Here's the post I tried to put on the IAHA message Board. Since my access was denied several hours prior to the "grace" period, I have to post it here.
The thread does have merit to the rest of the industry since an actual court case brought libel for false advertising against a vendor. It could be used against Haunted Houses just as easily. here's the post:
We are unable to deliver the message from <rjprod@cox.net>
to <iaha-members@yahoogroups.com>.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:38:22 -0800
To: IAHA-Members@yahoogroups.com
From: Rich Strelak <rjprod@cox.net>
Subject: "Portraitgate" corrected
Sorry Ed,... everyone ignore my first post (happy fingers), here's the correct info:
First of all I do not wish to get into a lengthy discussion on how the Board is or is not handling this whole “Portraitgate”. I find it ludicrous that the Board would ignore the issue using “no formal complaint was filed” as an argument. Is it not the purpose of this message Board to foster communications? Issues were present, actions are deemed necessary. True the Board should gather the facts and make an intelligent decision. However merely posting “this is closed do not discuss it” is NOT the answer. This issue brings up some very valid points that impact not only THIS situation, but how the Board, the Association and the members conduct business in the future. Here’s a few thoughts:
Whether or not it is true, a situation like this immediately reeks of improper procedure and conflict of interest. First the Board should have had an attitude of actually caring, instead of an immediate reaction of “it’s a personal matter and doesn't involve us” Subsequent posts of our very own Code of Conduct PROVES it is a Board issue.
Since the issue involves a Board member he should have at once excused himself of Board related issues until it was resolved. Example, we hear it in the news all the time. An official is on “administrative leave pending an investigation.” He is neither guilty nor not guilty, just removed from the situation until a decision is made. Likewise the Board members receiving the awards should have immediately excused themselves to avoid any conflict real or imagined. Neither was done.
As Ben stated earlier, perhaps this does necessitate a rewriting of these Codes. As written them may never be fully enforceable so they “have no teeth”. Create something that is more defined and enforceable, and then DO so.
Most importantly I believe this issue has brought up a point that affects ALL the members. Unlike most, I actually took the time to READ the entire transcript. This was a Court Action! It now becomes a point of law that can be referred to in subsequent cases. I suggest everyone read it carefully.
There were points of “he said, she said” that the court dismissed. The main issue the court DID rule on was that fact that Mr. Turner misrepresented himself. He claimed he was in business since 1995 a point the court disagreed with and he was found libel for his actions! Let that sink in a moment…..
He misrepresented himself and was found libel! Face it, how many of us tend to “pad” our credentials?? We figure it won't hurt and besides the other guys does so what’s the big deal?? Well Mr. Turner was found libel because of it! Here’s the most obvious example:
Most of us start in the “business” in a nonprofessional manner. We either decorated our houses or volunteered for a charity or someone else’s attraction. Let’s say it’s 1977 and I start decorating my yard. Now it's 2007. I decide to open a pro haunt. Up against experienced competition I count all my “experience” and claim I'm in the business 30 years! Misleading? Now according to this recent court action…YES. AND I could be held liable!
This is a very valid point of this whole “Portraitgate” that was merely ignored by the Board in the haste to merely sweep it under the rug as a “personal attack”.
How can this association stand up and represent the INDUSTRY when it can't even stand up and represent the MEMBERS???
Quelling any discussion on a topic or using a standard "we're looking into it and will make a decision" attitude just doesn't cut it.
The Board is and should be very busy.
Should they deal with every petty difference on the message boards? Absolutely NOT.
But they really need to know the difference between a petty difference and something that affects the association and the industry.
Again not to merely "slam" the Board, but to bring up valid points.
Ed had a very valid point. He brought it up on the message board hoping to get answers, communicating!
He is not contacted or answered, merely admonished for bring up a "personal attack"!
The real issue is totally overlooked.
THIS affects the industry.
The Board missed that effect entirely.
Do we learn from this or perpetuate it???
Do yourself AND the Industry a favorite, only claim what really IS yours from ideas to experience.
Trust me it adds up TOO quickly! This will now be my TENTH season....45 years of experience!!!!!
The thread does have merit to the rest of the industry since an actual court case brought libel for false advertising against a vendor. It could be used against Haunted Houses just as easily. here's the post:
We are unable to deliver the message from <rjprod@cox.net>
to <iaha-members@yahoogroups.com>.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:38:22 -0800
To: IAHA-Members@yahoogroups.com
From: Rich Strelak <rjprod@cox.net>
Subject: "Portraitgate" corrected
Sorry Ed,... everyone ignore my first post (happy fingers), here's the correct info:
First of all I do not wish to get into a lengthy discussion on how the Board is or is not handling this whole “Portraitgate”. I find it ludicrous that the Board would ignore the issue using “no formal complaint was filed” as an argument. Is it not the purpose of this message Board to foster communications? Issues were present, actions are deemed necessary. True the Board should gather the facts and make an intelligent decision. However merely posting “this is closed do not discuss it” is NOT the answer. This issue brings up some very valid points that impact not only THIS situation, but how the Board, the Association and the members conduct business in the future. Here’s a few thoughts:
Whether or not it is true, a situation like this immediately reeks of improper procedure and conflict of interest. First the Board should have had an attitude of actually caring, instead of an immediate reaction of “it’s a personal matter and doesn't involve us” Subsequent posts of our very own Code of Conduct PROVES it is a Board issue.
Since the issue involves a Board member he should have at once excused himself of Board related issues until it was resolved. Example, we hear it in the news all the time. An official is on “administrative leave pending an investigation.” He is neither guilty nor not guilty, just removed from the situation until a decision is made. Likewise the Board members receiving the awards should have immediately excused themselves to avoid any conflict real or imagined. Neither was done.
As Ben stated earlier, perhaps this does necessitate a rewriting of these Codes. As written them may never be fully enforceable so they “have no teeth”. Create something that is more defined and enforceable, and then DO so.
Most importantly I believe this issue has brought up a point that affects ALL the members. Unlike most, I actually took the time to READ the entire transcript. This was a Court Action! It now becomes a point of law that can be referred to in subsequent cases. I suggest everyone read it carefully.
There were points of “he said, she said” that the court dismissed. The main issue the court DID rule on was that fact that Mr. Turner misrepresented himself. He claimed he was in business since 1995 a point the court disagreed with and he was found libel for his actions! Let that sink in a moment…..
He misrepresented himself and was found libel! Face it, how many of us tend to “pad” our credentials?? We figure it won't hurt and besides the other guys does so what’s the big deal?? Well Mr. Turner was found libel because of it! Here’s the most obvious example:
Most of us start in the “business” in a nonprofessional manner. We either decorated our houses or volunteered for a charity or someone else’s attraction. Let’s say it’s 1977 and I start decorating my yard. Now it's 2007. I decide to open a pro haunt. Up against experienced competition I count all my “experience” and claim I'm in the business 30 years! Misleading? Now according to this recent court action…YES. AND I could be held liable!
This is a very valid point of this whole “Portraitgate” that was merely ignored by the Board in the haste to merely sweep it under the rug as a “personal attack”.
How can this association stand up and represent the INDUSTRY when it can't even stand up and represent the MEMBERS???
Quelling any discussion on a topic or using a standard "we're looking into it and will make a decision" attitude just doesn't cut it.
The Board is and should be very busy.
Should they deal with every petty difference on the message boards? Absolutely NOT.
But they really need to know the difference between a petty difference and something that affects the association and the industry.
Again not to merely "slam" the Board, but to bring up valid points.
Ed had a very valid point. He brought it up on the message board hoping to get answers, communicating!
He is not contacted or answered, merely admonished for bring up a "personal attack"!
The real issue is totally overlooked.
THIS affects the industry.
The Board missed that effect entirely.
Do we learn from this or perpetuate it???
Do yourself AND the Industry a favorite, only claim what really IS yours from ideas to experience.
Trust me it adds up TOO quickly! This will now be my TENTH season....45 years of experience!!!!!
Comment