E
energy
There's worse
Sidney/Mike,
Could have been worse. I could have suggested that you may have been an Auditor.
But, your posts are too good for being one of those. I forgot about all those lawyer jokes. No offense intended. But, I put some sugar on those Wheaties, now that I had my early morning constitutional.
P.S. You have to admire Claes' style. You can almost hear the axe being sharpened in the background.
Mike S. said:
He's right, Flip, that was pretty low. You're on Claes' watch list already, better tone it down!
Sidney/Mike,
Could have been worse. I could have suggested that you may have been an Auditor.
But, your posts are too good for being one of those. I forgot about all those lawyer jokes. No offense intended. But, I put some sugar on those Wheaties, now that I had my early morning constitutional.P.S. You have to admire Claes' style. You can almost hear the axe being sharpened in the background.
R
Randy Stewart
I have my issues with auditors but I do have some sympathy for them. Think about what they have to do for the audit now. You're paying them to come in and take enough notes and make enough observations to ensure the registration body feels they did a good enough job. That way they get their customers a certificate and themselves a paycheck, plus they have to temper it in order to keep you as a customer and to keep their certification. Talk about burning both ends!!!!
I don't think you'll see a crackdown, but you may see a reduction in the registrars allowed to perform certain audits (i.e. 16949). Plus as the B3 gain more influence as to who they'll recognize for what audits, you see changes.
The first registrar disciplined for misconduct will be opened up for lawsuit after lawsuit from their clients. All registrations will be questionable and it will dominoe from there. I, for one, don't want to see it.
I have dealt with PJ and the contact was similar to walking onto Slick Willey's Used Car Lot. Stay and listen too long and you're going to have a mess to clean up!!!!
I don't think you'll see a crackdown, but you may see a reduction in the registrars allowed to perform certain audits (i.e. 16949). Plus as the B3 gain more influence as to who they'll recognize for what audits, you see changes.
The first registrar disciplined for misconduct will be opened up for lawsuit after lawsuit from their clients. All registrations will be questionable and it will dominoe from there. I, for one, don't want to see it.
I have dealt with PJ and the contact was similar to walking onto Slick Willey's Used Car Lot. Stay and listen too long and you're going to have a mess to clean up!!!!
J
JodiB
Psst pass it on...
Actually Stew, when a registrar is "disciplined" it is done in secrecy. Their clients don't even know about it unless it affects their certification - which it doesn't in most cases. So lawsuits may be a stretch.
In the case of the very well known registrar who had their accreditation suspended by RVA a couple of years ago (which Sidney mentioned), only those clients who carried RVA solely (and not another accreditation as well) were truly affected and those were able to receive certificates bearing another accreditation mark instead. No problem. What was remarkable and admittedly gleeful was that the suspension was actually made public by RVA. Of course, RAB refused to discuss whether they were also investigating or taking action against the registrar, as it is their policy to never make such issues public. They don't tell or confirm if a registrar is under suspension or investigation.
As a consumer who is using a registrar's services, do you think it is fair to not know if your registrar is in violation or has been reprimanded by an accreditation body?? I think it is a huge crock for it to be kept secret, don't you?
Actually Stew, when a registrar is "disciplined" it is done in secrecy. Their clients don't even know about it unless it affects their certification - which it doesn't in most cases. So lawsuits may be a stretch.
In the case of the very well known registrar who had their accreditation suspended by RVA a couple of years ago (which Sidney mentioned), only those clients who carried RVA solely (and not another accreditation as well) were truly affected and those were able to receive certificates bearing another accreditation mark instead. No problem. What was remarkable and admittedly gleeful
was that the suspension was actually made public by RVA. Of course, RAB refused to discuss whether they were also investigating or taking action against the registrar, as it is their policy to never make such issues public. They don't tell or confirm if a registrar is under suspension or investigation.As a consumer who is using a registrar's services, do you think it is fair to not know if your registrar is in violation or has been reprimanded by an accreditation body?? I think it is a huge crock for it to be kept secret, don't you?
R
Randy Stewart
Good Point
To be honest Lucinda I don't really know and here's my reasoning.
If it is based on a couple auditors that I don't know - then no I don't think I want to know about it. If it was a systemic problem then I would want to know about it especially if another consumers registration was questioned. If it was due to the practice of the auditor used for our registration - again yes I would.
I think we would be getting into morallity issues to expect all registrars to "come clean" with every investigation. I respect the fact that RVA made public what happened to them, that couldn't have been easy.
I would suspect that most of us have been around long enough to know if our registrar and auditor is doing us justice or not. I don't want the prices to go up because they have to keep a lawyer on retainer to answer every complaint or challenge issued by a disgruntled client.
It's a nasty business, if you advertise too much and try to appease your clients you end up with a rep like PJ. If you're too hard and try to please the registration body you won't have many clients.
I think about looking over our internal auditors findings to figure out just what is working or not and how much personnality has to be weeded out. I wouldn't want to do that for a registration body when my business depended on it.
I guess all we can do is trust we made the correct choice and that the company we have gone with will have the intestinal fortitude to be up front with any issues.
Can you imagine the fallout if Enron was a registrar?????
To be honest Lucinda I don't really know and here's my reasoning.
If it is based on a couple auditors that I don't know - then no I don't think I want to know about it. If it was a systemic problem then I would want to know about it especially if another consumers registration was questioned. If it was due to the practice of the auditor used for our registration - again yes I would.
I think we would be getting into morallity issues to expect all registrars to "come clean" with every investigation. I respect the fact that RVA made public what happened to them, that couldn't have been easy.
I would suspect that most of us have been around long enough to know if our registrar and auditor is doing us justice or not. I don't want the prices to go up because they have to keep a lawyer on retainer to answer every complaint or challenge issued by a disgruntled client.
It's a nasty business, if you advertise too much and try to appease your clients you end up with a rep like PJ. If you're too hard and try to please the registration body you won't have many clients.
I think about looking over our internal auditors findings to figure out just what is working or not and how much personnality has to be weeded out. I wouldn't want to do that for a registration body when my business depended on it.
I guess all we can do is trust we made the correct choice and that the company we have gone with will have the intestinal fortitude to be up front with any issues.
Can you imagine the fallout if Enron was a registrar?????
When you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem
Your reasoning is pretty flawed, Randy.
When Arthur Andersen was indicted and convicted, leading to it's demise, did the whole financial accounting system collapsed?
Your suggestion that, even when a Registrar is caught in a chronic situation of breaching the accreditation requirements not to suffer consequences, because the whole sector might fall apart, does not make ANY sense. Why would ALL certificates become questionable if a misbehaving registrar is punished? I simply don't follow your rationale.
Your position supports the cheaters and wrong doers. I really don't understand . . .
Your reasoning is pretty flawed, Randy.
When Arthur Andersen was indicted and convicted, leading to it's demise, did the whole financial accounting system collapsed?
Your suggestion that, even when a Registrar is caught in a chronic situation of breaching the accreditation requirements not to suffer consequences, because the whole sector might fall apart, does not make ANY sense. Why would ALL certificates become questionable if a misbehaving registrar is punished? I simply don't follow your rationale.
Your position supports the cheaters and wrong doers. I really don't understand . . .
A
Angela-2007
I have to agree with Lucinda. There should be a notification process regarding registrars that have been reprimanded. After all aren't we required to notify our registrar with 5 days if we are put on Q1 revocation etc.... The same thing should hold true for them. The cost that companies (who truly want to implement a sound QMS) put into certification is tremendous. I would like to know that my companies investment was protected in some way.
R
Randy Stewart
Slow Down Here
Look at the dominoe effect after Enron, look at the Stock Market since. I know the stuff in the middle east isn't helping, but the lack of consumer confidence in the market has been documented. Is your 401K earning as much as it did 3 years ago? Tell me that the Arthur Andersen/Enron scandel didn't have an affect on a large scale.
A lot of people here in Michigan were questioning the comp package given to Nasser when he was let go. Now remember back to the K-mart stuff and all the questions that came out concerning the comp packages. I heard questions like "Why does anyone need to use the company jet to go to work? Why should a company with that big of a money problem have a private jet? I don't have answers to these, but there questions that were being asked by the media here. They were looking under all kinds of rocks. Next the comp packages were questioned by the courts, and the last word I had reduced.
A couple years ago the B3 told the registrars that they were still seeing bad product from registered companies and the performance of some registered companies was getting worse.
Part of the repurcussions from that was the Q1/probation notification requirement.
Can you see how it could trickle down? I'm not trying to say this is what would happen, it is my opinion people. I worked with the B3 for too long now to allow myself to think it would go away without further incident.
It's just an opinion. :thedeal:
Do you really believe that all the other firms weren't put under a microscope? Do you honestly believe that Arthur Andersen is the only firm to look the other way??? Come on, look at what all has happened since then. Has it collapsed? NO, Would the registrars? NO, Would it cause changes and questions? HE_L YES!
Look at the dominoe effect after Enron, look at the Stock Market since. I know the stuff in the middle east isn't helping, but the lack of consumer confidence in the market has been documented. Is your 401K earning as much as it did 3 years ago? Tell me that the Arthur Andersen/Enron scandel didn't have an affect on a large scale.
Because if one is doing it how many others in the game are too?
A lot of people here in Michigan were questioning the comp package given to Nasser when he was let go. Now remember back to the K-mart stuff and all the questions that came out concerning the comp packages. I heard questions like "Why does anyone need to use the company jet to go to work? Why should a company with that big of a money problem have a private jet? I don't have answers to these, but there questions that were being asked by the media here. They were looking under all kinds of rocks. Next the comp packages were questioned by the courts, and the last word I had reduced.
A couple years ago the B3 told the registrars that they were still seeing bad product from registered companies and the performance of some registered companies was getting worse.
Part of the repurcussions from that was the Q1/probation notification requirement.
Can you see how it could trickle down? I'm not trying to say this is what would happen, it is my opinion people. I worked with the B3 for too long now to allow myself to think it would go away without further incident.
My point exactly Angela. So if your registrar was found guilty of misconduct and you lost your cert, wouldn't your company try to get some money back?
It's just an opinion.
:thedeal:
A
Angela-2007
You can bet on it. If at all possible.
J
JodiB
Stew,
RVA is an accreditation body, not a registrar - what they made public is that they were suspending the RVA accreditation of the registrar. That means that the registrar no longer had the RVA's blessing to issue certifications. But that registrar also carried the accreditation ("blessing") of other accreditation bodies so they could still issue accredited certificates, just not carrying the RVA logo while they were under suspension. If RAB or UKAS or any other accreditation body were also taking action against them for whatever it is that they did "wrong", then it was not made public knowledge. RAB was pointblank asked about it and responded that it was their policy to not inform the public of suspensions.
If a client company carrys a single accreditation mark on their certificate and that accreditation body suspends the accreditation of their registrar, then the client company would have to be informed by the registrar of the suspension. This is a contractual item. If they were inclined to sue, they would already have the information at hand. I haven't seen a blizzard of lawsuits. This is why: What a registar would do is say "Look, we're having some problems with XX accreditation body right now so to protect you we're going to issue you a new certificate carrying YY's accreditation logo instead. This is just a temporary measure and we are just making sure that our clients don't experience any hardships while we get this technicality straightened out". If the client company has more than one accreditation mark on their certificate (I had some clients with 7 of them), then it didn't really matter if one of the accreditations was suspended at any given time because the others were still valid. The client did not have to be contacted.
As far as whether you would want to know about it or not, the accreditation bodies don't suspend an accreditation over minor singular incidents. They bend over so far backward in giving registrars the benefit of a doubt, that should they actually penalize a registar, you can believe that there is a very good irrefutable reason indeed! And you would (should?) want to know about it. Unfortunately, this information is just not made available to you.
It is disheartening to the registrars who work very hard to make sure that all t's are crossed and all i's are dotted and that everything is done according to procedure with every variation fully justified and documented and reported (when required) to the accreditation body, to be essentially working in vain because in a business where the only value is in the reputation of the work that is provided there are companies who do not work as diligently who manage to succeed and thrive.
Oh boy. Sorry for that soapbox oratory. Like everyone else who believes in the "quality" of their product, I'm screaming against the wind about those things that frustrate me because not everyone sees the same value or quality markings. Just one of those character traits of a Quality Person, right?
RVA is an accreditation body, not a registrar - what they made public is that they were suspending the RVA accreditation of the registrar. That means that the registrar no longer had the RVA's blessing to issue certifications. But that registrar also carried the accreditation ("blessing") of other accreditation bodies so they could still issue accredited certificates, just not carrying the RVA logo while they were under suspension. If RAB or UKAS or any other accreditation body were also taking action against them for whatever it is that they did "wrong", then it was not made public knowledge. RAB was pointblank asked about it and responded that it was their policy to not inform the public of suspensions.
If a client company carrys a single accreditation mark on their certificate and that accreditation body suspends the accreditation of their registrar, then the client company would have to be informed by the registrar of the suspension. This is a contractual item. If they were inclined to sue, they would already have the information at hand. I haven't seen a blizzard of lawsuits. This is why: What a registar would do is say "Look, we're having some problems with XX accreditation body right now so to protect you we're going to issue you a new certificate carrying YY's accreditation logo instead. This is just a temporary measure and we are just making sure that our clients don't experience any hardships while we get this technicality straightened out". If the client company has more than one accreditation mark on their certificate (I had some clients with 7 of them), then it didn't really matter if one of the accreditations was suspended at any given time because the others were still valid. The client did not have to be contacted.
As far as whether you would want to know about it or not, the accreditation bodies don't suspend an accreditation over minor singular incidents. They bend over so far backward in giving registrars the benefit of a doubt, that should they actually penalize a registar, you can believe that there is a very good irrefutable reason indeed! And you would (should?) want to know about it. Unfortunately, this information is just not made available to you.
It is disheartening to the registrars who work very hard to make sure that all t's are crossed and all i's are dotted and that everything is done according to procedure with every variation fully justified and documented and reported (when required) to the accreditation body, to be essentially working in vain because in a business where the only value is in the reputation of the work that is provided there are companies who do not work as diligently who manage to succeed and thrive.
Oh boy. Sorry for that soapbox oratory. Like everyone else who believes in the "quality" of their product, I'm screaming against the wind about those things that frustrate me because not everyone sees the same value or quality markings. Just one of those character traits of a Quality Person, right?
Similar threads
