ISA Cetified Arborist Agreement

NO! LOL Where I live m the term "morals" is virtually the same as "ethics". Morals is what you THINK, ethics is what you DO! IMO

Just because people won't sign this thing DOESN'T mean they have issues to HIDE!

For me the process is flawed. This ethics issue was initiated by the Certification board. Applies ONLY to Certified arborists and people wishing to take the cert exam. It apparently doesn't need to be ratified by the Executive board, or discussed with the membership OR the existing CAs.

I believe this to be a MAJOR policy change, and warrents jumping through the proper hoops.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I believe this to be a MAJOR policy change, and warrents jumping through the proper hoops.

[/ QUOTE ]

What hoops, one buzzer aint'a gonna turn another buzzer in for the type of work they do. So, ya'll fail the ethics part of it anyways.
 
I am unclear as to the legality of requiring an EXISTING c.a. to conform to these new requirements.
It seems like it may be legal to do it with NEW c.a.

I seem to remember some case of a municipality getting sued over a situation like this.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it..it would be impossible for almost anyone to answer those questions honestly. The ones that sign and lie or fail to tell the whole truth are all that will be left. How credible is that going to make the ISA?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will be signing and answering truthfully. Because you choose not to, please do not judge the rest of us.

I agree that the wording on some of these statements could be tightened up and hope that the Certification Board will listen to these complaints. I also work for a Clinical Psychologist and signing ethic questionnaires is standard procedure. Generally there is a statement re traffic tickets that those do not need to be disclosed unless they had alcohol or other substance abuse citations. But as stated, much of this is public knowledge or available...so what is all the fuss about?

The questionnaire gives the opportunity to present any case that has happened or is pending. They basically are stating that if you falsify information they will take away your certification or deny your application. Again, why is that a big deal? If you have had problems with an organization, they are saying they can contact that organization for their view point, but you also have the opportunity to present your side.

They are not asking how many times you drive without buckling up; but if you have received numerous traffic citations I would certainly think a prospective employer might find that interesting and a bit of a concern. But the ISA isn't stating they will make this information available upon casual inquiry.

If you fill out an application for any job they ask for references. They are going to contact those references. That shouldn't offend or concern anyone. I don't see a lot of difference here.

We have brought this type of action on ourselves with our demands for guarantees in all walks of life. We want all conveniences at our fingertips but no possible repercussions. Someone else should be held accountable, but not us.

I have heard many criticisms of the Certified Arborist designation in the past; that it was meaningless, too easy to obtain, etc. etc.

It appears to me that the ISA is trying to up their game. You now have to pass with a 72% instead of 70%; and if you miss a domain, you have to retake the entire test. These are positive steps. The Ethics is another. Can it take improvement? Of course. So, by all means, let ISA know that you are unsatisfied with the wording; that it is too broad and should be made more specific. Ask why this wasn't brought before the Board. Speak up and be proactive.

But be sure you are not just biting off your nose to spite your face. If you believe in the organization, support it. If you do not believe in the organization, then this should be a moot point as it was just a means to an end for you.

Sylvia
 
[ QUOTE ]
I am unclear as to the legality of requiring an EXISTING c.a. to conform to these new requirements.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you want a Grandpa clause to easy or mind of the ethics?
 
[ QUOTE ]
What about quasi-skeletons?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Lord has forgiven me and shines his light upon me Oakwilt.

He hath set me above my quasi-skeletons.

LOL

What's a quasi-skeleton anyhow - a bone fragment?
 
sean, it's all on the website.

Brent, what is the problim with taking a test?

Holly, don't judge the org and its members by a hack job from one person or committee.

[ QUOTE ]
You now have to pass with a 72% instead of 70%; and if you miss a domain, you have to retake the entire test. These are positive steps. The Ethics is another.

[/ QUOTE ]Sylvia, how far does 2% up the game?? o and you may have missed it, but failing a domain always called for retake, and that's now moot--there will be no more domains in the test. Upping what, again? go to onlineseminars.com to see where the ceu bar has been lowered to.[ QUOTE ]
If you believe in the organization, support it.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, above all, don't let questionable work by one person/committee make us lose sight of the good work the org as a whole does. This ethics snafu doe snot undo ISA's progress on education etc.

Show me another organization doing more to advance the science and art of tree care!

and it just dawned on me; whe n i got the bcma i was told NOT to refer to myself as a CA anymore...which has led to all kinds of confusion when an ins co or an ordinance requires a CA I gotta say yes but a bcma is...

Now it's all good--as a bcma i already got an overly broad ethics code to flout; one's the limit!

o and mario yeah those are bone fragments, and we all got em.
blush.gif
 
No offense intended Sylvia I sincerely appologise. I do not judge others in that way. It is not my place. I tried to leave the door open for the obvious exceptions and have stepped in the generalities pile. It seems to me that if the ISA wants to start making a change then they should look for a more relevant less "Big Brother" approach. Start by looking into practices not into past transgressions. I personally do not agree with ALL of the written law. MY perogative..this IS America..I vote to make change where I feel appropriate. Since when is non violent protest of what is considered innapropriate legislation an immoral act? Many people have been killed and imprisoned because what they believed and stood up for was illegal. If that is going to prevent me from being a CA then so be it. I will always be an arborist and tree lover. If they kept it to business and tree care practice I would have no problem with it. I have owned my own business, and currently work on a college campus. I have never done anything unethical in regards to my proffesional career. My personal life is mine and the ISA does not have the right to judge me as a person only as an arborist.
I WILL NOT ABANDON MY RIGHTS AND SUBMIT TO YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO MONITOR THE PRIVATE LIVES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. SORRY if I have offended anyone. I love you ALL and hope for a better organization in the future one that I can once again feel comfortable supporting.
 
Yet the supposed pressure is coming from the ISO. Who is probably under pressure from homeland security or another gov. Organization. Information databases can be scary. Call it what you will. We as Americans continue to surrender our freedoms slowly and steadily.
 
This isn't an effort from any govt. agency to expand information databases on people, but it does represent a trend that too many people for too long have let slide. Again, the jest of the debate is that what they threaten by muscle - revocation or denial of certification - has nothing to do with the application of skill or acknowledgment of the regulations or practiced guidelines of the industry.

The issue of trust comes in - the general vagueness of the questions indeed influences "quasi-lies" or outright falsifications. The "voluntary" release of personal information not relevent to licensing or regulation is self-incriminating and opportunity for abuse is beyond comprehension.

Privacy issues in these times are ongoing legal efforts because of abuse and ability to gather personal information - my medical records even my wife is not privy to, doctors or personnel releasing this information without appointed power of attorney or my personal consent is now a federal felony. Instructions to a criminal jury for sentencing guidelines prohibit histories not relevent to the case being tried. Texas Dept. of Public Safety was repremanded last year for selling driver's license personal data to credit reporting agencies that sold it on to mass marketers. ISA has no business for the specific questions they mandate answers to, they've been vague about answering specific questions regarding safety guarantees, and lightly suggest what an answer to traffic violations, etc. could be...nothing solid or in writing nor specific enough to warrant the consequences their empowered to employ and have so far - threatened punitive response if ignored.

It's not a question of "if you haven't done anything wrong, just fill-out the questionaire". It's principle and legal issues at question here. Either they're nipped in the bud by public and membership redress of concern or go ahead and let ISA become another in a long list of dictatorial, ineffective, non-responsive to membership top-down organizations that take your money, under demands, and won't respond to individual membership needs.

Is it a representative organization or a growing-more powerful regulating-from-the-top one, free to command demands from dues-paying membership without necessary input?

On a scoreboard, how has ISA responded to it's own dictates?
 
Yes well stated oakwilt...mine was poorly stated. If the information requested was somehow relevant I would have no problem with it. I agree with your summary of the issue whole heartedly, I will adress my concerns with the ISA and will not add any more to this discussion.
 
Unless almost - or - everyone who's a ISA dues-paying member refuses to fill-out the "ethics" questionaire, complaining is moot. The fact that this wasn't pre-empted in the process of feedback or there was no feedback before mandate means the organization is already divorced from representative rank and file.

Is an ISA cert worth the same as an ID badge for some field worker from FEMA right after a catagory five hurricane? It's looking just like one.
 
Why not something like this?

"Have you been convicted of a felony within the last 7 years?"

It might not be perfect but it seems a much better starting point.

I made the mistake of signing by assuming this is more of what they were asking.
 
there are rumours that a drug policy is in the works from the Certification Board, wherein any CA will have provide results from an approved drug test, and then the Board can decide if the results are OK or not.
Ok, ok, I'm muckraking, but this thing is not right. If you haven't bitched about it yet, you should. If this CA Agreement can just 'appear', its not that much of a stretch for them to ask anything of us.

I'm still looking for another certification to use to advertise my professionalism (and political autonomy) - any ideas?
 
[ QUOTE ]
If you have the prerequisites, I'd go with ASCA RCA.

k

[/ QUOTE ]You also need the do-re-mi; >$1k for the academy, and $365/year duesies (mandatory membership). The RCA is a good cert--shows some background and some consulting competence, but it does not prove much in the way of arbo abilities; not like the bcma anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom