One by One - CMI

[Greg Veal]

My opinions are my own, and I welcome any constructive help.
I would like to see the CMI designation succeed and I feel it should be earned through a combination of Education (Classroom & In the Field) and Field Inspection Experience. I also feel that a "General" background check of the applicant is warranted, gathering a sampling of the applicants Business history (Criminal, Work experience, Specialties, Ethics, etc.). A Resume, if you will.
As for all the CE training that will be needed, it should come through Industry, from all sectors, giving a variety of choices on subject matter to keep us all up to date with changes in the Industry.
Annual dues is probably necessary, and I'm Ok with that, as long as dues are used for the good of CMI.
The Board will be made up of representatives we approve of (voted on) on a time basis (every 1 or 2 yrs.). It will be a Representative Democracy, so to speak.
Obviously, this will be an evolutionary process, trial and error.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Greg,

I agree with much of what you say, but how we avoid the stigma of just being another marketing scam and insuring that CMI is attracting the best of our profession without having a minimum set standard that everyone needs to achieve? I suggest that all members should have to pass a comprehensive test that would prove that both your education & experience is broad enough to be considered a master.

The only other way for CMI to truly be a success is to make it invitational only, something like "Angie's List", don't call us... We'll call you.

[gbeaumont]

Hi to all,

Greg, thanks for sharing your thoughts, as it turns out I see things in a very similar light

Originally Posted by gveal

My opinions are my own, and I welcome any constructive help.
I would like to see the CMI designation succeed and I feel it should be earned through a combination of Education (Classroom & In the Field) and Field Inspection Experience..

I believe that everyone shares that view, it certainly reflects the views expressed on this board.

Originally Posted by gveal

I also feel that a "General" background check of the applicant is warranted, gathering a sampling of the applicants Business history (Criminal, Work experience, Specialties, Ethics, etc.). A Resume, if you will..

I don't believe anyone has issue with that possition, other than the makeup of any review proccess.

Originally Posted by gveal

As for all the CE training that will be needed, it should come through Industry, from all sectors, giving a variety of choices on subject matter to keep us all up to date with changes in the Industry..

Agreed, common sense dictates that CE would have to be very wide ranging and available to meet both CMIs' location and personal development criteria. No one vendor could possibly achieve all this.

Originally Posted by gveal

Annual dues is probably necessary, and I'm Ok with that, as long as dues are used for the good of CMI..

Here is a contentious issue, my own personal feelings have been stated before, but if CMI is not doing anything (which is the case now) then annual dues are not warranted, If CMI becomes more than just a badge then it will need to be providing tangiable benefits to its participants, if it is occouring costs to provide those benefits, then thise costs will need to be recovered through dues. If it tries to collect dues with no benefits it will fail as participants will vote with their check books.

Originally Posted by gveal

The Board will be made up of representatives we approve of (voted on) on a time basis (every 1 or 2 yrs.). It will be a Representative Democracy, so to speak. .

Personally I agree with this possition, I have agreed to help get CMI off the ground and turn it into more than a logo, I do not intend for it to be my lifes work.

Originally Posted by gveal

Obviously, this will be an evolutionary process, trial and error.

Yes I agree, CMI can and will evolve as all things do, I hope and expect that it will do with the influence of its participants.

Like everyone else I don't have or pretend to have all the answers.

Regards

Gerry

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

The only other way for CMI to truly be a success is to make it invitational only, something like "Angie's List", don't call us... We'll call you.

Joe, I have suggested the same before, we all have a strong sense of who has the " Right Stuff" and who doesn't, I think one of the biggest issues is finding commonality in a set of rigid rules.

Regards

Gerry

[Joe Farsetta]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jburkeson1
The only other way for CMI to truly be a success is to make it invitational only, something like "Angie's List", don't call us... We'll call you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry B
Joe, I have suggested the same before, we all have a strong sense of who has the " Right Stuff" and who doesn't, I think one of the biggest issues is finding commonality in a set of rigid rules.



Shame on the both of you...

"The Right Stuff". This is fine and dandy, until those making these subjective decisions decide that neither of you fit the bill. Dont laugh, because it can happen.

"Invitation Only" stinks of croneyism. Cant happen and will never work.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

The problem with the home inspection association model as we currently know it is that majority of energy is diverted to attracting and caring for the new inspector (and just to be clear I define new inspector as someone in business less then 2-years and with less then 100 inspections) and who for all of the efforts and resources expended on their behalf the majority still fail to become successful in business and advance our profession.

Experienced home inspectors by participating in these various associations whose main focus is expanded membership have subsidized and fueled the explosive growth we have seen in our profession without reaping their fair share of association benefits. Almost all projects, programs and education are focused on the new inspector without regard to the effect it has had on our market.

CMI provides the possibility for our fledgling profession to focus on the segment of our business that has the ability to expand, broaden and grow the market for everyone, but only if it is allowed to truly attract the best of the best. The panoply of tired failed traditions and superstitions of yesterday will be of little help in this brave new world of opportunity that CMI can provide, embrace the possibilities.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

Originally Posted by jburkeson1
The only other way for CMI to truly be a success is to make it invitational only, something like "Angie's List", don't call us... We'll call you.


Joe, I have suggested the same before, we all have a strong sense of who has the " Right Stuff" and who doesn't, I think one of the biggest issues is finding commonality in a set of rigid rules.

Regards

Gerry

To Mr Burkeson and Mr Beaumont,

I want to be the pope.

May I please sit as the pope so I can decide who to invite?
Is it OK if I am not accountable to anyone and I alone decide
if I like you?

Would you like to live in a country that grants citizenship by
invitation only?

Now the pope speaks:

You know, I have a strong sense of who has the right stuff,
trust me. I am here to help you. What is fair? Don't worry
about that, I will decide. Don't call me, I'll call you.
Remember, I am the pope. The pope is always right.

End of fantasy.

I have made the point... this kind of thinking stinks and
would not help the CMI approval process.

Is this going to be a designation for home inspectors that
is fair to all who would apply, or a membership into an elite
club of snobs who only invite their own kind?

If you think CMI has marketing problems now...
what would happen if we stop marketing it at all,
and just send out a token handful of invitaions to
the chosen frozen once in a while?

Are you out of touch with reality?

[Joe Farsetta]

Joe,

You are right. And that astute observation is the truth, and has absolutely nothing with what is going on with reference to CMI.

You are an education provider, and from what I can tell, a damned good one. But, I could argue that your course cannot possibly be advanced for one reason or another. At the end of the day, the individual inspector will decide for themself whether they want to take your course and learn SOMETHING. And, if your students take away one thng from your course that they had prior to coming to it, you have been successful. This is my position. Now lets let another decide if your course is good enough, if you are experienced enough to teach it, and if it is worthy of CMI. Take the decision making ability away from the student, and put it into the hands of another. I dont think you'd like it if it fell the other way.

And who will decide this? Existing Master Inspectors, existing in a market where competition is rising every day. Put the decision in the hands of those who are trying to control the competition. There's a recipe for control. Remember, education is an ART. One can take a so-so course and turn it into a dynamic educational event. Another can take a great course, and deliver it like a cement head. And, this is where the subjective nature of education lies.

I feel that the current requirements are adequate. I also feel that peer review should be for those who do not meet the current criteria, and are appealing for admission by exception. The result of a review may be admission, or suggesting a path or timeframe needed for re-application.

I feel that CMI by itself will encourage CE. I also am a strong believer that there is nothing wrong with a review of basic inspection techniques. Look at those driving cars. How many times have you muttered for them to take a driving class... And, lest we forget, many us, if asked to re-take a driving test (real-time in a car) would fail as we are "seasoned" and have gotten into bad habits. Some basic review for the seasoned inspector cant possibly be bad.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

"The Right Stuff". This is fine and dandy, until those making these subjective decisions decide that neither of you fit the bill. Dont laugh, because it can happen.

"Invitation Only" stinks of croneyism. Cant happen and will never work.

Joe,

I happen to agree with you, it was one of many discussions about membership reqirements pertaining to CMI, it was rejected, as were many other potential solutions.

My problem personally has lways been how anyone comes up with "one size fits all" requirements.

Regards

Gerry

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

I agree with much of what you say, but how we avoid the stigma of just being another marketing scam and insuring that CMI is attracting the best of our profession without having a minimum set standard that everyone needs to achieve?

To ASHI, FABI and Rowan....the folks who mistakenly believe that they have successfully wrestled this from NACHI....CMI is nothing more than a designation designed for one thing. Only one thing. That is, to exclude others. Period.

You know, Joe, the foolishness behind the idea of setting a "minimum basic standard" as a legislative measure. You know how those who simply meet a "minimum basic standard" are viewed by those who exceed it. Why do you think it would not be as foolish in the CMI realm, as well?

In the hands of those who now think they control it, it is a means of furthering the goals of exclusion that they have failed to achieve through the legislative process in Florida.

And to those vendors who are positioning themselves...I have a question that you need to ask yourself, regarding this "advanced training" that Rowan claims Master Inspectors (whoever the heck they are) want....here is the question?

Since "Master Inspectors" are already qualified for the designation without training and will receive it without additional training, who exactly is it that would be sitting in a class for the "advanced training" that these mystery inspectors are alleged to want?

Mike Rowan is lying. Until CMI has been removed from him, ASHI, and FABI - and restored to some sense of "inclusion" versus "exclusion", it will not extend beyond the reach of Rowan's small circle jerk, IMO.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

CMI is nothing more than a designation designed for one thing. Only one thing. That is, to exclude others. Period.

I don't understand, isn't exclusivity an inherent property within the designation regardless of who is in charge or what model is finally adopted?

We have to get away from the model that expends the majority of resources on those who by in large fail to succeed in business or advance our profession and redirect that energy to support those who show the promise of moving our profession from the care and feeding of infants to supporting those who can help us claim new markets.

Nick truly understands the problem facing our profession, prior to championing CMI his first idea was to cap NACHI membership which if CMI should fail will most likely be revisited.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

I simply will not partake in the questioning of my qualifications or honesty...I have NEVER give reason to question either. I will not be involved in this thread or topic again until I understand where the CMI is heading and will give Mr. Rowan a chance to conference with me and explain his vision.

Mr. Bushart can believe what he would like of me......I have no agenda.

P.S. I hope that EVERYONE can understand this post clearer than my Electrical Posts !

[Carl Pennick]

Great post Paul...unfortanly some people will not be happy untill CMI fails....They are not intreasted in whether it is... good or bad... they just want to see it fail...

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by pabernathy

But all this is simply BS.......crap.....give the freakin MAN time to lay out what he intends to do......at this point HE has the say......YOU DONT....and chances are NEVER WILL....does that hurt you?.....well....its a fact i guess.....

He has had time. He started the threads. His plan was formulated long before he agreed to lead it and before he brought on Hoopy and the rest.

These threads are a charade. He had hoped to see a groundswell of support, but so far he has had none of any credibility. He had hoped to see some other members come up with the ideas he had already planned on, so that he could say he was simply implementing the wishes of others. No one did.

Your argument in support of him would have more merit if you, yourself, could explain what your role is in the ASHI/FABI scheme. Your acceptance of a position, in absence of any such understanding, does not speak very well for your own judgment.

He asked me to consider the same position he gave you, to shut me up. I refused to even acknowledge his offer.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by cpennick

Great post Paul...unfortanly some people will not be happy untill CMI fails....They are not intreasted in whether it is... good or bad... they just want to see it fail...

Yes But fortunatly CMI will not fail and then they all can continue to cry as per usual non stop.


Cookie