Cahpi Message Board Censorship!

[Claude Lawrenson]

deleted

[rwand1]

Now more to you inquiry - CAHPI owns this process and is providing the people and mechanism to run the National Initiative. It would seem to me that in order to establish "benchmarking" any persons background it must be performed to a standard. The case being the CAHPI SOP and COE.

They may own it but were is the legislation backing it up? We are not arguing inspections must be performed to a standard, what we need to understand is that CAHPI has no mandate other then its own to dictate the terms. Because you have dual membership entering the picture, you cannot demand that I or anyone inspect to CAHPI standards. If the standards are much alike as alluded to I think there should be no problem having members abiding to their parent organization. The benchmark is the review process, not a demand that you must meet the SOP/COE, that is a demand and a specific clause. The document says that if you do not inspect to CAHPI SOP/COE you are out. If members are being reviewed based on their standard in this case Nachi or Ashi then how can you demand one standard over that of another if they are equal. It also contradicts that the National is not open, but a closed shop. Perhaps the clause should have read, "member will endeavour to inspect to their associations standards, failure to do so may result in disciplinary process."

ALSO.....

...non compliance may be grounds for removal from the National Cert. Program. How can you remove someone without due process, you can't remove anyone without a hearing.

Is there any documenting evidence in the CAHPI by-laws suppporting any of these caveats?

If I belong to 3 associations - how can I best serve all 3 associations? To me its simple - inspect to highest common denominator - in order to cover my "assets". Acknowledge the differences. I would treat the COE in the same respectfull manner.

Well if the standards are pretty much the same, how do you inspect to the highest common denominator? There is no common denominator its equal if anything, but that thinking is not supported with the clause in the Application, it is saying CAHPI is by its own decree the higher standard. Not to mention nothing has been certified to meet CAN P9 we are only told the National does. Is CAHPI going to subscribe to a higher standard? Apparently not because it did not have the National audited. So which standard is CAHPI beholden to, its own by appearances, based on a recognized document.

Another point that must not be overlooked is this is an open process to inspectors that are non-aligned. It's curious to see and often note references to those inspectors who indicate they meet or exceed the "fill in the blank" SOP and COE. It would seem only logical that if one was questioned, examined, tested, reviewed or possibly up for discipline/review; that would be the common benchmark.

Its a "common benchmark" it is not one better than the other, and that I think is what is being portrayed and stated that one is better.

Being involved with the (Test Inspection with Peer Review) TIPR-Examiners, again the training and benchmark for evaluation of the "applicants" is based on the CAHPI-SOP & COE and a newly developed home inspection report review - again based on the CAHPI-SOP.

Okay I understand that, but were is the documentation (by-laws) to support this requirement and the power granted to CAHPI to do it? CAHPI power is granted only by itself, it has no legislation to demand anything, its voluntary, if its restrictive as seems to be you will not get the voluntary numbers wishing to join, because its being set up as a private club.

On the issue of the "privacy act" - that has been beaten to death already at committee level, and it is enshrined and furthermore mandated by law. Those handling the background review forms are required to up uphold and obey the law, just as we would expect it to be. Again my understanding is the certification and accreditation committee are required to adhere to the privacy act.

Concerned because I haven't read that anywhere on anything yet. We know that some in CAHPI are not following the rules they are to subscribe to because we have one issue that would suggest otherwise that someone gives an order (outside the confines of the by-laws) and those orders are carried out. Sorry this raises serious issues about influence, bias, and acting outside the confines of what is right and what is wrong and who can hide and get away with what. If someone can manipulate the CAHPI forum and remove posts you have a problem. That brings into question CAHPI's ability to do as it wants others to do. You can't reasonably expect anyone to have any confidence in the system contrary to what you say because it has been proven otherwise. Most likely you are not in any position to do much about anything, because you will be ignored or told to not get involved. That makes your role as Ethics Chair very questionable in my opinion. The way I see it you are either going to have to stand up to the pressures or you will find a way to back away from it.

On the issue of assurance - I do not sit on those committees, so I, would like you, have to put faith in those committee members to respect the law. Besides again some seem to forget that there are "others" including public representation and qualified management consultants overseeing and reviewing this project in instances like this. I speak out for them with utmost respect and with extremely high regards.

If this is the case how does one excutive continue to carry on misrepresenting the facts repeatedly and knowingly known to be false and misleading?

Lastly there is a huge problem signing the Application form along with the condition of practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE because ultimately practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE and discipline will be given to OAHI to act on. That again raises issues about freedom of association, and conflict of membership alligance. This is the case because the documents suppor that role that OAHI and CAHPI are trying to sideline anything Nachi. I wonder what the case would have been had Nachi signed on. I would suspect the same sort of issues. We truly know how CAHPI feels about Nachi because it is well documented.

I am very concerned that CAHPI is trying to maneuvre itself into a position it cannot logically or legally back up.

[rwand1]

I think Joe Ferry needs to comment on this from a membership legality point of view, and I would like to hear from Nick Gomicko on this subject because there seems to be an attempt to dilute Nachi in the overall scheme of things by CAHPI making demands that may not having legal standing.

[rwand1]

Also...

On page 5 of the Application A10 Complaince with Standards of Practice for Home and Property Inspectors.

Do you perform home and property inspections that comply with a Standard of Practice" for Home Property Inspectors?

That question and the answer provided contradict with the requirements of Page 7. If one answers Nachi I guess that answer could be considered to be a filtering question and the application and processing could be denied. Something does not jive here.

[Claude Lawrenson]

deleted

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Roy's sr replies in red......

Claude Lawrenson vbmenu_register("postmenu_42647", true); Ontario Home Inspections, Inc. NACHI Member User Name: clawrenson Location: Tecumseh-Windsor, ON Posts: 152 Re: Cahpi Message Board Censorship! Ray - I do not pretend for a moment to have all the answers to your questions. Why do you not write and request the answers from the "real" source..If you mean buy the real source I have communicated with Bill mullen and he chooses to not give the answers. / If you mean OAHI they choose to not Give the answers( I Still outstanding charges laid correctly via the DPPC for a considerable time .... Perhaps some may forget that many within CAHPI have been either "banned" or not allowed to post on the NACHI forum..If you mean Dave B may I tell you he did not pay dues to NACHI and posted ( On the NACHI BB) many nasty statements about NACHI and its Members and leaders and did not try and give any help to any members . /If you are talking about Gil S may I tell you he did not pay any dues to NACHI and made many false statements about its members and leaders after he accused our association of wrong doing ( It now has shown NACHI was correct all along ) ..... It seems I am one of the last resources allowed to post the other side of the issue or at least offer some of the answers..Wrong I have NOT seen one example of what you are talking about...... So I would not expect that you will ever get all of the answers here. It seems proper protocol prior to posting assumptions,.Wrong assumptions Possible but until the correct infomation is posted by YOU! or CAHPI this is the best thing we the Canadian Home inspectors can do...... or making claims in letter writing campaigns would seem to be address the questions in a professional manner to the main source..Professional Source ? Come on if there is a Professional Source they have had lots of time to speak up..... Believe me I do not for a moment question your questions, however, it seems a lot more credible and logical to get it from the "source", not just from me or not from mere speculation.
.....And why is it you or others do not stop the speculation and give us the true facts!.
I do know for a fact that part of the plan does include a disciplinary review process. That is a given. There cannot be any automatic expulsion of a national certificate holder without "due process".

The CAHPI SOP and COE are the accepted standard for this process. That is not to state that others have been discounted, excluded, or forgotten about. After all, the intent of a "national standard" seemingly was to invoke one standard not 4 different ones. Equally the national standard a standard based on a common benchmark of skills and abilities required by a home inspector, not just OAHI's, or ASHI's or CAHPI's. It is a blended model with a set standard. It is as simple as that. It's voluntary, one can take it or opt out. No one is forcing any person to participate.

Quote: If this is the case how does one excutive continue to carry on misrepresenting the facts repeatedly and knowingly known to be false and misleading?

Lastly there is a huge problem signing the Application form along with the condition of practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE because ultimately practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE and discipline will be given to OAHI to act on. That again raises issues about freedom of association, and conflict of membership alligance. I have no definitive response. This is your allegation, of which I have no knowledge.

I am not sure about who you claim to be misrepresenting the facts repeatedly. I only respond to help dispel some of the misconceptions. As I stated earlier I do not have all the answers, or can claim I know everything about the work of other "authorities" or "councils" within the National Certification process.

I do know about posts that have made NACHI's position clear to CAHPI about the National Initiative. Nick and NACHI has made it very clear to its members to not waste their money. .I have to agree until CAHPI tells us how and why and gives answers .....Certainly and it is my understanding that there have been missed opportunities for NACHI to support and participate in different parts of this initiative..Come on you ask for support of What ? ..... It seems a bit presumptuous if not too one sided to assume .Not at all until CAHPI tells all they are completely responsible ......that only one party is to.Typical blame the other guy for there own wrong doing..... blame here. .....It is like buying a home with out knowing where the home is how big it is what condition is is in .Can it be lived in. Is it big enough. Has it got termites . is it ready to fall down. Last I and others have excepted you and you thoughts and have discussed or feelings and ideas with you. You have said what you feel about us and I think this is great . Dialog is important. I do not think Mr Bill Mullen has ever been told to not post here and where possible I have posted much information for him here and would do it at any time . Good or bad If CAHPI wish information to get to the NACHI members you and I both know it would be done in its entirety. I reiterate I am ashamed with the lack of answers and Information given to the Canadian Home . I am also disappointed in the incorrect information that come out and . I again ,also say shame on CAHPI for not giving and continuing to supply the Canadian home Inspector with the information they should.
I would like to remind you and others I was a member of OAHI and PACHI, served on committees of both and saw how they are run and how much they did and do for their members.
I also saw there was no improvement comming. I chose to not renew my membership with OAHI do to the way they treat those who wish to join the home inspection Industry '
I also saw how they and CAHPI wish to control the home inspection Industry.
I am one of the first Canadains to Join NACHI and have seen how much they have done for the home Inspection industry in the USA
I also see how much they have and are doing for the Home inspectors and the Industry in Canada.
I also see how when I have a question NACHI gives and answer very fast and does not Ignore ANY of my questions or ideas..

Roy Cooke ... RHI... Royshomeinspection.com ,













</IMG></IMG></IMG>
</IMG></IMG></IMG>

[rwand1]

Ray - I do not pretend for a moment to have all the answers to your questions. Why do you not write and request the answers from the "real" source. Perhaps some may forget that many within CAHPI have been either "banned" or not allowed to post on the NACHI forum. It seems I am one of the last resources allowed to post the other side of the issue or at least offer some of the answers. So I would not expect that you will ever get all of the answers here. It seems proper protocol prior to posting assumptions, or making claims in letter writing campaigns would seem to be address the questions in a professional manner to the main source. Believe me I do not for a moment question your questions, however, it seems a lot more credible and logical to get it from the "source", not just from me or not from mere speculation.

So you are telling us that CAHPI/OAHI has a muzzle order? That confirms what we have said and suspected all along. Now you suggest published documents are not questionable and to seek a answer from the source. I would seek an answer formally, but alas as I have already told you and can prove OAHI does not answer questions, let alone dealing with complaints. I don't see any difference with CAHPI approach either. Particularly in light that someone in CAHPI is able to exert a lot of weight and give orders. Seemingly you appear to be taking orders just as easily. You have a knack to skirt the questions by replying with questions. I don't think you are free and independent enough to act diligently and free from influence.

I do know for a fact that part of the plan does include a disciplinary review process. That is a given. There cannot be any automatic expulsion of a national certificate holder without "due process".

Well that is not the way it comes across on the application. Surely others can see that, and it seems as more documents come out they are contradicting what we have been told. The fact one must subscribe to the CAHPI SOP/COE is in itself troubling, if you can't see that then maybe you are outside of your sphere and legal knowledge, of course why would you change your tune when you have been told how to respond. No offence but I think you tow the party line no matter how wrong its going to be proved. Are you a free thinker? Did someone provide you with a script.

The CAHPI SOP and COE are the accepted standard for this process. That is not to state that others have been discounted, excluded, or forgotten about. After all, the intent of a "national standard" seemingly was to invoke one standard not 4 different ones. Equally the national standard a standard based on a common benchmark of skills and abilities required by a home inspector, not just OAHI's, or ASHI's or CAHPI's. It is a blended model with a set standard. It is as simple as that. It's voluntary, one can take it or opt out. No one is forcing any person to participate.

But you just got finnished saying all Assoc. SOP and COE are equal, that is contrary to what is written and what members are obligated to do. If they are all equal there would be no need to state one SOP/COE over the other would there? You are correct on one aspect its voluntary, but no one should be opting out because of questionable stipulations that seem to fly in the face of freedom of association particularly when we keep being told this is open to all regardless of affiliation. Again that is not what is being demonstrated. I am not opting out of anything, because I believe I am correct and have been able to demonstrate this is not a fair and open process. Just look at the facts to date.

- Minister Fontana states the National is open and inclusive
- CAHPI spokesperson making false statements, with regard to membership numbers (5,000). All inspectors will be certified even though its voluntary.
- 100 invitations sent to those interested in becoming certified. Only to find out it was a choose and pick the applicants.
- The fee is $100, send us your money then we will release the rules and obligations.
- Now a demand that other alligances which have just as much weight are being discredited.
- someone able to delete posts at will on a CAHPI message board by parties not liked by CAHPI. What else is in store by those able to exert influence?
- If you don't like the entry requirments and demands opt out. Nice, when the hard questions start being asked it sure looks like there is an effort to back away. No one has seen any documentation on anything other then the skewed picture being presented. Something does not wash, something is amiss.

As to Oahi it is quite apparent from reports and statements in documents published by OAHI they will solely deal with National Cert. holders. Maybe you missed this info because it was published here on this board. That is not correct because only the association a member belongs to can carry out discipline. The proper protocol here is for National Cert. holders to be discipline by Nachi. Nothing more, nothing less, that is the spirit of the National Initiative or was, that seems to be no longer the case.

I am not sure about who you claim to be misrepresenting the facts repeatedly. I only respond to help dispel some of the misconceptions. As I stated earlier I do not have all the answers, or can claim I know everything about the work of other "authorities" or "councils" within the National Certification process.

But Claude you are in a position to know. We see your name associated with the National, First Nations, OAHI and CAHPI. I am not in your position but I do know when things are highly suspect. If you admit that you don't know then just maybe others could be right?

I do know about posts that have made NACHI's position clear to CAHPI about the National Initiative. Nick and NACHI has made it very clear to its members to not waste their money. Certainly and it is my understanding that there have been missed opportunities for NACHI to support and participate in different parts of this initiative. It seems a bit presumptuous if not too one sided to assume that only one party is to blame here.

Well it is voluntary, but it would appear this was the intent to cull the applications based on membership alone. Its as if someone came up with the idea to introduce rules that appear to be discriminatory. Nick under the circumstances had every right to advise to stay out of the National, but it does not allow the National to act with a degree of bias, and exclusivity because someone did not cooperate. I think the application and its demands is saying the same thing. "Co-operate by inspecting to our standard or you are out. I think the message is clear enough.

Nachi does not have anything to lose, but rather it appears CAHPI and the National could have everything to lose considering what they are asking and demanding, and what others in CAHPI are on record as saying.

Thanks.

[rwand1]

Maybe the way to deal with this is civil disobedience. By civil disobedience I mean for Nachi members to use the CAHP logo and state they are certified. If CAHPI does not want to hear real concerns and can't provide the answers perhaps misuse of a designation is the answer. I don't like to promote civil disobedience, but let CAHPI prove they have the enshrined rights they say they do. They should be able to provide legitamacy by providing by-laws, registrations, legislation to state they have sole jurisdiction from a higher authority. Sorry just cause CMHC and others say so, does not give it legitamacy.

[Claude Lawrenson]

deleted

[rwand1]

Hi Claude, et al
Claude you are correct. Having reread what I said I should have said "censorship would appear to be prevelent on both sides" if what you suggest is true. As to the circumstance of those issues of ex members and what you allude to I am sure there are far more serious mitigating circumstances then what you may know.

Can "you" specifically answer if NACHI has been denied or invited to submit their educational courses, programs, etc. for evaluation. Can you deny the posting by Nick indicating members "not waste their money"?

I cannot specifically answer the first question as I am not privy to that info. As to the last question I seem to remember reading that post from Nick. I also remember that CAHPI has no power to review anybody elses accreditation methods because National Certification is based on individual members being certified not Associations?

[/font]

As I stated before - I am not the expert. Therefore how can I be skirting issues. I simply suggested that you go directly to the source. I do not have all the answers, or can I be the only source for one to get answers. Perhaps OAHI and CAHPI have other mitigating factors of why you do not receive responses. Again, I cannot answer for them.

Okay.

All I have ever tried to do is offer some responses to the issues and provide another POV. If you do not like what I have to say - than stop asking, or trying to put me on the spot. Perhaps I am just wasting my time and efforts. So perhaps I should just blend in as one of the silent majority.

Sorry you see it that way. I know you don't have all the answers, apparently no one does. It just is so obvious to me that the actual inclusion process doesn't seem to be inclusionary whether by accident or design I am not sure. I guess I was hoping you could provide an educated opinion on the matter, seeing as it is a very complex issue.

I guess there either could be many Nachi members fudging the truth on the Background review by signing something that is very questionable or they will not sign it at all? Does this mean Nachi members who are Nationally Certified are going to have to become members of CAHPI to be able to comply with this specific clause?

Does National Certification mean all that much? Will it mean that much? If its not inclusionary it must be exclusionary?

Thanks,

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by bjones1

Claude: Keep on Keepin' on !

Nice to see some one step up to support CAHPI.
This is the beauty of NACHI .
We all have the ability to voice our openions.
If this was allowed in the Canadian associations then just possibly they would be increasing in size and have many more happy inspectors.

The more I hear,
the more I see!
NACHI is the one for me !
Roy Cooke R.H.I. Royshomeinspection.com
A HAPPY NACHI MEMBER,... More find this out ever day!
...

[lewens]

Claude
I know we don't see eye to eye on this issue and I also know that you were only trying to do what you were directed to do by the Certification Board, that being said I also understand that you do not know all the answers. What bothers me about the whole thing is that when we ask questions that you do not have an answer to you pass off answering the question to someone else, who you well know will not be forthcoming with a response. That is what gets the rest of us ticked off. If the answers that we seek were brought to the table instead of being swept under the rug by the powers that be we, collectively, would be more receptive to the process. When we ask tough questions we want answers, not half truths and "you will have to wait and see" responses.
I am truly sorry to see you go and I do not understand the pettiness of deleting your posts. It appears , again, that CAHPI and the National Certification is pulling your strings and you, collectively, are hiding something yet again.
Good by Mr Lawrensen it has been a slice.
Larry Ewens
By the way Claude, I am still waiting for the letter from your lawyers regarding the threatened litigation.

[rwand1]

Well it seems the task to eliminate posts is now complete and it would appear my complaints to the Ethics Chair of CAHPI have done nothing to stop the person(s) from removing any vestigage of my posts on the CAHPI site. Whoever is in charge of the website or whoever is giving the orders have now removed the thread topic completely to ensure nothing remains and to try and cover their tracks. However they have left one remaining post up titled " Removal of Posts". Anyone want to wager when they will remove that from the CAHPI board? Seems Mr. Lawrenson may not have any influence and his colleagues seem prepared to ignore his office as Ethics Chair.

Boy this whole CAHPI thing just gets better and better. Not very professional and not ethical. This is what you can expect from a bunch of zealots who are power tripping and hungary for more power. I can only imagine the embellishments they have told the Federal bureaucratics in order to get financial sponorship and endorsement.

http://www.cahi.ca/forum/index.php

Also check out the thread "Pilot Project"

[rrichards2]

Anyone notice how the CAPHI BB still shows 3 threads and 6 posts under the National Certification topic however only Bill Mullen's post is there?

[rwand1]

Yes thats because the other posts were removed and whoever did the removing was not bright enough to remove all the info pertaining to the original posts. Of course I don't know how dear old Claude will dance around this matter. I suspect he has already been told to ignore, ignore, ignore, just like the President of CAHPI in a letter to Claude has stated before about another serious threatening complaint that was buried and many excuses put forth.