Peer Review Job Description For CMI

[mrowan]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no set job description for this position. The primary responsibilities are to ensure that all applications meet the requirements of CMI and that all associations are dealt with fairly. Anything else that falls into this job description can be decided when a formal meeting or conference call takes place.

As far a Jeff Hooper being in charge of anyone, I am sure you know this is just a figment of J. Busharts imagination and his belief that it is raining every day.

I am sure that there will need to be a chair of the peer review and maybe a non inspector person could take this position.

The people in charge of the peer review for CMI should be dedicated leaders with a proven track record. They should have a good understanding of their association members and have mutual respect for all.

Michael

[John McKenna]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kswift
John McKenna:
Your response was appreciated and taken to heart. Consequently, I read what you post very carefully, and have been rethinking and trying to understand this whole CMI thing. I really wish we could convene a forum. Have you any idea how this can be instituted?


If I was given the task of improving or changing CMI,
the first thing I would want to do is communicate
with those people who would be most affected by
my changes... namely the current CMI members
and the CMI board.

To disregard their feelings and previous agreements
would be to show a complete disrespect for honor
and the desire to preserve relationship.

If I had to change things that the current CMI
people did not like, I would try to put myself in
their shoes and think of what would be fair
to all.

The fact that Nick has stated publicly on this
forum things that are 180 degrees different than
what Michael is now pushing into motion, leads
me to believe that the CMI division will soon
look like the grand canyon if something is not
done asap.

I would recommend a meeting on a private
forum between Michael and the current CMI
board. Michael should be willing to state
in written form (on the forum) all the answers
that the current CMI wants to ask him.
Nick should be present also.

This would limit the confusion factor to those
closest to the problem. The results of the
forum could then be published and a follow
up forum could be set up to continue the
process. People who want certain questions
answered could submit those questions in
writing before the meetings. The results
would be published for all to read.

Without full disclosure and communication,
the hurt feelings of betrayal will only grow
worse and more vocal. The new members
will suffer and many veteran members in
NACHI and CMI will be hurt.

IMHO.

The idea that we should all wait and let
Michael continue to build his version of
CMI regardless of the damage done, is
not an option. That is the spirit of a
violent take over and it will not be
pretty in the end. If Nick has to step
in after Michael has invested thousands
of dollars because things went to far
for too long... then that will be ugly too.

The attempt by Michael to side step the
current CMI people and sell his new
creation on the NACHI forum is a direct
slap in the face. It is arrogance at
the worst and naive at the least.

We need full disclosure and communication.
I am not asking to be present. I trust
Nick and Joe F. to do the right thing.

[Keith Swift, PhD.]

If there is anything illogical or unreasonable about John McKenna's post I'm not able to see it, and his sensible advice should be heeded immediately. The CMI thread is bouncing all over the board and becoming diluted in the process. However, this is not to demean Michael Rowan's efforts in this regard, which I may not fully understand or appreciate as yet.

[Richard L. Bennett]

Mr Swift

Your points should be understood by all

I speak as a CMI that meets current standards and have many more years in my own business that Mike does. He needs a mentor not a position of leadership. Would you like to take on the job of leader or mentor?

In light of your words I would think that Mike should of resign until he has a little more water through his system.



rlb

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by rbennett

Mr Swift
In light of your words I would think that Mike should of resign until he has a little more water through his system.
rlb

I second the motion. Please step down Michael.

[James H. Bushart]

The support for his program and position on this issue is underwhelming, to say the least.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by kswift

If there is anything illogical or unreasonable about John McKenna's post I'm not able to see it, and his sensible advice should be heeded immediately. The CMI thread is bouncing all over the board and becoming diluted in the process. However, this is not to demean Michael Rowan's efforts in this regard, which I may not fully understand or appreciate as yet.

Keith,

Thus far, I see some harping from the usual NACHI sources (Joe, James, etc) in regards to Michael's efforts. The primary and oft-repeated criticisms seem to center around the personalities he has selected and his ASHI background. CMI was intentionally removed from under NACHI to open it up to all associations, and doing so will bring some measure of angst from those who would prefer to keep it as a NACHI designation.

Other criticisms seem to center around concern that any change at all will be made to the status of current CMIs, who joined under far less stringent requirements and were promised free lifetime memberships. That is an issue that, I think, can only be decided between Michael and Nick (who has been notable by his absence on all of these threads). I think we have all known Nick to take an active and vocal role where he seeks to directly intervene - so his silence in this instance is telling.

The current Board is advisory in nature, and was appointed by Nick and will likely reflect a heavy pro-NACHI bias. Michael apparantly desires to make the designation more challenging to obtain, consequently raising its percieved value. He is also seeking to make it a highly regarded program industry-wide, not just within NACHI. To that end, discussions with the Board may be less than productive if they are wed to Nick and NACHI only.

Nick moved CMI out from under NACHI for an expressed purpose: to make the designation open to all inspectors. In that vein, we must take into consideration that members from other associations need to be brought into the mix, and likely they will (at some point) have bumped heads with Nick or NACHI.

I think it is a worthy goal and although I have never met or spoken to Michael, I wish him success with this project and support the ideal of making CMI a more significant designation.

[wforsyth]

Well spoken Joe M.

[Joe Farsetta]

Wendy and Joe M,

You are both clueless in this regard, but that is nothing new. The problem is not with Michael's choices, but with everything he has hatched, including the brochure he was just ordered to remove.