NCRA’s “Foundational Issues to Keep in Mind” (AKA Talking Points to Guide the Discussion or Keeping the Eye on “Our” Ball)

Thank you to the WUNCRA readers who have sent us NCRA’s “Social Media Response” regarding NCRA’s testing retention debacle. We will endeavor to clarify NCRA’s doublespeak for pissed-off members who are losing their banked tests that were taken and passed under the strictest of rules.

They start out by saying:

”As a membership organization, NCRA always appreciates feedback from its members. The Board is receiving feedback and questions on the upcoming deadline for those who have not passed all finishing legs of testing in the allotted three-year period. This discussion, and Board vote over four-plus years ago, has been ongoing for more than five years, with progressive implementation taking place from 2016, so there is a long history of thoughtful and vetted steps regarding these actions.”

Yes, indeed, NCRA is a membership organization. And the members — that the Board represents and pays the salaries for NCRA’s employees — are vehemently opposed to this policy! The memo of “talking points” explains that the Board voted over four-plus years ago, and this has been on-going for more than five years. Had membership known and had a voice BEFORE the decision was made, NCRA would have known how upset membership would be over this awful decision. We must ask: Why was the issue even brought to the Board in the first place? This is a practice and a promise that has been in effect for  time  immemorial. Why has it been changed?

The memo continues:

”CAPR (Council of the Academy of Professional Reports, an NCRA volunteer committee established in our Bylaws and comprised of NCRA members who have attained the designation of Fellow), after research and consultation, made a recommendation to codify and better manage our certification process. The lack of an established policy regarding accepted length of testing and expiration of exam scores falls well outside certification best practices of any accrediting body.”

Whoa! There’s A LOT to unpack in that paragraph. Let’s blame it on the poor Fellows that volunteer for CAPR, and let them take the heat for this terrible policy! After all, they’re the elite of the elite, right? That’s the way to deflect the questions! BUT the questions remain: Why was it ever brought to CAPR in the first place? Who brought it to CAPR? You just don’t decide “Let’s go to CAPR to solve a problem that hasn’t been a problem for 50 years.” AND if CAPR decided to make changes to the policy, why not just make the policy forward-looking and grandfather the tests that were taken under the strictest of testing protocols? None of what NCRA has done here makes sense. NOT ONE BIT!

Enough! With NCRA’s used-car salesman “I need to check with my manager” flimflam (talking points). Membership needs some real answers AND it needs a restoration of NCRA’s policy of banking of tests that’s been counted on by its members for the past 50 years.

Wake Up, NCRA!

Frank N. Sense