Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Yep that makes sense!

In the comments from yesterday's post when I asked why in the world the awning people would sponsor an NFRC event.... the answer was posted and here it is:

Awnings are up for a very large request for funds in the research and technology committee.

Wow... and even though the NFRC made sure to note that they were not a guarantee for approval, methinks that the sponsorship locked it in. Damn if only I knew that a sponsorship was my way to get the board to think my way, I woulda done it years ago!!!

See we all blew it and the Awnings guys figured out! All of those 42-9 votes overturned by the board would now be accepted because we were putting cash in...

Am I crazy or is this not a GIGANTIC conflict of interest? Then again when your former President and long time board member makes 72% of her income from NFRC related activities, the term "conflict of interest" simply does not exist in the NFRC world. (along with terms like "logic", "transparency" etc...)

Best part of the NFRC blog today was the quick blurb on the CMA lesson that was given to the guys at New World West... something tells me everyone who knows those guys got a HUGE chuckle/anger pain out of that...


Anonymous said...

In the meeting booklet they publish under the meetings section of their website they no longer list NFRC staff as attendees to the meeting. They were alway listed in past meeting booklets. I guess your's and other comment about the percentage of staff vs members at these meetings were at least read if not heeded.

Waste of funds by staff is a huge problem at these meetings. In Nov. 2006 when the meeting was in Washington DC all the NFRC staff stayed at separate rooms at the hotel even though their offices were 20 minutes away in Maryland. At $250 a night these costs would have been HUGE.

The residential guys are getting screwed at this meeting just like the commercial guys. There are 2 ballots out that would greatly reduce costs and effort of certifying products, the elimination of simulating windows with grid (muntins)in the IG and eliminating validation testing for those recertifying products. All the labs voted NO (no big surprise). They make a huge profit on these parts of the program.

Max Perilstein said...

Hey why should the NFRC care about money? They pay Potomac 300K a year to do nothing... and then they can get the Awning guys to "sponsor" events... believe me they have no care there.
Shame that the labs strike again... this group is such a joke and anyone who defends the lab portion and their blatant cash grabs is delusional.

Thanks for the post!!