Where Does CMI Start

[mrowan]

Firstly we must recognize that change is inevitable. I admire and honor all those that have worked to set the existing level of membership requirements and do not want to take away one drop of sweat and tears that went into getting this designation off the ground. I know it took countless hours, I know the time and dedication that it took and I know the passion that went into every debate and decision.

Every one of the volunteers and leaders that helped to get this designation where it is today should be applauded and recognized at the next national conference. You leadership and commitment to the industry is outstanding.

In terms of industries, our industry is by far a very small industry, probably made up of maybe 20,000 home inspectors across the nation, at most. If we use the various associations advertised numbers, you will see that probably less than 1000 inspectors fall into the CMI category if the minimum inspection requirement is in excess to 5000 inspections(most probably all retired!!), and possibly 3-4000 inspectors if the minimum number of CMI inspections is set at 1000.

As one of the objectives is motivation of existing veteran inspectors, setting a CMI inspection threshold that is too high in our industry is self defeating. I hear you say what is wrong with the existing criteria.

For one, it is not respected by the industry at large, because its set up and qualification requirements do not require an experience credential exclusively or for a large part of the membership application. It is even not accepted as a qualified designation by many of the existing NACHI members as I have now come to find out. Perception is critical. For CMI to have any meaning in the open market it must have substance.

We must be realistic in this approach in terms of both verifiable education and fee paid inspections conducted. We must be able to establish a verifiable hours approach for inspections and education that sets the bar equally across the board?

Reviewing the existing qualification requirements is essential for this to stand the test to time and water, and be accepted by the peers of the industry. Patching holes or face lifts will not work.

This is one of the first jobs of the CMI board and peer review committee as far as CMI, its future inside NACHI or outside, depending on what the ultimate goal is. Once decided, the plan of how to regain credibility and ground is then critical.

Just some food for thought!

Michael

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by mrowan

Firstly we must recognize that change is inevitable. I admire and honor all those that have worked to set the existing level of membership requirements and do not want to take away one drop of sweat and tears that went into getting this designation off the ground. I know it took countless hours, I know the time and dedication that it took and I know the passion that went into every debate and decision.

Every one of the volunteers and leaders that helped to get this designation where it is today should be applauded and recognized at the next national conference. You leadership and commitment to the industry is outstanding.

Other than this pretense of flattery, what actions have you
taken to demonstrate ANY genuine respect for the current
CMI board or it's members. You have not consulted,
communicated, or even bothered to notify them of ANYTHING.
Your flattery is cheap and shallow Sir.

In terms of industries, our industry is by far a very small industry, probably made up of maybe 20,000 home inspectors across the nation, at most. If we use the various associations advertised numbers, you will see that probably less than 1000 inspectors fall into the CMI category if the minimum inspection requirement is in excess to 5000 inspections(most probably all retired!!), and possibly 3-4000 inspectors if the minimum number of CMI inspections is set at 1000.

As one of the objectives is motivation of existing veteran inspectors, setting a CMI inspection threshold that is too high in our industry is self defeating. I hear you say what is wrong with the existing criteria.

For one, it is not respected by the industry at large, because its set up and qualification requirements do not require an experience credential exclusively or for a large part of the membership application. It is even not accepted as a qualified designation by many of the existing NACHI members as I have now come to find out. Perception is critical. For CMI to have any meaning in the open market it must have substance.

By contradicting Nicks promises to the current CMI board, it's
members, and CMI vendors... without any communication
at all... your words of concern ring shallow.

We must be realistic in this approach in terms of both verifiable education and fee paid inspections conducted. We must be able to establish a verifiable hours approach for inspections and education that sets the bar equally across the board?

Reviewing the existing qualification requirements is essential for this to stand the test to time and water, and be accepted by the peers of the industry. Patching holes or face lifts will not work.

Nick stated on this forum that YOU need to consider that the
current CMI requirements were thrashed out of hundreds of
hours of debate and over the coarse of several years. To
NOT communicate with those who have hashed it out WAY
MORE than you have, is to show contempt for the very
people you now try to flatter on this forum.

This is one of the first jobs of the CMI board and peer review committee as far as CMI, its future inside NACHI or outside, depending on what the ultimate goal is. Once decided, the plan of how to regain credibility and ground is then critical.

Credibility is earned. Your actions earn it or cause you to loose
it. You have not brought any to the table, Sir. Telling us what
your future CMI board will do to establish credibility is like a
rapist trying to tell his victim he has good intentions and the
victim should believe him because his flattery is sincere.

When do you want to meet with the current CMI board?
When do you want to communicate?

Let's do it. What are you afraid of?
Your actions speak louder than words.

Are you wanting to wait, because you are setting in
motion various agendas and consolidating a power base,
to justify your actions.

It's an old game. I have seen it before.

Michael

Take a hike.