CMI Update

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

I am not sure where any of this came from.

Some history:

CMI is a designation owned by NACHI for some time, and has been a topic of heated debate. Some months ago, Nick Gromicko asked a small group of educators, along with a NACHI staffer and NACHI counsel, to convene a meeting on the issue. The committee or working group came up with a skeletal outline of a CMI program, designed to provide continuing education and a reasonable path for all NACHI members to achive this designation. I was asked to review the working group's plan, and tweek it as I saw necessary.

The first item I changed was the notion that there woud be a "standard" curriculum for the course. Rather, a curriculative outline was ratified, specifying the minimum hours and subject matter taught in a CMI course. The market would dictate which school gave the most bang for the buck. It still will.

The second item I scrapped was the notion that everyone needed to take a course to achieve the CMI designation. This was not workable, in my opinion, as we have a number of inspectors why were way up there in experience to need a course of 30 to 35 hours or so. Additionally, the premise that a brand bnew inspector would qualify for the designation, even with schooling, was also not practical. As such, a minimum bar was set, which I may add is far below the threshold announced in this thread.

What we WILL NOT implement is a designation or system of achievement, which punishes existing NACHI memners, yet allows those from the outside to waltz in to this organization and use the designation against our hard-working members. While we should not stop an outsider from joining, and perhaps achieving the designation, it needs to be reasonably achievable by all NACHI members.

We had a progeam implemented under the education committee for the past 11 months, offering money to those who produced a quality course for our on-line education. We got no takers. As such, and in accordance with NACHI's desire to move things forward, I agree that the CMI program needs to be outsourced With an organization of volunteers, this is the only real way to ensure quality, competition, and availability of the program. I stand by this, and informed our new head of the education committee that CMI was an outsourced program. Unless I have compelling evidence to the contrary, I plan to keep it that way. I see no valid reason to change it.

As to ITA being contracted to run with this program, I seriously doubt it. We already had one contractor try to control the program some time ago, and they were shot down. That is not to say, however, that ITA may not serve as a viable venue for education on the subject matter. The idea is to put it in the hands of many educators, and make it available to everyone.

But let's speak to the notion of CMI, as a designation.

It is a designation in an ever changing industry. Today's master can be tomorrow's shmuck. With the advent of licensing across many states, organizational recognition is becoming less and less prevalent.

Marketing designations, however, will give some a definite advantave. Realtors regularly use designations after their names, in order to show they have some level of profficiency in a particular area of their trade. They do not have to jump through hoops to obtain these designations. They are, nonetheless, respected, recognized, and legitimate.

Conversly, there is the notion that using a CMI designation in our profession may carry some increased liability. I recently spent two hours or so with NACHI attorney Joe ferry on this very subject, and his opinion is that it does not pose any additional liability. The assumption on the clients part is that you are a professional inspector. Period. It doesnt matter if you have 10 years in the business or 10 minutes. I am having this discussion transcribed at this time. Everyone is in a rush t become "code certified" inspectors. This, in many legal opinions, poses a tremendous liability, as code compliance represents a minumim acceptable safety standard. If you are code certified, you posess special knowledge on code compliance and safety matters. Yet, no one ever discusses liabilities associated with this international designation.

Additionally, the idea that the CMI designation should be so difficult to reasonably achieve serves no one. I take that back, as I predict it will hurt the membership, by using a NACHI designation against ouy loyal existing member base, who will not be eligible to obtain it under the proposed system.

The program needs to remain available via outsourced means. The threshold needs to set a minimum standartd of eligibiliy to take the course, and a maximum threshold for needing to take a course.

One final note: the notion of an "advanced" inspection is not in compliance with most of the industry's standards of practice, including NACHIs. How many ways are there to inspect a forced air heating system in a non-invasive manner? Does performing 1000 inspections guarantee that you are a superior inspector to someone who has performed 100 inspections? I hear it every day. I run circles around my competition. Some of these guys have been at it for 20 years. Many in our industry have had NO formal or continuing education. So, when you examine all of this, you have to look at the true purpose of the program.

Unfortunately, and nothing against John Bowman, but I was not a part of this conference call with Nick or Aimee, John, Blaine, or Paul. If I was, I would have objected to the program as presented at the beginning of this thread. To me, it makes little sense, will create a tiered system, is unheard of in the industry, and will hurt our existing members, while providing a marketing tool to the johnny come lately which can be used against NACHI members with less experience in the industry, but who are still more-than-competant inspectors.

I concur.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Really 1000 hours of ITA classes. Oh my god . I barely could do three days in Vegas of ITA for 20 hours. 150 days of ITA

[bkelly1]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

xxxxxx

ooooooo

[jmichalski]

Why did Joe delete the post?

Hmmmm....let me guess: Someone did not want that much information transmitted to members. Why is there such an institutional paranoia about transparancy at NACHI?

[Ted Allen]

Originally Posted by jhagarty

I concur.

So do I.

[Bill C. Merrell, CMI]

There is a CMI Committee in place which was constituted by NACHI- Nick Gromicko

The requirement of 1000 hour of education is unrealistic

The requirement of 1000 Fee Paid audited by a CPA inspections is unrealistic
(this would include IRS returns to provide proof of payments)

I have not been notified that the Committee has been dis banned

I reasonable expect notification as to how all the regulations changed after it was voted upon by a committee appointed by NACHI for NACHI.

It was said I cannot be objective since I own a school. Look at other appointments. You will find that many are affiliated with schools across the country.

I will wait to see if the committee has been retired. I expect that the notification will be from the same person who appointed me to the position in the first place.

[gbeaumont]

Hi to all,

could I suggest that this topic be moved to members only, as this is entirely a members only topic, it affects no one outside of this organization.

regards

Gerry

[phinsperger]

I agree with Gerry

[John Bowman]

I updated my first post.

[phinsperger]

Ok John, Now I agree with you

[jmichalski]

And so goes the continuing saga...

To quote Elvis Costello: "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused"....