Join NCRA   |  Store  |  NCRA Online Sourcebook  |  FAQ  |  Resource Center  |  Contact Us
Advisory Opinions

Advisory Opinion 29

NCRA Logo - New

Responsibility of Agency Owners for the Competence and Ethical Conduct of Member and non-Member Reporters Whom They Hire (revised March 2014)

Statement of Facts

The Association’s Board of Directors has requested the Committee on Professional Ethics to render an advisory opinion on the following scenario and give guidance as to circumstances under which an NCRA member who owns a freelance firm would be held responsible under the Code of Professional Ethics for the conduct of a reporter whom the agency-owner Member engages or hires.

In this scenario, an agency owner, who is a Member of the Association, hires certain non-Member reporters directly from reporting school and sends them out on reporting jobs that are well beyond their qualifications and experience.  Although it has been pointed out to the owner on several occasions that the persons the owner is hiring are unqualified and inexperienced to handle these assignments, the owner nevertheless continues this practice.  The owner purposely hires such inexperienced, unqualified and non-Member personnel knowing that they do not have to conform to the higher professional and ethical standards mandated by the Code.

Discussion

The Committee believes the owner’s practice of sending out reporters that the owner knows or should have known are unqualified and inexperienced to handle the reporting assignments to which they are assigned does not maintain the integrity of the reporting profession.  This practice violates Provision No. 9 of the Code.  In addition, the Committee is of the opinion that a Member agency owner should not be able to circumvent the Code by employing or hiring reporters who are not members of the Association and, thus, do not have to adhere to the Code.  Again, this owner is violating Provision No. 9 by failing to maintain the integrity of the reporting profession.

The Committee adds, however, that this Opinion does not mean that an agency owner is always responsible for the conduct of the owner’s employee or independent contractor who violates the Code.  On the contrary, owners are not insurers of the conduct of the reporters they hire or with whom they contract.  A large measure of adherence to the Code rests on the shoulders of the individual reporter.  The public has a right to expect as much from any professional.  On the other hand, owners are responsible for any violations that they could have reasonably prevented and should not be sending a reporter, whether Member or non-Member, on reporting jobs which the owner could reasonably determine were beyond the qualifications and experience of the reporter.

In the present case, the agency owner is using non-Member reporters to circumvent the Code.  There is a pattern of abuse from which a reasonable person could discern that the agency owner knew or should have known that the reporters the owner is hiring are not experienced or proficient in handling the reporting assignments to which they are assigned.  Although there was not any express order or authorization by the owner to these non-Member reporters to violate the Code, by hiring such inexperienced personnel and knowingly assigning them to jobs for which they are unqualified, the owner is not maintaining the integrity of the reporting profession.  Under such circumstances, a complaint could be filed with the Committee seeking redress for the owner’s violation of Code Provision No. 9.

Conclusion

Under the hypothetical situation set forth above, the Committee believes that an agency owner who repeatedly engages in the practice of sending inexperienced and unqualified reporters on reporting assignments - whether the reporter is a Member or non-Member - which the agency owner could reasonably determine the reporter was not qualified to perform violates Provision No. 9 of the Code by failing to maintain the integrity of the reporting profession.

 

 


THIS PUBLIC ADVISORY OPINION REFLECTS THE STATUS OF THE LAW IN MOST JURISDICTIONS. MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE ACCEPTED PRACTICES SET FORTH IN THIS PUBLIC ADVISORY OPINION TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH PRACTICES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR OWN APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS.