Baachu Takes a Stand: 20 Critical Inquiries on ATO Revocation by APMP Board – Evidence Sought

The revocation of Baachu’s ATO status by the APMP (Association of Proposal Management Professionals) Board has raised numerous questions regarding the decision-making process that led to this action.

 The purpose of this article is to provide answers to 20 important questions that have been raised regarding the revocation of Baachu’s ATO status. 

 These questions relate to the evidence presented against Baachu, the process and criteria used to determine that Baachu’s alleged pattern of behavior was in violation of the spirit of the ATO program, the methods used to gather and analyze evidence, the hearing process, the due process rights of Baachu, the restrictions imposed on Baachu, and the justification for revoking Baachu’s ATO status.

June 2022 legal letter:

1. Can the APMP Board provide evidence of the specific individuals who brought forth the issue of revoking Baachu ATO status, as well as the dates and locations of when and where this matter was first discussed and raised?
2. Can the APMP Board provide specific evidence and the names of the members who presented it, to support the claim that Baachu advertised its certifications as a cheaper alternative to APMP’s certifications and denigrated APMP’s brand before June 7th?
3. Can the APMP Board provide specific evidence and the names of the members who presented it, regarding Baachu’s alleged pattern of behavior that was believed to be counter to the mission of APMP and the loyalty requirements before June 7th?
4. Were any other options considered before revoking Baachu ATO status 7th June 2022, if so what are they?
5. Can APMP explain, How was Baachu’s right to due process protected during the revocation process?
6. Can APMP provide evidence of when and where they announced that only Approved Training Organizations (ATOs) were authorized to provide training for APMP Certifications prior to revoking Baachu Scribble’s ATO status?

November 22 Hearing:

1. What specific measures did the APMP Board took to ensure the independence of the Professional Ethics Committee?
2. Considering APMP had 12000 members, why was the hearing panel conducted 21st Nov made up solely of members of the APMP Executive Committee, rather than Professional ethics committee volunteers that APMP advertised and selected in July 2022?
3. Why was the recommendation of the hearing panel conducted 21st Nov not shared with Baachu?
4. Why were Baachu not given the opportunity to review and challenge the facts presented in the APMP staff report while APMP had the opportunity to review ours before the hearing 21st Nov?
5. How can the APMP Board claim to have followed proper governance procedures when Baachu CEO was given only 7 minutes to respond to the allegations and 45 minutes of questioning during the 21st of Nov Professional Ethics Committee Hearing?
6. How was the evidence presented during the hearing objectively evaluated and analyzed by the APMP Executive Committee on the 21st Nov?
7. Can the APMP Board confirm the names of the Board members who anonymously agreed to revoke Baachu’s ATO status after the hearing?

February 12 Statement:

1. Can the APMP Board explain the discrepancy between the reasons given in June 2022 for revoking Baachu’s ATO status and the allegations made in the February 12, 2023 statement?
2. Why were copyright claims introduced in the February 11, 2023 statement after they were not mentioned in the June 7 Legal Letter or the Nov 21 Executive Committee Hearing?
3. Why did the APMP Board bring up issues from 2019 and 2020 to revoke Baachu’s ATO status in their February 11, 2023 statement?
4. Why were the allegations of copyright infringement not mentioned in the June 2022 revocation letter but were included in the February 2023 statement?
5. Why were issues from 2019 and 2020 introduced in the February 2023 statement but not mentioned in the June 2022 revocation letter?
6. Can the APMP Board provide verifiable evidence to support the new allegations made in the February 2023 statement?

Evidence and Process:

20. Can the APMP Board provide information on the methods used to gather and analyze the evidence presented against Baachu before revoking their ATO status, including the names of the individuals involved in the process and the specific evidence considered?
21. Was the original decision to revoke Baachu Scribble’s ATO status reached through a vote by the entire APMP Board of Directors or just a subset of the board?
22. Can the APMP Board provide evidence that it followed proper governance procedures in revoking Baachu’s ATO status, and that due process was provided to Baachu throughout the process?
23. Why did APMP remove Baachu from its website list of approved training organizations without giving Baachu the opportunity to challenge the allegations against it?
24. Can APMP explain why Baachu was not given the opportunity to challenge the allegations against it before the November 2022 Professional Ethics Committee hearing, and why the hearing was not conducted by independent jurors as it should have been?
25. Can APMP provide evidence that it has provided equal treatment to all ATOs, and that no other ATOs have been unfairly targeted or had their status revoked without due process?
26. Can the APMP Board confirm that Baachu was not singled out for revocation based on any personal bias or animosity, and that the decision was based solely on the evidence presented against it?

Baachu’s Allegations:

27. Can APMP provide evidence to support its claim that Baachu’s fee-based proposal management community is a direct competitor/alternative to APMP, and explain how such a community would violate the ATO program?
28. Can the APMP Board explain why Baachu was not given the opportunity to challenge the allegations against it before the November 2022 Professional Ethics Committee hearing, and why the hearing was not conducted by independent jurors as it should have been?
29. Can APMP provide evidence that it has taken steps to remedy any potential damage to Baachu’s reputation and business as a result of the allegations and revocation of its ATO status?

Copyright Allegations:

30. Can the APMP Board provide evidence to support its new allegations of copyright infringement against Baachu, and explain why these allegations were not raised earlier in the process?
31. Can the APMP Board explain the legal basis for prohibiting Baachu from booking exams for students within 24 hours of receiving a legal letter?

Advertising Restrictions:

32. Can APMP provide a legal justification for imposing a restriction on Baachu that is not imposed on other companies in the industry, regarding advertising their trainings or services at APMP-sponsored or supported events or media?

Transparency and Future Planning:

33. How does APMP plan to ensure transparency and accountability in its future decisions regarding ATOs and other matters related to professional ethics?

In conclusion, the revocation of Baachu’s ATO status by the APMP (Association of Proposal Management Professionals) Board has raised several questions regarding the decision-making process and the evidence presented against Baachu.  It is imperative for the APMP Board to provide clear and detailed answers to these questions in order to ensure that the revocation of Baachu’s ATO status was based on reliable and credible evidence, and that the process followed was transparent, impartial and fair.