New Policy for Approved NACHI Education providers or those seeking approvals

[Joe Farsetta]

Attention INTERNACHI Members and Approved Education Providers:

Within the past week or so, many discussions have cropped up regarding a competing organization, and policies regarding “approved” courses. INTERNACHI has always been the HI association of INCLUSION, as opposed to elitism or anti-consumerism. To that end, our long-standing policy or Continuing Education and course approvals have been deliberately kept fairly liberal. Within the past few days, we have seen a shift in the attitude of one competing organization.

I, myself, was surprised at the written response I received as it pertained to submitting my own course for approval by this association. I have NEVER sought approval on ANY of my courses through them, and only did so in this instance to satisfy any possible questions my students may have. The first response was that this org would not approve any course from a competing organization. That’s okay, but I wasn’t submitting it under the INTERNACHI banner.

I asked for clarification. At the same time, it was brought to light that a INTERNACHI chapter president was also rebuffed a while back over similar requirements and policies. I received confirmation from this org that my course would be approved, with submittal and application fee. Be advised that these courses have also been granted state approvals elsewhere. I am confident that they would pass this competing org’s muster. I followed up with another few questions, which I am still awaiting an answer on.

In the mean time, I learned today that a course which was previously approved by this org is apparently no longer approved. I was surprised to also learn that the approval process is an annual event with them. Joe Ferry’s class was denied because of his affiliation with this org (INTERNACHI). He submitted the course for renewal with fee attached, and it was denied. For what legitimate reason? At a cost to whom? The insector? The public at large?

It is not about the quality of education. Apparently it is about dollars, revenue streams, and turf. It is a petty argument, which in my opinion is clearly anti-consumer. Why? I’ll tell you.

In the case of this specific individual, his course is already approved in some states for HI Continuing Education. It had, therefore, passed the muster of a state licensing board, committee, department, or bureau. That approval process included their own HI organization. Enough said. The other org has no legitimate reason, IMO, to deny their members CE credit and access to this course. None whatsoever.

In an era where education is everything, the policy should be to get His to take CE courses. These courses should be affordable, decent, available anywhere, and be of interest to the HI. This follows the INTERNACHI philosophy. INTERNACHI’s policy is pro-inspector and more importantly PRO-CONSUMER. We do more that talk about education; we deliver it. For our efforts, we are often criticized, and for what?

So, the time has come to examine our relationships with regard to competing organizations and our own education policies.

For our members, or members with dual status in other orgs, there will be no changes. We will punish no one in either org.

What we WILL do is the following:

If an education provider believes it is important enough to seek course approval from any competing organization where fees are required in an application or renewal process, said provider shall also submit to INTERNACHI for similar course approvals, based on any similar renewal schedule which may exist. No fee for this will be collected by INTERNACHI. However, education providers shall submit to INTERNACHI, along with their course information, a bonafide receipt of donation to the charity of their choice, in an amount the same as the application process fee from the competing org.

INTERNACHI will not deny any quality educational course application from any provider, providing that these conditions are met. If a course provider is willing to spend dollars to a competing org for course approvals, they should be willing to donate the same amount to charity as a condition of INTERNACHI’s approval process. So, if a competing org charges $25 per credit hour equaling, say $200, a donation will be required for $200. INTERNACHI will not dictate which org to donate to.

No donations will be required where no approvals are sought from competing orgs, or where reciprocal agreements exist between orgs, and no fees are involved.

INTERNACHI’s policy remains pro-consumer, as course content and provider approval process remain essentially intact. Those seeking course approvals will still get them. The additional condition only applies in situations where fees are demanded by another HI org for approvals of educational courses. Prior NACHI-approved courses will be subject to this new rule immediately.

Educational providers seeking approval across associations will be exempt from this rule where a reciprocal agreement on educational materials and policies exist between associations, and where no fees are involved.

In the best case, reciprocal agreements will pop up. In the worst case, charities will be receiving more donations then they did before..

It is unfortunate that it had to come to this, but we believe this new policy creates a climate of change and reflection. INTERNACHI is here for inspectors and the public at large.

We believe that a well educated inspector is the front line of consumer protection when purchasing a home. Our educational policies have steadfastly recognized nearly all industry related courses, at no cost to those who wanted to provide it. Educating the inspector community is paramount.

It is unfortunate that other orgs refuse to adopt similar policies of inclusion, as opposed to inclusion at an annual cost. Their policy has little to do with quality and putting courses in front of their members, and everything to do with money. The fact that a course which was denied for industry affilliation, where the course was previously approved by said org, and where prior state approvals were granted and still in effect, proves our pont.

With this new policy, INTERNACHI reaps no monetary compensation for its educational efforts. We believe this is the best posture to take.

[Peter C. Russell]

Thanks for the info Joe.

One question I have, or maybe it's a statement, but for small states like NH this will hurt many non- INACHI inspectors, what a shame and I wonder what impact this will have on licensing. It seems to me, we or our industry at large in some regard is segregating education.

[Joe Farsetta]

It will not hurt any inspectors, as the courses will likely remain approved. I suspect we will have a clear memorandum of understanding regarding reciprocation for these courses in short order. I had been in communication with some ASHI folks, and believe the issue had been worked out, prior to Joe Ferry's course being denied.

I'm still hopeful that things can be worked out.

We are simply asking the education provider to make a matching contribution to any charity of their choice. It is their tax deduction.

No change to membership requirements. No additional fees to NACHI members. Just an opportunity for self-reflection. Chapters collect no fees for this. No money comes to NACHI, at all. It only pertains to educators who paid for approvals in another org.

The policy is a sound ne, and I do not believe we will have many problems with other orgs. Remember, I'm the pessimest.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

It will not hurt any inspectors, as the courses will likely remain approved. I suspect we will have a clear memorandum of understanding regarding reciprocation for these courses in short order. I had been in communication with some ASHI folks, and believe the issue had been worked out, prior to Joe Ferry's course being denied.

I'm still hopeful that things can be worked out.

We are simply asking the education provider to make a matching contribution to any charity of their choice. It is their tax deduction.

No change to membership requirements. No additional fees to NACHI members. Just an opportunity for self-reflection. Chapters collect no fees for this. No money comes to NACHI, at all. It only pertains to educators who paid for approvals in another org.

The policy is a sound ne, and I do not believe we will have many problems with other orgs. Remember, I'm the pessimest.

Thanks Joe, I hope this works out but here in NH I see things staying the same, which by the way is OK with me. The courses I attend here, like your commercial course don't compare the the seminars that have been offered by others, in fact, one was offered recently that I attend every year, it's sponsored by a construction vendor but the difference is I go to their facility, get a free lunch, tee shirt, hat, whatever and don't have to pay a dime. INACHI is the best.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Attention INTERNACHI Members and Approved Education Providers:

Within the past week or so, many discussions have cropped up regarding a competing organization, and policies regarding “approved” courses. INTERNACHI has always been the HI association of INCLUSION, as opposed to elitism or anti-consumerism. To that end, our long-standing policy or Continuing Education and course approvals have been deliberately kept fairly liberal. Within the past few days, we have seen a shift in the attitude of one competing organization

We have seen, on this board, many posts "claiming" such problems. I do not deny that there are some, shall we say, exposed egos, out there and some other associations with "leadership that is more worried about keeping their associations afloat than they are is serving their members.

There are also many members, of many associations, that are hot headed and POST ALL IN CAPS, WITH BOLD, that also do not help solve the problem.

The real challange at hand is to solve the problem, not gain advantage, not slam the other guy and not to try that one's appendages are larger than others.

The challange is how best to serve a) The public, b) the Industry and, LAST, but not least, the membership.

But, some associations, and some private, non-elected and non-helpful members just want to gum up the works, and the HARD work of others.

Go figure, It seems to be all about them, and not about the other, larger issues.


I, myself, was surprised at the written response I received as it pertained to submitting my own course for approval by this association. I have NEVER sought approval on ANY of my courses through them, and only did so in this instance to satisfy any possible questions my students may have. The first response was that this org would not approve any course from a competing organization. That’s okay, but I wasn’t submitting it under the INTERNACHI banner.

Idiots abound. Go figure , but it is to be expected, in life.


I asked for clarification. At the same time, it was brought to light that a INTERNACHI chapter president was also rebuffed a while back over similar requirements and policies. I received confirmation from this org that my course would be approved, with submittal and application fee. Be advised that these courses have also been granted state approvals elsewhere. I am confident that they would pass this competing org’s muster. I followed up with another few questions, which I am still awaiting an answer on.

This is one of the benefits of working in a licensed state. If the state approves and licenses the course, the other associations will just look foolish, to their own memberships, for not approving. That has been our (past) experience in Illinois, but the problem is now solved. Maybe talking to the people who have already overcome these problems, in other states, would help. Learn what we did to solve the problem.


In the mean time, I learned today that a course which was previously approved by this org is apparently no longer approved. I was surprised to also learn that the approval process is an annual event with them. Joe Ferry’s class was denied because of his affiliation with this org (INTERNACHI). He submitted the course for renewal with fee attached, and it was denied. For what legitimate reason? At a cost to whom? The insector? The public at large?

Not having the corespondance, I have no way to judge. Could you post it?


It is not about the quality of education. Apparently it is about dollars, revenue streams, and turf. It is a petty argument, which in my opinion is clearly anti-consumer. Why? I’ll tell you.

Agreed


In the case of this specific individual, his course is already approved in some states for HI Continuing Education. It had, therefore, passed the muster of a state licensing board, committee, department, or bureau. That approval process included their own HI organization. Enough said. The other org has no legitimate reason, IMO, to deny their members CE credit and access to this course. None whatsoever.

If the state is licensed, and the course is approved, there is no legitimate reason for the course not to be approved. Here, In Illinois, other associations tried this, but were just plain shot down by the state, by the pubic, by education to Realtors and my their own members.

National Associations have NO legal supercedance to state licensing boards.

Besides, in licensed CE states, the inspectors are much more concerned with meeting the state requirements (to keep their licenses) than they are with association rules. We discussed this, Joe, some time ago, and you didn't seem to understand. Do you now?


In an era where education is everything, the policy should be to get His to take CE courses. These courses should be affordable, decent, available anywhere, and be of interest to the HI. This follows the INTERNACHI philosophy. INTERNACHI’s policy is pro-inspector and more importantly PRO-CONSUMER. We do more that talk about education; we deliver it. For our efforts, we are often criticized, and for what?

You are criticized. Mainly because hot heads stir up this pot. I am not concerned with their personal egos. I am concerned with the effects their tantrums cause.


So, the time has come to examine our relationships with regard to competing organizations and our own education policies.

For our members, or members with dual status in other orgs, there will be no changes. We will punish no one in either org.

What we WILL do is the following:

If an education provider believes it is important enough to seek course approval from any competing organization where fees are required in an application or renewal process, said provider shall also submit to INTERNACHI for similar course approvals, based on any similar renewal schedule which may exist. No fee for this will be collected by INTERNACHI. However, education providers shall submit to INTERNACHI, along with their course information, a bonafide receipt of donation to the charity of their choice, in an amount the same as the application process fee from the competing org.

INTERNACHI will not deny any quality educational course application from any provider, providing that these conditions are met. If a course provider is willing to spend dollars to a competing org for course approvals, they should be willing to donate the same amount to charity as a condition of INTERNACHI’s approval process. So, if a competing org charges $25 per credit hour equaling, say $200, a donation will be required for $200. INTERNACHI will not dictate which org to donate to.

No donations will be required where no approvals are sought from competing orgs, or where reciprocal agreements exist between orgs, and no fees are involved.

INTERNACHI’s policy remains pro-consumer, as course content and provider approval process remain essentially intact. Those seeking course approvals will still get them. The additional condition only applies in situations where fees are demanded by another HI org for approvals of educational courses. Prior NACHI-approved courses will be subject to this new rule immediately.

Educational providers seeking approval across associations will be exempt from this rule where a reciprocal agreement on educational materials and policies exist between associations, and where no fees are involved.

In the best case, reciprocal agreements will pop up. In the worst case, charities will be receiving more donations then they did before..

It is unfortunate that it had to come to this, but we believe this new policy creates a climate of change and reflection. INTERNACHI is here for inspectors and the public at large.

We believe that a well educated inspector is the front line of consumer protection when purchasing a home. Our educational policies have steadfastly recognized nearly all industry related courses, at no cost to those who wanted to provide it. Educating the inspector community is paramount.

I would clarify that the charitable donation must be made to a Charitable group (medical research, education, widows and orphans, etc) and not just any old 501 (c) (6) not-for-profit. Just define it a bit more.


It is unfortunate that other orgs refuse to adopt similar policies of inclusion, as opposed to inclusion at an annual cost. Their policy has little to do with quality and putting courses in front of their members, and everything to do with money. The fact that a course which was denied for industry affilliation, where the course was previously approved by said org, and where prior state approvals were granted and still in effect, proves our pont.

No arguement. Stupid is a stupid does.

Let's just not this decend into more "association wars" BS. Been there, done that, and, hopefully, the jerks who played this game in the past (and hurt their associations and memberships, as well as the industry) can be, once and for all, put out and minimalized. That is what adults to do children who choose not to learn from their past mistakes.


With this new policy, INTERNACHI reaps no monetary compensation for its educational efforts. We believe this is the best posture to take.

COE change. I wouldn't do it that way because it has nothing to do with ethics.

BTW: I would like to see some "official" statement on this. Board of Directors statement, legal paper. Some official statement from someone with legal authority in this association.

OK. Keep those hate e-mails coming.

Just calling them as I see them

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

It will not hurt any inspectors, as the courses will likely remain approved. I suspect we will have a clear memorandum of understanding regarding reciprocation for these courses in short order. I had been in communication with some ASHI folks, and believe the issue had been worked out, prior to Joe Ferry's course being denied.

I'm still hopeful that things can be worked out.

We are simply asking the education provider to make a matching contribution to any charity of their choice. It is their tax deduction.

No change to membership requirements. No additional fees to NACHI members. Just an opportunity for self-reflection. Chapters collect no fees for this. No money comes to NACHI, at all. It only pertains to educators who paid for approvals in another org.

The policy is a sound ne, and I do not believe we will have many problems with other orgs. Remember, I'm the pessimest.

Good points.

That is why the Chicagoland Chapter has obtained our own State CE providers license and written our own courses. We have also worked with the two neighboring licensed states (Wisconsin and Indiana) to help the get these courses licensed in their states as well (at no cost to them).

We have, or will have in the next week, some 33, state licensed and approved CE courses, approved in 3 states (and some 16 hour also approved in two other states (that I know of, as of this writing).

In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, they are also approved for CE credit for other associations. No problems or concerns.

The states supercede the associations.

Licensing DOES solve some problems.

(Sorry, Jim. I just couldn't help myself ).

[Joe Farsetta]

Will, as Director of Professional Development for this corporation, I do have the legal authority ro render this policy. What needs to be understood, as well and with regard to incorporated entities known as Charter Chapters, is that they are subject to the same policy.

The states supercede the associations.

This is true for maitaining one's licenses, bt is totally false as whether the state can compel a private association to accept anything for that association's private CE credit policies.

State course approvals have nothing, legally, to do with whether a private association chooses to accept those courses. This has not been shot down. As NACHI has no such policy, it is not a problem for us.

As to incorporated etities flying under a NACHI charter, be advised that rules apply to thse charter chapters, and said charter can be revoked at any time. The eneity would remain, but would be prohibited from further use of name and logo.

Of course, we are speaking of hypotheticals here.

What you are not privvy to, unfortunately, are behind thescenes voice mails and e-mails flying about between members of both associations. I thought I had clarification from ASHI...from someone in a position of authority. Tis was the clarification in writing I eluded to in an earlier post. What had transpired within the past 24 hours was a unlateral decision on ASHI's part to deny the re-approval of a state-approved course simply because the course provider was a NACHI affilliate.

So, what to do. Well, the first thing is that this is NOT a COE or ESOP thing. It will NOT be an issue we discuss. It IS, however, an educational policy matter.

So, if you analyze the new policy, it puts the ball squarely in the court of the education provider. If one is willing to pay ASHI for a rubber stamp approval, year after year, and run the risk of having course approval yanked for no real reason, then they should be willing to make a matching contribution to the charity of their choice when submitting that same course for NACHI approval.

NACHI is a great org, but we need to make thepot that there are more reasons to be an approved education provider with approved courses than simply because it is free.

In reality, this is no big deal, except if everyone decides to do nothing. For instance, if ITA wants their courses NACHI approved (even currently approved courses) and they pay ASHI $5,000 per year for the privilege of saying its ASHI approved, then they can contribute $5, 000 to a charity, or across multiple charities, and prove they did so when seeking NACHI approval.

If they dont, then they arent.

Chapters may not charge an education provider. Charitable contributions can go anywhere.

No membership requirement changes. No rhetoric. No jumping through hoops on NACHI's part. Just a simple requirement. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We aint a dormat.

It aint about egos. Its about fairness and a shift ina long standing policy between the orgs that dates back to Gerry B and Scott P. These changes were not precipitated by either of them. They came from elsewhere.

We are responding. Despite verbiage to the contrary, the ASHI-paid decision makers made the change. Not NACHI, and in my opinon, tothe detrememtn of the industry.

The policy stays in effect.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Will, as Director of Professional Development for this corporation, I do have the legal authority ro render this policy. What needs to be understood, as well and with regard to incorporated entities known as Charter Chapters, is that they are subject to the same policy.

Not as a slam, just as clarification, you are not the legal (i.e., on the incorporation papers) authority with iNACHI.

Nick is iNACHI and only he has the authority. Sorry if this upsets people, but I am just stating the truth, legally. Read the incorporation papers and list of legal officers (Board of Directors) yourself.


You must excuse me if I point out that, many times, various members of iNACHI have claimed to have authority to make decisions, only to have these descisions overturned.

No slam to you, Joe, is intended.

This is true for maitaining one's licenses, bt is totally false as whether the state can compel a private association to accept anything for that association's private CE credit policies.

Agreed. But the state can disallow the associations validity in states where association membership os required for licensing.

State course approvals have nothing, legally, to do with whether a private association chooses to accept those courses. This has not been shot down. As NACHI has no such policy, it is not a problem for us.

Agreed, but as you have seen, with your own courses, if they ain't state approved in licensed states, no one wants to come (usually).

As to incorporated etities flying under a NACHI charter, be advised that rules apply to thse charter chapters, and said charter can be revoked at any time. The eneity would remain, but would be prohibited from further use of name and logo.

The Chicagoland Chapter is "chartered" under iNACHI, but is also a state approved 501 (c)(6) corporation, in and of itself (with, I might add, an elected by members leadership and board of directors).

In any case, I am no longer an officer in that Chapter, only a member, just as you are not an officer in iNACHI, only a member.

I don't speak for the Chicago Chapter and you don't (legally) speak for iNACHI.

Just to be clear. No slam intended (just as I assume that no threat was intended you your above comment.

Of course, we are speaking of hypotheticals here.

Of course

What you are not privvy to, unfortunately, are behind thescenes voice mails and e-mails flying about between members of both associations. I thought I had clarification from ASHI...from someone in a position of authority. Tis was the clarification in writing I eluded to in an earlier post. What had transpired within the past 24 hours was a unlateral decision on ASHI's part to deny the re-approval of a state-approved course simply because the course provider was a NACHI affilliate.

Of course, I am not "privy". My only point is that the membership is also not "privy". Given a previous thread, where new policies were floated and presented, to the un-educated, as "Official iNACHI policy", you have to understand how I could be curious as the "official" nature of this announcment.

So, what to do. Well, the first thing is that this is NOT a COE or ESOP thing. It will NOT be an issue we discuss. It IS, however, an educational policy matter.

I do not, necessarily, disagree, with the new "policy" (if that is what it is). In fact, I think that it is very good.

But, I do believe that it is a product of clashing personalities and not the result of well thought out, mature and professional discussion between the truely representative, elected and responsible leadership of the different associations.

So, if you analyze the new policy, it puts the ball squarely in the court of the education provider. If one is willing to pay ASHI for a rubber stamp approval, year after year, and run the risk of having course approval yanked for no real reason, then they should be willing to make a matching contribution to the charity of their choice when submitting that same course for NACHI approval.

As I said, I agree with the policy, both as it has been stated and with the spirit behind it. I have long believed that these "association wars" were silly and really hurt the industry and the clients.

I, as an "education provider" have never applied for any Association approval, yet all my courses are appoved, by states and by all the three National Associations.

In our area, and in licensed states, this has never been a problem.

It seems, from my point of view, that it only becomes a problem when the non-licensed states get in the act and mess everything up for us.

I would submit, as I have to both you and Nick, many times, that if a state approves a coruse, but the associations do not, the associations are just being plain silly. If the associations do not grant "associaton credit" for a state licensed course, they do so to their own, and their membership'd detriment. And, if the assications believe that their own inter-association squabbling is more important then the needs and concerns of their members, than maybe the associations are not worth joining.

I joined iNACHI and I am a member and I have always worked to serve its membership and have never recieved a single penny (just to NACHI shirts, which I won during one of Nick's give aways) for my work. Not complaining or looking for money. Just stating facts.

Maybe the people who make money from teaching are the ones who are the most concerned. Maybe these "players" have too much influence in the question of education. I do not hold anything against a good educator, who spends their time and effort into putting a course together and teaching it. They should be paid for their work. But when these educators start to dicate the policies of the associations, for their own profit, the situation is different.

NACHI is a great org, but we need to make thepot that there are more reasons to be an approved education provider with approved courses than simply because it is free.

Rooms and food and transportation and accomidations have to be paid for. They are not free.

We also have to make the point, to the assocations who profit from education (and many of the other associations in this area, NOT iNACHI) and some educators (again, NOT iNACHI) cannot rely on the associations to give them a blank check.

In reality, this is no big deal, except if everyone decides to do nothing. For instance, if ITA wants their courses NACHI approved (even currently approved courses) and they pay ASHI $5,000 per year for the privilege of saying its ASHI approved, then they can contribute $5, 000 to a charity, or across multiple charities, and prove they did so when seeking NACHI approval.

I agree. It is no big deal. If the big education companies have a product and it is of good quality, then the individual inspectors should see the value and be willing to pay for the class. Let the market decide.

As to assoication appoval, that is for the associations to determine for themselves, based upon their memberships and the leaders service to the members.

If they dont, then they arent.

Chapters may not charge an education provider. Charitable contributions can go anywhere.

No membership requirement changes. No rhetoric. No jumping through hoops on NACHI's part. Just a simple requirement. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We aint a dormat.

Agreed.

It aint about egos. Its about fairness and a shift ina long standing policy between the orgs that dates back to Gerry B and Scott P. These changes were not precipitated by either of them. They came from elsewhere.

Agreed.

We are responding. Despite verbiage to the contrary, the ASHI-paid decision makers made the change. Not NACHI, and in my opinon, tothe detrememtn of the industry.

The policy stays in effect.

The "ASHI-paid" decison makers" made their change.

It remains to be seen how the other associations, and their memberships, respond.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

It remains to be seen how the other associations, and their memberships, respond.

NACHI has responded, by virtue of Joe's announcement.

I suppose we can wait and see what NUPI is going to do....

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

NACHI has responded, by virtue of Joe's announcement.

I suppose we can wait and see what NUPI is going to do....

Jim;

No offense intended and no slam to you.

Joe is not iNACHI or its membership.

Not that I disagree with his opinion.

It's just not an "Official" statement.

And neither is yours.

One point. It woud have been better if this was posted in the Member's only section. If it is for members, that is the place.

[Mark Nahrgang]

Let ASHI do whatever it wants.

NACHI needs to do what it does best. Help inspectors be better.

I don't see how forcing a training provider to make a charity donation will help inspectors be better. It will only raise the cost of the training (those fees are going to come from somewhere). So in a sense, this new "rule" will make it harder for inspectors to be better, because it will make the training cost more.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by wdecker

Jim;

No offense intended and no slam to you.

Joe is not iNACHI or its membership.

Not that I disagree with his opinion.

It's just not an "Official" statement.

And neither is yours.

One point. It woud have been better if this was posted in the Member's only section. If it is for members, that is the place.

Joe is the Director of Career Development. He is the final say on these matters. Not that he would do otherwise in this case, but Nick has already publicly supported the announcement.

It is in stone and it is in place. If Joe decides to change the policy in response to any actions ASHI might take in response to it, that will be his call as well.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

Let ASHI do whatever it wants.

NACHI needs to do what it does best. Help inspectors be better.

I don't see how forcing a training provider to make a charity donation will help inspectors be better. It will only raise the cost of the training (those fees are going to come from somewhere). So in a sense, this new "rule" will make it harder for inspectors to be better, because it will make the training cost more.

Agreed.

As I previously posted, I have never paid to have any association "approve" my courses.

I have, however, paid the state of Illinois. (required by law. $50 per course and good for 2 years.)

Never had a problem with association approval and hope I never will.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Joe is the Director of Career Development. He is the final say on these matters. Not that he would do otherwise in this case, but Nick has already publicly supported the announcement.

It is in stone and it is in place. If Joe decides to change the policy in response to any actions ASHI might take in response to it, that will be his call as well.

Jim,

As was previously stated, by me and other iNACHI "officers", Nick is the only one with legal authority in this association.

I don't mean to agrue, just to be clear.

When Nick writes it, it is (within this association) law.

Sorry if this hurts your ow Joe's feelings, but I am only stating facts.

Argue with the facts, not with me.

Let's stop this game playing. Nobody really buys it anymore.

[Joe Farsetta]

Will,

I, as an "education provider" have never applied for any Association approval, yet all my courses are appoved, by states and by all the three National Associations.

Better check this out, my friend, as it may not be true. For official ASHI recognition and approval, one MUST apply and include a fee of $25 per credit hour sought. This is an annual requirement. A course approved one year, may not be approved the next. You putting on ASHI approved education under a NACHI chapter banner may also be nixed. If you'd like, I can share the official policy with you in an e-mail.

I'll not drag it out here, as communication continues in an effort to get an official memorandum of understanding between the orgs, or perhaps a reciprocal agreement of some type. I am holding out some hope for one or the other. I do know that, even for courses with state approval, an application and fee are required for official ASHI "approval". Acceptance only requires submittal of the course an a state approval for ASHI's records. One cant advertise as "ASHI Approved" without paying the annual fees.

The people I was in communciation with DO speak for that association. In this instance, I am operating with the blessing of the NACHI BOD. I post nothing of this nature or importance, nor can I craft policy and post it as true and factual, without Nick's prior approval. This was discussed with him at 5:20pm EST this evening. At that time, he instructed me to post the new policy. So, you are incorrect in this regard. As for speaking for the membership, I speak for the board.

As for cooler heads prevailing, I'd ask you to look at the posts calling for it beng a COE change or membership requirement to force members to choose only one association. I spoke out against it, and we launched this policy instead.