Re: ACHEMMIC and GIHN - Why Carl left

[Guest guest]

Carl,

I know that you asked no response be posted on the board. I am sorry, I

can't honor that request in good conscience. I was the instigator for

causing the original members of ACHEMMIC/GIHN to come together. The CIAQ was

having their meeting in Feb of 2010. I was specifically requested to help

have informed people on the line for the meeting in support of the need for

the Federal Mold Work Group to not be disbanded.

I honored this wish, and specifically had no less than eight informed

people on the line for the teleconference, of which, one was Cheryl Wisecup.

This was the formation of the group and the first action of the group was to

demand transparency within the EPA of what they were doing to further the

directive of the Federal GAO to advance the understanding of mold induced

illnesses.

ACHEMMIC letter to EPA:

_http://www.achemmic.com/files/ACHEMMIC_February_2010_Letter_to_EPA_CIAQ4.pd

f_

(http://www.achemmic.com/files/ACHEMMIC_February_2010_Letter_to_EPA_CIAQ4.pdf)

Over the next couple of months, the group grew quickly. Many of the

professional peers that I have come to know over the years and respect their

integrity were asked to join. Two projects were quickly taken on.

One was to publish a paper in which the science of illnesses from WDB where

spelled out in great detail:

_http://www.policyholdersofamerica.org/doc/CIRS_PEER_REVIEWED_PAPER.pdf_

(http://www.policyholdersofamerica.org/doc/CIRS_PEER_REVIEWED_PAPER.pdf)

The other was to address the University of California's role in mass

marketing misinformation to the courts on behalf of the affiliates of the US

Chamber of Commerce, and request that they remove their name from the US

Chamber mold statement as it was being misused to lend false credibility in the

courts.

_http://freepdfhosting.com/e88548fd20.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/e88548fd20.pdf)

Lack of transparency within an org that was formed to challenge lack of

transparency within government, you will not find the two letters sent to the

UC anywhere on the ACHEMMIC/GIHN website.

In fact, Cheryl Wisecup directed Katy's Exposure to take the info off of

her blog - without informing me this was done and against the directive of

the then BOD.

When asked why, I was told that I was too inflammatory to be associated

with anymore. When asked who made this decision, I was told that this could

not be disclosed. When asked what happened to democracy in this org, I

was told that Cheryl Wisecup, self appointed President, had a responsibility

to make decisions for the group. " It has been decided " .

Needless to say, I left as I cannot support a group that was formed for the

purpose of ridding lack of transparency in gov over the issue, who then

deems me too inflammatory for exposing the deceit, with the fruits of my " too

inflammatory " work being riddled throughout their position paper to lend

credibility to the science of Dr. Shoemaker, et al.

As such, I now find this group to be a detriment to the issue and the mold

sick - not a benefit. What they have done is help to aid the defense by

promoting that one should not speak directly of the deceit of ACOEM and the

US Chamber that has harmed us all; and continues to harm us all - while many

remain silent.

I find it dangerous that many have lent their names and credentials to this

org, without understanding that what they are really doing is promoting

one more organization to become part of the broken system; that thinks they

can solve this problem while avoiding (and thus silencing) the matter of

rampant conflicts of interest in politics that pervade the matter.

I am so sorry I helped to start this organization that helps to encourage

the concept it is wrong to speak of the politics that harm us all. I will

make one personal comment of Cheryl Wisecup, and then no more.

I have come across defense attorneys that could not hold a candle to her of

slickly avoiding key questions, controlling information and giving half

answers (which is the same as a lie), that harm us all.

We have asked for answers. We have even asked to be permitted to

communicate directly with the BOD to ascertain if they know the ramifications of

what they are supporting. Nothing in reply. I can attest to the fact that

Carl is telling the God's honest truth of how issues are addressed in this

org. Transparency is not an element one will find in GIHN. If you are

lending your name in credibility to this org, you need to be aware of this

fact.

If we want it kept quiet of how the false concept became US health policy

that mold does not harm, we should be able to turn to the US Chamber of

Commerce for assistance with this. We do not need an " advocacy " organization

called Global Indoor Health Network to carry out this endeavor.

Sharon Noonan Kramer

In a message dated 11/7/2010 9:52:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

grimes@... writes:

Jeanine and group,

Jeanine asked why I left GIHN.

Okay. I am strongly against " politics " intruding into Sickbuildings

but I've been getting the same question off-line for some time

now so I'll reluctantly respond just this once to the whole group so

maybe it will stop here and I won't have to keep responding over

and over again. If you are offended, please accept my apology.

If you want to take sides do it privately with whomever you

choose, not on the group. I really don't want to see any

responses, for or against, on Sickbuildings.

I didn't leave. But I was informed that I had " decided " to leave.

Then I was told that statement was a mistake but I could reapply

for membership. If it was a mistake why reapply? Just put me

back on the list. They refused.

Confused? There's more.

I was one of the organizers and on the initial formative Board to

create GIHN as a replacement of ACHEMMIC. In fact, the idea to

make the organizational change was my suggestion and was

readily accepted.

When Cheryl Wisecup - who once described herself as the

owner, then changed it to " only " the President, then the Chairman

of the Board, then the Executive Director, then all the above, then

only one of the above but not which one - disagreed with my

request for a Board meeting so I could introduce a motion for a

formal vote (about when to announce the changes, of all things!)

she informed me that the rest of the Board had voted against me.

When I asked who made the motion, when the vote took place,

and why wasn't I informed of a vote she responded with " I've

talked to the others and you are the only one opposed to our

decision. " I asked for minutes and she said GIHN wasn't official

yet so minutes weren't needed.

After further discussion I was informed that she had decided that

my talents and expertise would best be utilized by not being on

the Board and " she was not going to invite me " to be a member

of the Board of GIHN. Next thing I knew, I wasn't getting any

weekly updates or any other communication (after September

11). When I asked why I was ignored.

When I asked a third party I was told they were informed by

Cheryl that I had " decided " to " leave " as a member and from the

Research committee. Nothing was said about the Board of

Directors.

However, they told me, I was well thought of and was welcome

back at anytime. All I had to do was submit the bias disclosure

form identifying all the groups and organizations I belong to or am

involved with. (What? For a hoped-to-be eventual non-profit that

doesn't even have dues? And the leaders don't have to disclose

who they are and what their affiliations are to the members?)

However, I have had problems and concerns with misuse of

intellectual property so I am extremely reluctant to reveal all my

activities and connections to GIHN. I could lie but that's not who I

am.

It would provide them with information which they don't otherwise

have and which I fear they could exploit under their own name at

my expense, with possible misrepresentation, and subsequent

damage to my relationships with those who I disclosed. Until I

see what the Bylaws say about intellectual property issues and

confidentiality of disclosed information such as this by members,

and until I see a demonstration of what they claim, I'm not

disclosing.

Besides, to comply would be an implicit validation of their making

decisions about me for me and then claiming to others that I

made them.

All attempts to resolve this have either been ignored or greeted

with " give them time to figure out how to run an organization. "

Astounding!

None of the initial Board (who I knew of) has any experience with

running an organization. Although they are otherwise honorable

professionals they tended to agree with whatever Cheryl decided

after she talked with them one-at-a-time telling them what the

others had said. (A newer member is trying, however. But they

are just one and they don't seem to be making much headway.

BTW, how did that new person become a Board Member?). It

must be a two-way street, not a one-way street-or-the-highway.

So your questions are best asked of Cheryl Wisecup and her

Board of Directors. (copied on this e-mail, see below for why).

Here are the questions I asked and which I have never received

any answer other than, " the attorney is writing the Bylaws and I'm

sure you will like them. He knows what he is doing. " And, now

that I have " left " as a member they say non-members have no

right to know anything about the organization. To which I reply,

then how will anyone know if they want to join?

- Who is on the Board? How were they selected? What are their

qualifications?

- What industry segment do they represent?

- What is Cheryl's official position and what are her duties

according to the Bylaws?

- Is GIHN a membership organization, or a trade association, or a

charitable organization, or an educational organization, or

something else?

- What category of non-profit are they applying for?

- How do their current activities comply with the requirements of

that category for qualifying to become a non-profit?

- Do they understand the new 990 IRS requirements for non-

profits?

- Who is their attorney? What experience does he have?

- Who has been paying for all these expenses? Have they been

reimbursed? By who, since there are no dues or other sources of

revenue? In other words, who owns GIHN?

- Ask to see the Bylaws and other governing documents so you

can see for yourself.

- How was the original Board selected?

- What are their terms of service and when will they stand for

election?

- Are there at-large (or additional) Board positions available and

when will those elections take place? Length of term?

- Who can run for a Board position?

- Self-selected, write-in, nomination only? By whom?

- Will they have the same voting rights and priviledges as the

current self-selected Board?

- Will the Executive Director be required to follow the votes of the

Board or will the Board be a rubber stamp for the Executive

Director/President/Chairman of the Board/Owner?

Wow. Now that I look at the questions they were unable (or

unwilling) to answer no wonder I'm an outcast and undesirable!

But if they do respond to you, beware of subtle shifting of words,

meanings, and statements of intentions. In my experience you

get only one preferred side and interpretation of the story. For

example, the explanation given that I " decided to leave " as a

member when I didn't. That I can reapply, but only under onerous

requirments instead of simply correcting their " mistake " by just

putting me back on the membership list, on the Research

Committee, and on the Board of Directors. And an apology would

be nice.

Cheryl has never admited she might possibly be wrong. In my

experience it is always others who are wrong, or are

troublemakers who conspire against her, who want to destroy

GIHN. I saw no transparancy or fairness with me. Those

fundamental characteristics are a required cornerstone of any

organization offering themselves as providing benefits to their

" members. " Especially when they announce they are the

disseminators of The Truth About Mold, or the truth about

anything.

Finally, and on another note, every December, as a member of

the Editorial Advisory Board of Indoor Environment Connections

(www.ieconnections.com), I am asked to contribute my opinion

about the Best and the Worst of the preceeding year. I will place

GIHN in a new category I'm calling " The Most Disappointing. " My

hope is that by next December they will be in the " Best of "

category.

** I have included Cheryl and her Board (as best I know) as

recipients to this e-mail. I am directly requesting that they fact-

check the above before I submit it to the Editor and Publisher of

Indoor Environment Connections (my deadline is this Thursday).

Again, if any of you care and choose to get involved - you are

more than welcome to totally ignore all this - then check this out

for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Maybe Cheryl is right

and I'm wrong and I'm just lying to protect myself and hurt GIHN.

Check it out and make up your own mind.

Respond privately to whomever you like, but please not on the

group. We have enough issues and immediate individual

concerns to deal with.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

KC, do we know anymore about what went wrong here?

Carl, would you be welling to tell the group why you left ACHEMMIC/GIHN ?

it bothers me, it leaves one to wonder and I dont get a good felling about

it all.

I guess mainly it bothers me because I read Shoemakers letter regarding

the deceit over the mold issue regarding the rat study and ACCOEM a long time

ago and it was a strongly worded letter and I just dont understand whats

happened.

> >

> > Mold's not to be taken lightly

> >

> > Mc

> > Issue date: 11/4/10 Section:

> >

> >

_http://media.www.easternprogress.com/media/storage/paper419/news/2010/11/04/New\

s/Molds.Not.To.Be.Taken.Lightly-3953740.shtml_

(http://media.www.easternprogress.com/media/storage/paper419/news/2010/11/04/New\

s/Molds.Not.To.Be

..Taken.Lightly-3953740.shtml)

> >

> > If you had told me five years ago that something as common as mold was

going to change the rest of my life, I would have probably laughed at you

and went on with whatever I was doing.

----------

The following section of this message contains a file attachment

prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

[Guest guest]

Well said Carl. Thank YOU very much. You have mentioned many things even I was

unaware of. One of my main concerns was the lack of

transparency and not able to get any straight answers even being on the

Executive Committee when it was ACHEMMIC. Isn't this the same thing we all have

been yelling about for many years is the LACK OF TRANSPARENCY by our state and

federal agencies??? I had a real problem with this!! The voting process was

another real problem and the results any of us ever received was from Cheryl.

Then accusations were made, that I, and someone else were forwarding info to a

non-member that was once a member and that was not true especially since there

was nothing worth forwarding. That is when I left the group. So several others

had also been snubbed out that have been doing this for many years.

One other thing is not willing to address the deceit over the health effects

from WDB because of fear, of being sued and retribution. We all know some of

these discussions can become very volatile and aggressive when you are dealing

with policy makers. SO what !! Some times thats what its takes for Washington

to understand. They have been pushing this under the carpet long enough.

I wish them the best, but refuse to take part in there secretive process and

agenda.

KC

> > >

> > > Mold's not to be taken lightly

> > >

> > > Mc

> > > Issue date: 11/4/10 Section:

> > >

> > >

http://media.www.easternprogress.com/media/storage/paper419/news/2010/11/04/News\

/Molds.Not.To.Be.Taken.Lightly-3953740.shtml

> > >

> > > If you had told me five years ago that something as common as mold was

going to change the rest of my life, I would have probably laughed at you and

went on with whatever I was doing.

>

>

>

> ----------

>

> The following section of this message contains a file attachment

> prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

> If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

> you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

> If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

>

> ---- File information -----------

> File: DEFAULT.BMP

> Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10

> Size: 358 bytes.

> Type: Unknown

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl: Thanks for the information. However, I must comment. This group seeks

answers to their illness, not controversy. I am here to give answers. If there

is controversy, you know who the Board Members are, so take your difference to

the Board, not to this group. If individuals want answers that I might be able

to give, they can email me personally.

[] ACHEMMIC and GIHN - Why Carl " left "

Jeanine and group,

Jeanine asked why I left GIHN.

Okay. I am strongly against " politics " intruding into Sickbuildings

but I've been getting the same question off-line for some time

now so I'll reluctantly respond just this once to the whole group so

maybe it will stop here and I won't have to keep responding over

and over again. If you are offended, please accept my apology.

If you want to take sides do it privately with whomever you

choose, not on the group. I really don't want to see any

responses, for or against, on Sickbuildings.

I didn't leave. But I was informed that I had " decided " to leave.

Then I was told that statement was a mistake but I could reapply

for membership. If it was a mistake why reapply? Just put me

back on the list. They refused.

Confused? There's more.

I was one of the organizers and on the initial formative Board to

create GIHN as a replacement of ACHEMMIC. In fact, the idea to

make the organizational change was my suggestion and was

readily accepted.

When Cheryl Wisecup - who once described herself as the

owner, then changed it to " only " the President, then the Chairman

of the Board, then the Executive Director, then all the above, then

only one of the above but not which one - disagreed with my

request for a Board meeting so I could introduce a motion for a

formal vote (about when to announce the changes, of all things!)

she informed me that the rest of the Board had voted against me.

When I asked who made the motion, when the vote took place,

and why wasn't I informed of a vote she responded with " I've

talked to the others and you are the only one opposed to our

decision. " I asked for minutes and she said GIHN wasn't official

yet so minutes weren't needed.

After further discussion I was informed that she had decided that

my talents and expertise would best be utilized by not being on

the Board and " she was not going to invite me " to be a member

of the Board of GIHN. Next thing I knew, I wasn't getting any

weekly updates or any other communication (after September

11). When I asked why I was ignored.

When I asked a third party I was told they were informed by

Cheryl that I had " decided " to " leave " as a member and from the

Research committee. Nothing was said about the Board of

Directors.

However, they told me, I was well thought of and was welcome

back at anytime. All I had to do was submit the bias disclosure

form identifying all the groups and organizations I belong to or am

involved with. (What? For a hoped-to-be eventual non-profit that

doesn't even have dues? And the leaders don't have to disclose

who they are and what their affiliations are to the members?)

However, I have had problems and concerns with misuse of

intellectual property so I am extremely reluctant to reveal all my

activities and connections to GIHN. I could lie but that's not who I

am.

It would provide them with information which they don't otherwise

have and which I fear they could exploit under their own name at

my expense, with possible misrepresentation, and subsequent

damage to my relationships with those who I disclosed. Until I

see what the Bylaws say about intellectual property issues and

confidentiality of disclosed information such as this by members,

and until I see a demonstration of what they claim, I'm not

disclosing.

Besides, to comply would be an implicit validation of their making

decisions about me for me and then claiming to others that I

made them.

All attempts to resolve this have either been ignored or greeted

with " give them time to figure out how to run an organization. "

Astounding!

None of the initial Board (who I knew of) has any experience with

running an organization. Although they are otherwise honorable

professionals they tended to agree with whatever Cheryl decided

after she talked with them one-at-a-time telling them what the

others had said. (A newer member is trying, however. But they

are just one and they don't seem to be making much headway.

BTW, how did that new person become a Board Member?). It

must be a two-way street, not a one-way street-or-the-highway.

So your questions are best asked of Cheryl Wisecup and her

Board of Directors. (copied on this e-mail, see below for why).

Here are the questions I asked and which I have never received

any answer other than, " the attorney is writing the Bylaws and I'm

sure you will like them. He knows what he is doing. " And, now

that I have " left " as a member they say non-members have no

right to know anything about the organization. To which I reply,

then how will anyone know if they want to join?

- Who is on the Board? How were they selected? What are their

qualifications?

- What industry segment do they represent?

- What is Cheryl's official position and what are her duties

according to the Bylaws?

- Is GIHN a membership organization, or a trade association, or a

charitable organization, or an educational organization, or

something else?

- What category of non-profit are they applying for?

- How do their current activities comply with the requirements of

that category for qualifying to become a non-profit?

- Do they understand the new 990 IRS requirements for non-

profits?

- Who is their attorney? What experience does he have?

- Who has been paying for all these expenses? Have they been

reimbursed? By who, since there are no dues or other sources of

revenue? In other words, who owns GIHN?

- Ask to see the Bylaws and other governing documents so you

can see for yourself.

- How was the original Board selected?

- What are their terms of service and when will they stand for

election?

- Are there at-large (or additional) Board positions available and

when will those elections take place? Length of term?

- Who can run for a Board position?

- Self-selected, write-in, nomination only? By whom?

- Will they have the same voting rights and priviledges as the

current self-selected Board?

- Will the Executive Director be required to follow the votes of the

Board or will the Board be a rubber stamp for the Executive

Director/President/Chairman of the Board/Owner?

Wow. Now that I look at the questions they were unable (or

unwilling) to answer no wonder I'm an outcast and undesirable!

But if they do respond to you, beware of subtle shifting of words,

meanings, and statements of intentions. In my experience you

get only one preferred side and interpretation of the story. For

example, the explanation given that I " decided to leave " as a

member when I didn't. That I can reapply, but only under onerous

requirments instead of simply correcting their " mistake " by just

putting me back on the membership list, on the Research

Committee, and on the Board of Directors. And an apology would

be nice.

Cheryl has never admited she might possibly be wrong. In my

experience it is always others who are wrong, or are

troublemakers who conspire against her, who want to destroy

GIHN. I saw no transparancy or fairness with me. Those

fundamental characteristics are a required cornerstone of any

organization offering themselves as providing benefits to their

" members. " Especially when they announce they are the

disseminators of The Truth About Mold, or the truth about

anything.

Finally, and on another note, every December, as a member of

the Editorial Advisory Board of Indoor Environment Connections

(www.ieconnections.com), I am asked to contribute my opinion

about the Best and the Worst of the preceeding year. I will place

GIHN in a new category I'm calling " The Most Disappointing. " My

hope is that by next December they will be in the " Best of "

category.

** I have included Cheryl and her Board (as best I know) as

recipients to this e-mail. I am directly requesting that they fact-

check the above before I submit it to the Editor and Publisher of

Indoor Environment Connections (my deadline is this Thursday).

Again, if any of you care and choose to get involved - you are

more than welcome to totally ignore all this - then check this out

for yourself instead of taking my word for it. Maybe Cheryl is right

and I'm wrong and I'm just lying to protect myself and hurt GIHN.

Check it out and make up your own mind.

Respond privately to whomever you like, but please not on the

group. We have enough issues and immediate individual

concerns to deal with.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-------Jeanine wrote:

Carl, would you be willing to tell the group why you left ACHEMMIC/GIHN ? it

bothers me, it leaves one to wonder and I dont get a good felling about it all.

I guess mainly it bothers me because I read Shoemakers letter regarding the

deceit over the mold issue regarding the rat study and ACCOEM a long time ago

and it was a strongly worded letter and I just dont understand whats happened.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jack,

Yes. Sickbuildings seeks answers to questions regarding their health.

And they also are the most informed group, bar none, of current news events,

politics, IAQ, etc, because it has always been discussed on this board.

We did try to take our differences to the Board, not even two weeks ago.

No reply to the request to speak with the Board members. And no, I don't

even know who all is on that Board. Do you? Do the members? The reality

is, there are quite a few things I have never got a straight answer to from

Cheryl. Apparently Carl and KC experienced the same. That makes me quite

nervous when I encouraged so many to join that group - yet it has become

blatantly obvious that decisions are made without the members really knowing

much of what their names are being used to lend credibility to; and I am

surprised that this would be okay with some.

So, I'm finished on this subject. I have said my piece. I have warned as

much as I can. I would like to see this issue solved. The deceit

removed and the science moved forward. Period. End of story.

WR,

Sharon

In a message dated 11/8/2010 7:09:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

toxicologist1@... writes:

Carl: Thanks for the information. However, I must comment. This group

seeks answers to their illness, not controversy. I am here to give answers. If

there is controversy, you know who the Board Members are, so take your

difference to the Board, not to this group. If individuals want answers that I

might be able to give, they can email me personally.

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sharon,Carl and Jack. This is it. No more,end of discussion.

Any more concerning this please take it to your emails. No more will be

realeased.

KC

>

>

> Hi Jack,

>

> Yes. Sickbuildings seeks answers to questions regarding their health.

> And they also are the most informed group, bar none, of current news events,

> politics, IAQ, etc, because it has always been discussed on this board.

>

> We did try to take our differences to the Board, not even two weeks ago.

> No reply to the request to speak with the Board members. And no, I don't

> even know who all is on that Board. Do you? Do the members? The reality

> is, there are quite a few things I have never got a straight answer to from

> Cheryl. Apparently Carl and KC experienced the same. That makes me quite

> nervous when I encouraged so many to join that group - yet it has become

> blatantly obvious that decisions are made without the members really knowing

> much of what their names are being used to lend credibility to; and I am

> surprised that this would be okay with some.

>

> So, I'm finished on this subject. I have said my piece. I have warned as

> much as I can. I would like to see this issue solved. The deceit

> removed and the science moved forward. Period. End of story.

>

> WR,

> Sharon

>

>

>

> In a message dated 11/8/2010 7:09:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

> toxicologist1@... writes:

>

> Carl: Thanks for the information. However, I must comment. This group

> seeks answers to their illness, not controversy. I am here to give answers.

If

> there is controversy, you know who the Board Members are, so take your

> difference to the Board, not to this group. If individuals want answers that

I

> might be able to give, they can email me personally.

>

>

>

>

>