RE: Was: EO and pregnancy - Now Educational Standards

[Guest guest]

ATFE , " Marcia Elston " <Marcia wrote:

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> ATFE [ATFE ] On Behalf Of

> anew_kid4us

> Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:56 PM

> ATFE

> Re: Was: EO and pregnancy - Now Educational Standards

>

>

>

> ATFE <ATFE%40> , " SUSAN "

> <sueapito@> wrote:

> >

<<Your last sentence here is appalling in your role as a nonprofit

administrator, Lora. It is by the grace of the US government you abhor that your

nonprofit organization exists and can operate tax exempt. The rules you have to

follow are there for a good reason; nonprofit fraud being one of them.>>

 

I too am getting weary of all this and every sentence said being disected and

analyzed to death. The point I am trying to make is simply this...AIA is not

NAHA. NAHA is not AIA. We are separate entities and not " sister "

organizations. NAHA supports aromatherapy and pracitioners. AIA supports

aromatherapy and practitioners. Similarities end there. Period!

 

NAHA had its issues with previous administration and it has some issues now.

They (whoever they are and perhaps Sylla can speak to that better than I) are

apparently trying to rebuild. I don't know that there are enough people willing

to help get them up and running effectively again. And yes maybe Kelly should

just pack it in and give up, but isn't that her choice? It takes a village to

raise a child and AIA has one. NAHA doesn't, or at least it doesn't appear so,

but how do you really know whether or not Kelly is getting things up to snuff.

She could be making an effort, maybe a little too late, but it can't be turned

around overnight. Only time will tell. Constantly bashing her efforts isn't

constructive for anyone.

 

As for AIA, I only meant that I feel we (at AIA) sometimes go a little extreme

in making sure we are complying with everything we are supposed to do as a

non-profit and to satisfy he rules of the IRS. I have no problem with their

rules, but there have been instances where, for an example, we had to change the

maketing language given to us by a speaker for a teleconference to ensure that

it was deemed appropriate. The speaker thought it was a little to extreme, but

we didn't want to take any chances. Maybe it would have been okay to leave as

is, but more often then not we err on the side of caution.

 

Thankfully we have a board of eight officers. Each of us has an area of

specialty that we bring to the organization. Mine is not with IRS and

non-profit regulations. Thankfully there are others that are gifted in that

area and they keep things in order and make sure we are in compliance. Does

that make me a bad person or a bad president? No. There are others that are

better to speak to your queries about these things, unfortunately they are not

in this ATFE group, so you are stuck with me.

 

<<Your remarks about 'policing' an organization seem absolutely ludicrous based

on the abusive behavior of NAHA reps in the past. Perhaps you do not have enough

history.>>

 

AIA can " police " it's officers and committee members. My comments were specific

in that we cannot " police " what every advertiser says on their websites, etc.

If we learn of something that is questionable we can (and do) get involved in to

the extent that we are able.

 

<<that That Kelly is now continuing to allow potentially fraudulent

misrepresentation now gives me caution about AIA . . . Don't you see, Lora, that

guilt by association is a very real consideration here. If you condone

continuing questionable (and perhaps fraudulent) practices (in your role as AIA

president/on behalf of AIA), it will reflect on the integrity of AIA. If so, we

have not corrected the past in order to move into the future without

questionable baggage.>>

 

Again, I have no control over what Kelly does and NAHA is an entirely separate

organization. The fact that NAHA is listed as a " resource " on the AIA website

does not imply that we condone any questionable pratices of that organization.

The questionable baggage, as you put it belongs to NAHA, not AIA. It is not up

to AIA to correct the past mistakes of NAHA. It is up to AIA to conduct itself

with integrity.

 

Ask yourself this, what would you do if I said to you that I questioned your

integrity simply because you are a member of the same that supports

the toxic venom that comes out of Martin's mouth. That perhaps you needed to

check yourself because, afterall, you too would be guilty by association. Would

you dump Martin? This group? Of course not, you are your own person, with your

own thoughts, opinions and believe that you conduct yourself with proper

decorum. I, of course, would not pass that kind of judgement onto you.

 

Let this go! Let NAHA and your cause against it go. Either it will make a

comeback or it won't. Whatever will happen will happen whether you continue to

talk badly about it or not. You will not affect the outcome and I think the

readers here would like to learn something abou romatherapy instead of listening

the the past being brought up over an over again.

 

AIA is very aware of NAHA's mistakes and we do our best to ensure that we don't

fall into the same situation. We have a lot of good people in our corner that

support us in a variety of ways to help us be an organization of excellence. So

please don't continue to label us the same as NAHA. We are not one in the same.