ISA Cetified Arborist Agreement

[ QUOTE ]
In the beginning a few individuals recognized that without some pride in workmanship the trade of arborculture would languish without a code of ethics.

And so a code of ethics was written. Not by one but by many to perpetuate quality standards in the industry.

But in the beginning when the ethics were written a persons private life, convictions or beliefs wasn't part of it. Just true heart tree people.

http://www.cal-arb-association.com/creed.html

[/ QUOTE ]

The landscape testing and stuff in Oregon has some similarities in knowledge - not so much the ethics.

But I thought the testing had a purpose - still does. It began in one form or another. Then it progressively became tougher, and tougher and tougher, to where I gave my piece of mind that I thought we crossed the line by some. Even while I was on the landscape contractors board.

It's not a bad thing. But I question the need in it's present form. It seems that the nature of testing and standards these days is to progressively become greater and more complex. Can't remember the last time that something became more simple and eased up a bit.
 
While the wording seems convoluted and overly inclusive you have to understand a couple of things that while not necessarily the driving force behind the "agreement" are certainly players in the process.

1) By issuing a certification, the ISA and by extension its members, have opened themselves up to an implied contract with the community. That means if a renegade CA turns out to be a Charles Manson type, with Ted Bundy Tendencies, that takes a 4 year old brother and sister behind the woodshed for some recreational activities while working as a CA then the ISA can find themselves in Civil Litigation.

This is no different, really, than an employer who hires someone with a history of offenses (legal or otherwise) and that employee does something untoward on a customer's property, whether during the job or not. The employer has implied liability for the employee's actions. And by granting access to their property, the customer has a reasonable expectation that anybody the employer brings on to the property will not violate the property or their trust.

2) Many professional certification or governing bodies are developing strict ethics codes and requirements for their members. The American Physical Therapy Association just finished deliberating their code and it is also very strict. Almost every reference that previously said "Should" has been changed to "Shall." That is legaleze for "Not Optional."

3)Our customers need to be able to trust us, implicitly, to do the right thing every time.

Now that doesn't mean that we will always succeed simply because we are human! There is a distinct difference between mistakes, occasional lapses of judgment and intentional choices to violate the rules/law.

If I have a demonstrated history of violating the law then I have not given the customer much reason to trust me, Have I?

It is also reasonable for most of us with those situations from "a long time ago and I have since changed" to be concerned when the code seems to bar us for those reasons.

Two thoughts on this. Once the debt is paid or forgiven, it is done. It should never be held against you again. Also, you should spend the rest of your life making sure that you don't do whatever it was again. And, the certifying body, should really look at a realistic time period.

4) And certainly nobody can argue that the ISA owns the certification and has every right to decide what the qualifications must be for them to confer that credential.

Nobody seems too upset that every single college in the world can require it's own pet coursed, codes of conduct, speech codes even dress codes for the students to remain in the school, ergo to earn the degree the college confers.

And nobody can deny that each and every one of us has the right to NOT participate in the ISA CA program. That is called the free market and it works every time.

Bottom line is if we want to elevate our industry to the level of "profession" then it is wise and prudent to set the bar high and expect each of us to strive to reach or beat the bar.

It is also wise and prudent to "police our own." If we don't then our credibility within the community suffers and we cannot expect to see the community view our industry in any way other than poorly.

Like it or not, believe it or not, character counts and every time a customer hires you or your company they do so because they believe you will be honest and prudent in dealing with them.

The "Quasi-Criminal" thing bothers me too, but if you stop and think about it they may have been thinking of something like a restraining order. It is not "criminal" but it is an indication that someone has been alleged to have done something that induced reasonable fear in another, and the court agreed.

Anyhow, in a free market, where the CA is being offered essentially as a "product" to both arborists and the consumer, the ISA has every right to do this.

Now, I have noticed many folks are upset about this and ready to lynch the ISA. Why is it then, that many of us who are so ticked at the ISA are not just as ticked at the governing bodies that are regulating our business and personal lives to death!

The Isa can only withdraw or certifications, the government can withdraw us...

Consistency is critical in living folks.

Just my 2 cents
 
[ QUOTE ]
...if a renegade CA turns out to be a Charles Manson type, with Ted Bundy Tendencies, that takes a 4 year old brother and sister behind the woodshed for some recreational activities while working as a CA then the ISA can find themselves in Civil Litigation.

This is no different, really, than an employer who hires someone with a history of offenses (legal or otherwise) and that employee does something untoward on a customer's property, whether during the job or not. The employer has implied liability for the employee's actions. And by granting access to their property, the customer has a reasonable expectation that anybody the employer brings on to the property will not violate the property or their trust.

[/ QUOTE ]Rick you made some good points but this is not one of them. ISA's cert program covers knowledge of arboriculture; it cannot be construed as covering all business activities at a level the employer must be concerned about.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...if a renegade CA turns out to be a Charles Manson type, with Ted Bundy Tendencies, that takes a 4 year old brother and sister behind the woodshed for some recreational activities while working as a CA then the ISA can find themselves in Civil Litigation.

This is no different, really, than an employer who hires someone with a history of offenses (legal or otherwise) and that employee does something untoward on a customer's property, whether during the job or not. The employer has implied liability for the employee's actions. And by granting access to their property, the customer has a reasonable expectation that anybody the employer brings on to the property will not violate the property or their trust.

[/ QUOTE ]Rick you made some good points but this is not one of them. ISA's cert program covers knowledge of arboriculture; it cannot be construed as covering all business activities at a level the employer must be concerned about.

Attached is my approach to this new requirement.
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

If anything, it seems that a municipal government which REQUIRES Certified Arborists to do local work, may be more at risk from what he was suggesting, than the ISA, if that line of thought was applicable.
 
bigeyes.gif
I bypassed this thread by judging the title. I thought I knew what the typical conversion would be... To be a CA, or not to be a CA? (We've seen the debate many times).

But, this one is a whole new ball of wax! Hmmmm... I have mixed thoughts on this one as well.

This is how I see it. "It ain't personal, it's just business."

The ISA just pulled a business move on the TCIA. Think about it. The ISA is taking a "no nonsense" stance with those who may be representing the ISA. They have set very high standards for members. I'm sure, in some way or form, this will get back to potential customers. I can think of many bids I have done where the customer said, "I only called you because you are a CA."

So, as the sole provider for my family, I'll sign the document. I have worked hard to get my certification keep my certification. I'm not going to loose it. It is simply something I have to comply with as a tree service business owner. The ISA has leverage to pull off such a move because we know that little CA icon on our advertising truly goes a long way.

IMO, it is a simply a business decision. So, it is a given that I'd sign it. Because I know I would miss the opportunity to do business for those potential customers who want a CA.

For those who are not self employed, then I don't know if you should sign it or not. However, there are some companies who will only allow CA's to climb trees... With that said, it may be best to simply agree to disagree, and comply.

thinking.gif
And really thinking philosophically into this whole thing... It is a matter of our fallen nature. We naturally don't want to comply with authority. We want to create our own standards and comply with our own standards. As soon as we hear that we must abide by a higher standard, not set by ourselves, we want to resist it.
It is post-modernism at it's finest.
icon10.gif
icon14.gif


Okay, I said it...
vroam.gif
 
Or any that have been sued for divorce, custody disputes, or took part in a war and followed orders but violated the Geneva Conventions? Been counter-sued by clients who they sued for collections? Are gay, have been gay, or knowingly consorted with a gay, lesbian, Muslim, or person-of-interest? Attended a mass gathering to protest a policy, vote for a write-in candidate not offically sanctioned or discharged human excrement into a vessle not certified as per local and state public health codes (crapping in the chipper truck)?

I'm reminded of Governor what's-his-name from South Carolina...publically ridiculing and pressuring termination from public office those he deems "submoral" and yet fights to retain his own thrown and crown when caught being...human, just like his list of victims.

I think the guidelines themselves, when filled-out and submitted without critique by fearful-of-loosing-their-dinner-ticket membership in a non-"quasi-official" industry regulatory "agency" will certainly tempt cheating on some answers in order to secure a promised future...and that in itself makes a joke of the whole attempt at policing people's personal lives out of fear and rules. It makes the applicants just as criminal as the criminals they're trying to purge, if the questions followed to a T and all the little "i's" are dotted and certification is reliant on the scores, there's going to be many cheating applicants who may look good, but they know better. Does that make the process one of "bettering" the participants or making more liars out of a group that didn't have to before?

And claimed "histories" of violations do not vindicate individuals who can honestly answer NO to all the above - Bernie Madoff himself was cleared by his regulatory buddies for decades and most molesters in the athletic departments of middle schools were hired with rigorous background checks. Physicians don't even have to answer to histories of malpractice in other states when they apply to the State Medical Board of their new residence for license to practice what their degree is in. They have private access to our children, dominion and complete trust over our lives, and we take blindly whatever they suggest.

I'm thinking back to the "art and science" of profiling, something I helped on in the early years of my repented federal work. One thing the serial sex-crime pedophiles most all had in common was a squeaky-clean criminal record. My own brother was a federal fugitive when he opted for Canada insead of Vietnam while I patriotically signed the line. He didn't murder civilians, I did.

I'm not connected in any way to the form ISA is sending to all certs for continuation of those certs...but I can smell a regress in progressive humanity and an attempt to cover one's tracks when responsibilty is sidelined for personal or corporate gain.
 
CrazyJimmy's post was pulled, but here's a reply:

"Report apparent violations of the Code of Ethics by a certificant or candidate
upon a reasonable and clear factual basis."

This is not a demand that we report our peers' every misdeed. There must be *clear facts* that there is a health and safety or professional issue. I can't go busting anyone just because of tree-killing adherence to a 1/3 Rule, as they can't bust me for making nodal cuts and leaving "stubs".

Here's the entire ethics code--a lot of good in there, and no deal-breakers, in my eyes: http://www.isa-arbor.com/certification%5Cresources%5CISACertifiedArboristCodeofEthics.pdf

Jamin, I'm in your shoes here: "So, as the sole provider for my family, I'll sign the document. I have worked hard to get my certification keep my certification. I'm not going to loose it. It is simply something I have to comply with as a tree service business owner. The ISA has leverage to pull off such a move because we know that little CA icon on our advertising truly goes a long way."

ISA Cert Department (there are other departments in ISA that had nothing to do with this, so it may be more appropriate to focus our feedback on those responsible) may have that leverage, if and only if members act like sheep and sign without thinking it through.

I'll sign the document, after altering so it's something I can agree with. I just held my nose and signed off on the BCMA ethics code 4 years ago, and now I regret it. That code is 11 pages of legalese swearing the signee to be among other things "moral" whatever that means.

One thing overlooked here: age discrimination. Youngsters may have no problem recalling all "quasi-criminal" behavior and parking tickets, but for us geezers, explaining every charge would get up to War and Peace dimensions. And my cert $ should go to paying someone to read all that? I don't think so.

This creates an undue burden on that very group that has given the most to ISA in dues and other support over the years. Isn't that a case of the Cert Dept biting the hands that grew and fed ISA...and gave them this power that they now seek to abuse??
 
I think your "edited" version with inclusive questions alongside Treedimensional's letter to the board (if he wouldn't mind posting here) are frontline valid blue-ribbon documents. The concerns about the importance of the validity of certification and the effort people put into securing it makes it mandatory this thing is responded to quickly, and ammended or killed.
 
One time at the coffee shop I was given the wrong address by the boss at our morning meeting. I went to the house and fell the dying Oak tree in the front yard. As the tree was just starting to fall, the lady drove up, wailing, "Oh no, you were supposed to try and save it!". Later, I could hear her on the phone with the boss laughing, as he sweet talked her into accepting that the half dead tree wasn't worth saving, anyway.

There. I hope that disclosure is adequate.
 
Before I post the draft letter I wrote, I would like to point out a couple other concerns, or should I say questions.

I know for a fact that there is at least one Director to the ISA who is NOT a CA. Will that person have to step down, as they aren't bound by the COE?

Secondly, there are non CA climbers at TCCs that only become chapter members so they may compete. Some of them have even gone on to represent the Chapters' at the ITCC. Again they are NOT bound by the same standards as a CA.

Kind of opens up a whole other can of worms huh?

Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? The reason these two groups get involved is the love the industry! For most of them, they are volunteers, no financial gain, probably MORE of a family cost!

IF I turned some CA in for an ethic violation, you can be sure they will know its me that turned 'em in. The next closest CA is 120 miles away. We run into the odd one working out this way, trust me not much goes on in the rural areas that doesn't become public knowledge.

We leave equipment close to or on clients private property, occasionally. If a person is unethical, it isn't a long stretch to have them vandalize equipment!
 
Who cares, just lie, that piece of paper is pure 100% unadulterated bullshit, so I wouldn't feel the least bit of regret lying.
Right this moment I know of 4, possibly 5 people claiming to be ISA certified arborists, in their adverts, and on their business cards. I have reported them as being frauds, and there's nothing done about it.
All these guys are all still conducting their business as ISA certified arbo's.
If the ISA cant seem to do much about that kind of thing, basically a crime in my eyes, then they cannot expect people to be honest filling out this POS.
Im studying for my cert at this moment, and Ill keep studying, why, because simply having the ISA arbo cert is great form my resume, no other reason.
As to how I go about my day to day job, the ISA has never had a thing to do with it, so nothing changes there.
All you guys who sign this crap, need to seriously consider what freedom of speech, and the right to liberty and happiness mean.
Last time I checked the ISA was just an arborist association, has that changed ?

-Grais.
 
After paying annual ISA dues for two years I realized that life membership was equal to ten years of annual dues. I had a good year so I paid for the life membership. As dues have gone up that has become one of my better investments because the return has multiplied many times over.

When I got my CA in '97 there were rules and regs that I followed and have followed since. MY CEUs are filled out within the first year at the latest.

Now, why the change of rules? Does this have to be retroactive? For some reason this is another bit that isn't settling with me.

Like people have mentioned for years, if ISA has felt that it needed to 'protect' the value of the CA program why hasn't there been stringent enforcement of the use of a copyrighted program? Why hasn't there been a prosecution of a CA who has done verifiable damage to trees or the profession?

Who am I supposed to trust with information about my 'criminal' past at the ISA? If I'm going to trust that person then I have the right to see into their past too. Open both sets of books.

Yesterday I worked with a fellow who is a union plumber. He has union, and state, regulations that he has to follow or he can, and will be fined. He could loose his standing in the union too. This has all to do with work practices not personal practices. The state is the watchdog on personal behavior, ISA is the watchdog on work/professional behavior...and the dog has been snoozing for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom