SSI Ethics Question

[Bob DBF]

It's interesting to me. If the crime were that the owner was arrested for was murder, would you still want to allow an accused murderer to be affiliated with SSI?

Well it's not murder, just a property crime, the courts will sort it out and at that point SSI can decide what they want to do.

Taking corporate action and running afoul of their own rules could cost them in civil action if the accused is innocent, which you don't believe so you do not see the other side of this issue.

Since you assure that SSI has been notified, I dare say they have not taken action because there is no justifiable reason to do that at this time.

SSI Instructor, no. SSI certified diver, yes. I honestly have no real understanding of SSI or PADI's business working.

And yet you have decided what they should do about an internal disciplinary matter.


Bob

 

[NAM001]

No - tha'ts not necessarily the case - they don't have to believe they are guilty, but do not want to be affiliated with the accusation. Ideally a membership agreement (or employment contract would spell that out. In the case of PADI its based on conviction.Accept that a criminal conviction involving abuse of a minor either during or prior to PADI Membership is grounds for denial or termination of PADI Membership. 19. Accept that a criminal conviction involving sexual abuse of an adult either during or prior to PADI Membership is grounds for denial or termination of PADI Membership. I have seen agreements that base this on accusation. Whether the org thinks they are guilty or not doens't matter. THeir view is that the accusation tarnishes the org and they don't want it on them.

Mike I was speaking from the customers view. If the customer sees the agency shut down an instructor , it is taken not as a preventive measure, it is viewed as removal for cause. The customers do not look at the details, they respond to behavior and the response of others. Facts are not involved.

 

[mmerriman]

Mike I was speaking from the customers view. If the customer sees the agency shut down an instructor , it is taken not as a preventive measure, it is viewed as removal for cause. The customers do not look at the details, they respond to behavior and the response of others. Facts are not involved.

from that perspective I agree - your wording was vague. As I said, I am involved in an organization that had to make a tough decision about an accused XXX. Our governing body decided the fallout of doing nothing would be construed by other members and the public as supporting the accused.

 

[Seaweed Doc]

Innocent until proven guilty may not be the best avenue for a certification agency like SSI. One of the serious issues where you'd want to immediately suspend would be an accusation of sexual harassment or rape. I'm closely aware of two instances that might be analagous:

1. A co-worker was accused of harassment by a student. Suspended for a couple of days, until the students' parents came forward to say it almost certainly didn't happen, the student had mental health issues and had accused several others over several years. There was no evidence, and my co-worker had no history of harassment or even anything vaguely called questionable. He was re-instated, but pretty badly shaken. Still, he absolutely understood he had to be suspended under the circumstances and felt no animosity to our employer.

2. A child was raped by a caregiver in a daycare center. Three separate investigations ensued; the police, a state agency that certifies child care centers and workers, and a separate private organization (similar to SSI or PADI in how they operate) that provides an added level of scrutiny for child care centers that are members. Two of the three figured the accused did it, and he was effectively banned from child care work in the state and with any center that was a member of the private organization. However, the police could not get enough evidence to charge him, let alone convict. The child was too young to provide testimony in court, and DNA simply shows that a child care worker was in contact with a child in their care. So he was never charged, never found guilty, but fired and will never work in care settings again, hopefully.

 

[NAM001]

from that perspective I agree - your wording was vague. As I said, I am involved in an organization that had to make a tough decision about an accused XXX. Our governing body decided the fallout of doing nothing would be construed by other members and the public as supporting the accused.

I agree with you . there is CYA on both sides. I would assume tat there would be a clause in the proffesional agreement regarding it.

 

[kammel78]

If public knowledge, do you have a link to a verifiable news source?

Of course. Plus arrest and bookings are published on a daily basis here and searchable.

My intention here is not to potentially libel or slander anyone so, I've redacted names. Again, I'm not debating what allegedly happened, merely SSI's response, or lack thereof, but since there seem to be some people who've doubted the legitimacy of my question...

 

[kammel78]

And yet you have decided what they should do about an internal disciplinary matter.
Bob

I've decided what I would do in that situation, yes. I believe that's called having an opinion.

 

[gcarter]

Of course. Plus arrest and bookings are published on a daily basis here and searchable.

My intention here is not to potentially libel or slander anyone so, I've redacted names. Again, I'm not debating what allegedly happened, merely SSI's response, or lack thereof, but since there seem to be some people who've doubted the legitimacy of my question...

View attachment 467821

Trust but verify, that's all. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Bob DBF]

I've decided what I would do in that situation, yes. I believe that's called having an opinion.

I have no issue with you having an opinion, however you seem to want SSI to act on your opinion of their ethical standards guidelines rather than their actual operational rules, which have yet to be delineated in this thread.



Bob

 

[GetDownScuba]

Wow, guys. You're way overcomplicating the issue, I guess to avoid having an opinion except to criticize the question.

It's a fact when someone is arrested and charged with a crime. Public knowledge and not open to interpretation. The charges are also public knowledge and not anyone's "side" of the argument.

SSI's standards also state that they must be notified if someone is "under investigation", NOT just convicted. A person arrested and charged with a crime is, in fact, under investigation.

View attachment 465183



To recap, it's very simple. Crime committed, person under investigation, reported to SSI, no action taken (as of yet).

Again, I welcome all comments to the handling of this, but seriously, if you want to troll and criticize the question, go do it somewhere else.

That’s not what the standard means. The “under investigation” is modified by “ethical or sandards violation”.