfully disconnected from the organization to which I'm paying dues.

 

[GDI]

I had not realized that the resignations occurred at the meeting. As a non-local member, I sure wish the minutes of the meeting would be posted, so I could at least understand the issues involved. Were they personal or policy? Nobody is saying anything, which leaves me feeling awfully disconnected from the organization to which I'm paying dues.

I'm on it

 

[Omisson]

No worries, I personally don't feel accused of anything especially since I'm just trying to do what is right for the membership and the organization. To draw conclusions without the information is what often leads to the cave country BS.

Did it cross anyone's mind that these individuals after years of service, simply just had enough or perhaps other things are happening in their lives right now that they need to focus on? Sure the timing doesn't look good but lets not make anything or more out of it then it is. In fact why don't you thank them for their service.

Or does it have to do with factions and friction between the old training director and the current (well until his resignation)?

One of the stumbling blocks MANY folks saw was the unchanging Board/TD.... Just when it looks like that was changing - it collapses...

Coincidence or circumstance?

You've made a great start -I hope it hasn't been for naught...

 

[tbone1004]

No worries, I personally don't feel accused of anything especially since I'm just trying to do what is right for the membership and the organization. To draw conclusions without the information is what often leads to the cave country BS.

Did it cross anyone's mind that these individuals after years of service, simply just had enough or perhaps other things are happening in their lives right now that they need to focus on? Sure the timing doesn't look good but lets not make anything or more out of it then it is. In fact why don't you thank them for their service.

That second part is complete bs and you know it. Three of them don't drop at the same time randomly due to personal issues.

January 12th you posted the musical chairs that happened with you, Bauer, and Don that happened on January 10th. 3 months later, almost to the day he resigns after having been on the board for however many years. Something specific spurred that one

Gagliardi was put in sometime in May of 2014, he has been incredibly active doing cave restoration and there is literally no better person for the job, he's been active and excited for a while and suddenly resigns. Some specific incident spurred that one

Neto was appointed in 08/13, also actively posting on behalf of the NACD, still actively doing all of his stuff, and is the subject of quite a bit of the NACD nonsense since that appointment. Again, something spurred that and something tells me it was the same spurring that caused all three to leave, for different reasons, but the same thing exploded.

Something is going on that is being kept hush hush, which again, is perfectly OK, but don't try to sugar coat what happened. You don't have almost half of your directors up and leave in the same meeting, just doesn't happen. My conclusion is stated above, and while I won't speculate on what the incident is, something happened that isn't them just having other stuff going on and decided to resign. I might buy that from MAG as a "straw that broke the camels back" type incident, we saw that when Tony Flaris resigned from the CDS, but I won't buy it from all three of them in the same meeting.

 

[kwinter]

Rick -
When the smelly stuff hit the spinny thing a couple of years ago, I raised 2 important issues. One was the woefully inadequate state of the NACD Bylaws, which was supposed to be addressed by an ad hoc or standing committee. I am not aware of any progress that was made. The second issue I raised was that the entire BOD was composed of instructors instead of having non-instructors as "Regular Directors" as was intended when the organization was formed but the wording of the Bylaws did not specifically require. That issue was partially addressed when MA was made a Director, but now that has been changed as well.
Will there ever be a real, honest attempt to raise the professionalism of the NACD Bylaws and of the BOD by appointing non-instructors so that a non-teaching agenda can be put forward?


iPhone. iTypo. iApologize.

 

[karstdvr]

Will there ever be a real, honest attempt to raise the professionalism of the NACD Bylaws and of the BOD by appointing non-instructors so that a non-teaching agenda can be put forward?


iPhone. iTypo. iApologize.

Rick can correct me but the NACD never intended to be a member organization but a training organization,that is why you see so many instructors on their board, that was layed out by the founders. The CDS has separated things in that you have a training director that sits on the board and has a training committee, but there are 6 other board members, which may/may not be instructors.

 

[kwinter]

I might be wrong, Kelly, but I think the intent was to have a mix of both instructors and non-instructors on the board. That's why the bylaws specify "Instructor Directors" and "Regular Directors" and gives the number of each, with the Instructor Directors outnumbering the Regulars. That gives the board the slant toward training, but opens the possibility that the agenda of the general membership might not always be best served by those with their own agenda that leans toward instruction and making money. If it was not the original intent, I can't see any reason for making the 2 classes of board members. Where they erred was in not specifying that Regular Directors may not be instructors. The current definitions make no sense whatsoever without that distinction.

 

[GDI]

Rick -
When the smelly stuff hit the spinny thing a couple of years ago, I raised 2 important issues. One was the woefully inadequate state of the NACD Bylaws, which was supposed to be addressed by an ad hoc or standing committee. I am not aware of any progress that was made. The second issue I raised was that the entire BOD was composed of instructors instead of having non-instructors as "Regular Directors" as was intended when the organization was formed but the wording of the Bylaws did not specifically require. That issue was partially addressed when MA was made a Director, but now that has been changed as well.
Will there ever be a real, honest attempt to raise the professionalism of the NACD Bylaws and of the BOD by appointing non-instructors so that a non-teaching agenda can be put forward?


iPhone. iTypo. iApologize.

I have no problem with this If Non-instructors step up wanting to do the job, they meet the requirements whether international, national or local by all means bring them

---------- Post added April 14th, 2015 at 12:58 PM ----------

Rick can correct me but the NACD never intended to be a member organization but a training organization,that is why you see so many instructors on their board, that was layed out by the founders. The CDS has separated things in that you have a training director that sits on the board and has a training committee, but there are 6 other board members, which may/may not be instructors.

The org structures between the two agencies are very similar. Remember the CDS a section of the NSS came to be because some good Ol
boys had a disagreement back many years ago. They didn't re-invent the wheel and thus both agencies have TD and a committe separate from the BoD

 

[ucfdiver]

Well, I'll have to eat crow on this one. From what I heard today, the NACD is NOT just bluffing and has suspended an instructor while investigating standards violations.

 

[PfcAJ]

What standards violations would those be?