Executive Director of CMI not even CMI

[John McKenna]

How come the newly appointed, by Michael Rowan,
Executive Director of CMI is not even listed as a
CMI member?

Does he even care? Why do we hand out positions to
those who have not labored to promote anything for
CMI and do nothing for those who have?

http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org/cmi/contact.htm

and...

Where is hall of fame, CMI president, ... Iron Mike?

I thought all of this new CMI stuff was to add
new credibility to CMI... where's the beef?

[James H. Bushart]

Rowan is a joke. Not a very funny one, but...still, a joke.

[Joe Farsetta]

The fact that he's not listed as a CMI doesnt negate the fact that with as many years of experience, education, and inspections he claims to have performed, he qualifies as one.

Remember, when Nick was ED, he wasnt a practicing HI. John B is current ED, and has no license to practice here in NY.

So, it really doesnt matter, guys.

[Henry Valenzano, CMI]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

How come the newly appointed, by Michael Rowan,
Executive Director of CMI is not even listed as a
CMI member?

Does he even care? Why do we hand out positions to
those who have not labored to promote anything for
CMI and do nothing for those who have?

http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org/cmi/contact.htm

and...

Where is hall of fame, CMI president, ... Iron Mike?

I thought all of this new CMI stuff was to add
new credibility to CMI... where's the beef?

Try here

http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org/cmi/fl.html

[Henry Valenzano, CMI]

Or Here

http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.net/florida.htm

[James H. Bushart]

I think that John was referring to Rowan's appointee, Mr. Emerson of Texas.

His point, IMO, is a valid one. If the ED is indeed qualified to be a CMI, why would he choose not to be? If he is not qualified, how could he be chosen to lead?

Either question is valid.

[Henry Valenzano, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I think that John was referring to Rowan's appointee, Mr. Emerson of Texas.

His point, IMO, is a valid one. If the ED is indeed qualified to be a CMI, why would he choose not to be? If he is not qualified, how could he be chosen to lead?

Either question is valid.

Your right!
I really need to clean my glasses or learn to read

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I think that John was referring to Rowan's appointee, Mr. Emerson of Texas.

His point, IMO, is a valid one. If the ED is indeed qualified to be a CMI, why would he choose not to be? If he is not qualified, how could he be chosen to lead?

Either question is valid.

Mr Bushart is exactly right.

Why would Mr. Emerson want to be the Executive Director
and yet has no desire to even sign up as a CMI after
all this time.

If I was appointed ED of something, I would at least join
the organization and announce to everyone that I am
part of the team....no...yes...????

Like I said... does he even care? Does he have any
track record of helping CMI? How long do you stay
a secret Executive Director?

I don't have anything against the guy, I just wonder
why he is not seen or heard from...?

Back door agreements made in secret stink, and when
the wizard finally steps out and says "Hello"... no one
likes it.

I have seen this non sense before with little nickel-dime
start up companies.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I think that John was referring to Rowan's appointee, Mr. Emerson of Texas.

His point, IMO, is a valid one. If the ED is indeed qualified to be a CMI, why would he choose not to be? If he is not qualified, how could he be chosen to lead?

Either question is valid.

Maybe he just hasn't got around to changing the website.

I think it's petty to keep harping on this stuff. You guys are starting to sound like Roy and Ray (putting on my hat) going on all year about CAHPI...OAHI....MAUI...whatever...

Let's move on people k? (for those who don't understand there's a tad bit of humor in my post.)

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I think that John was referring to Rowan's appointee, Mr. Emerson of Texas.

His point, IMO, is a valid one. If the ED is indeed qualified to be a CMI, why would he choose not to be? If he is not qualified, how could he be chosen to lead?

Either question is valid.

The same could be asked of Nick since he not only was the ED but created the designation, as well. I do not see him listed as a CMI.

I agree with Joe F. that this is a non-issue.

[James H. Bushart]

Perhaps it is not an issue.

While his (Rowan's) silence, so far, has been his major contribution to the credibility of the CMI designation...Mike Rowan made up a position and appointed a fellow to it, supposedly to "enhance the prestige" of the designation (CMI).

When this person appointed to this brand new position refrains from any public aknowledgement of it, or participates in any way with the program itself, it is legitimate to ask "why?".

Does he even know he has this title?

[Joe Farsetta]

Mike Rowan apparently rejected Nick's choice for his own. Funny.

The ED may actually be a nice guy. The problem is we may never know. He hasnt visited the site, put out a press release, acknowledged his appointment, applied as a CMI, or anything else.

The question lingers as to why this person was specifically chosen. While he may be qualified, was he chosen for his affillition with another HI org that Mike was trying to shmooze?

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

The same could be asked of Nick since he not only was the ED but created the designation, as well. I do not see him listed as a CMI.

I agree with Joe F. that this is a non-issue.

Nick has promoted CMI... the new guy has not.
Nick has listed CMI next to all his signatures... the new guy has not.
Nick has communicated to all CMI's... the new guy has not.
Nick promotes the CMI logo... the new guy has not.

Nick is a huge public fan of CMI... the new guy cannot be
compared to Nick at all... please think before you post.

I'm sure the new guy is a nice man, It just seems very strange
to watch his silence. Like Mr Bushart said, he may not
even know whats going on.

I love you Wendy, and I enjoy hearing the breeze blowing between
your ears... This is humor... please love me.

[jmichalski]

The original question raised was in regard to the current ED not holding the CMI designation. His credientials were questioned at the beginning of this thread primarily on this basis (see how you titled this thread). Please think before you title threads and then attempt to recant what your original criticsm was.

Nick also does not hold the CMI designation as far as I can tell. This puts them on equal footing in that regard.

Nick took 5 years (perhaps longer depending on which post you read) to develop to the point where CMI was publicly proposed. It would only seem fair to allow the current ED some time to develop a track record in the position.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

Nick took 5 years (perhaps longer depending on which post you read) to develop to the point where CMI was publicly proposed. It would only seem fair to allow the current ED some time to develop a track record in the position.

Okay...perhaps I am not fully understanding your point.

Are you really suggesting that the person who has been appointed to lead the CMI Program, the new Executive Director named by Rowan, should be allowed some time (you mentioned "5 years" as a number) to decide whether he wants to acknowledge his appointment or otherwise be associated with the program?