Master Inspector - THE DEFINITION

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

James, could you show me a statement from Michael that changes anything for current CMI's, have I missed something?

Regards

Gerry

Gerry,

In the combination of threads he started, he has stated the following:

There will be peer review. He has already brough Jeff Hooper on board to head up the project or, as retracted and re-stated, to just do FABI members. Either way, there is a peer review committee and Hooper (and others) have been placed on it, as we speak.

Mike believes, as he has stated and supported with several posts, that the existing criteria "lacks credibility". He has suggested several means of adding "credibility", none of which created the positive response he was looking for. It was left, simply, with the need for a change of some sort and his announcement in the coming week as to what he plans to do to improve this.

It is difficult to critique these unknown changes until they happen. All we know is that they will happen and that there has been no announcement as to what will happen regarding the 200 or so folks who have already been selected for this designation...other than a possible enforcement of the existing provision to audit them.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

I guess we will all just have to wait it out and see how it pan's out.....again if it is as you say James...not much anyone can do right now....lets just see how it all pan's out.

Yep....I send in my money and got approved.....if I have to remove the CMI on my name..so be it....if it stays...so be it....the $ 289.00 will not BREAK my wallet...hell I have spend more on that at a BAR in one night with the family.

Just have to wait and see........I along with the other 199 folks will just wait and see how things go.......

Don't think for a minute I would be happy about someone who made the open comments about NACHI as this Mr. Hooper has stated in the posts I have read.......but again I give the guy the benefit of the doubt and will await what happens....in the end if it starts to smell like garbage.....screw it......I can DUMP the CMI faster than it took to get it....

So lets give MIKE the benefit of the doubt and give him the support and see what he can do with it.....in the end no one is twisting anyones arm to become a CMI.

[James H. Bushart]

I need to clarify an error in my previous post.

I indicated that there will be changes "happening" and I do not know that to be true. To what extent Mr. Rowan has control to affect change remains to be seen. We only know that it is his position that changes must be made in order to make the program "credible".

Nick has been posting, at the same time on various threads, his position that the present criteria is enough to qualify the award as "credible".

Knowing that Nick is a man of his word, I feel that - even in the event that changes are made to the program - current members will fall under his protection and will not be affected by them. Just my opinion.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Gerry,

In the combination of threads he started, he has stated the following:

There will be peer review. He has already brough Jeff Hooper on board to head up the project or, as retracted and re-stated, to just do FABI members. Either way, there is a peer review committee and Hooper (and others) have been placed on it, as we speak..

Personally I have no issue with a peer review process especially for those for for one reason or another do not meet a more rigid standard, I can think of serveral respect members here who would possibly qualify based on peer review alone, this to me demostrates flexibility rather than dogma, if Michael wishes Jeff Hooper to be a part of this process particularly in relation to FABI members then that would be his choice and probably a good one.

Originally Posted by jbushart

Mike believes, as he has stated and supported with several posts, that the existing criteria "lacks credibility". He has suggested several means of adding "credibility", none of which created the positive response he was looking for. It was left, simply, with the need for a change of some sort and his announcement in the coming week as to what he plans to do to improve this..

Very many people both inside and outside of CMI feel that this would be very more successfull with more percieved credability, and yes I am one of them, remeber Michael did not instigate these changes Nick did.

Originally Posted by jbushart

It is difficult to critique these unknown changes until they happen. All we know is that they will happen and that there has been no announcement as to what will happen regarding the 200 or so folks who have already been selected for this designation...other than a possible enforcement of the existing provision to audit them.

It is impossible to critique unknown change, just as it is impossible to know what suggestions will be made for the betterment of the CMI designation.

I have seen nothing to suggest that existing CMI members would be effected at all, and in my mind that would be counter productive.

I see Michael asking questions not handing down answers.

I know its not what you want to sell, but thats all I'm seeing.

Regards

Gerry

[Richard L. Bennett]

Paul

As a matter of note 200 inspectors or so spent 200 plus $s to get CMI after their name. Yes, they qualified in my mind.

Now Mike is thinking about some changes in the program

One thing he might think about is that the 1000 point rope might be too high to get any new CMI's and this the program might have stopped at this time.

Right now the CMI give a holder some E&O breaks -- Now lets see if Mike can add something else to the program. If their is not something for the holders why do it??

rlb

[Richard L. Bennett]

Gerry

Why should a state org have a voice in CMI? If Mike wants to start that remember that we have 50 states plus other local orgs in other countries. This will be a big admin mess.

We do not need a FABI rep. At this point it looks like Mike is loading the org with employees

rlb

[Paul W. Abernathy]

Richard,

I agree with Gerry on this.....we just have to wait and see.....He knows he has my support and until he proves someone wrong..........Mike has been very open about asking for advice and listening...so give it time and lets all see where it goes.

We just have to see how it goes...debate is healty...but lets understand that just because some things are posted...does not mean the final draft is anything like that......I am sure Mike will keep us all posted on the progress as for now.....CMI's that have it.....Advertise it, Use it....and be proud of it...those that don't like the CMI designation...dont use it...dont get it....and go on with life..........nothing changes......but in the end lets see what Mike can do with it.....

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by rbennett

Gerry

Why should a state org have a voice in CMI? If Mike wants to start that remember that we have 50 states plus other local orgs in other countries. This will be a big admin mess.

We do not need a FABI rep. At this point it looks like Mike is loading the org with employees

rlb

Richard,

personally I would love to see a time where all state and national orgs had an input into CMI, remember this has not been an exclusively NACHI program for quite some time now.

Regards

Gerry

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Bad link before, this is link for the National Occupational Standards for home Inspectors for RICS. Ignore the high liability issues and it has some good points. http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/AC9...vedversion.pdf