Canadian government recognizes CMI. Thank you Roy Cooke!

[Nick Gromicko]

Brian, incorrectly writes:

instant, cheap and easy "certification"

How is the "3 years in business" requirement instant? 3 years is longer than the average life expectancy of an inspector!

How is the 1,000 inspections or CE hours easy?

You sound like Obama, great lines, nothing behind them.

Read www.certifiedmasterinspector.org again slower.

[John McKenna]

There have been plenty of inspectors who inquired and found they did
not qualify as a CMI. An insurance company recently told me that
those who qualify as a CMI are the type of inspectors who are the elite
in the industry their numbers are only a very small percentage.

If becoming a CMI is so easy, why do so few qualify, when you look at
the total number of inspectors in the entire industry.? It would seem that
everyone would qualify if it was easy.

[bmullen]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

There have been plenty of inspectors who inquired and found they did
not qualify as a CMI. An insurance company recently told me that
those who qualify as a CMI are the type of inspectors who are the elite
in the industry their numbers are only a very small percentage.

If becoming a CMI is so easy, why do so few qualify, when you look at
the total number of inspectors in the entire industry.? It would seem that
everyone would qualify if it was easy.

John:

I think the latest version of the requirements is good, provided they are verified. Merely signing an affidavit doesn't cut it. I think the issue is more with those who joined in the beginning when the only real requirement was a pulse and a the ability to write a cheque.

Bill Mullen

[Raymond E. Wand]

Regardless how the membership came into the hands of the recipient, it was still free. Just because it is your money doesn't make it right.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by Raymond E. Wand

Regardless how the membership came into the hands of the recipient, it was still free. Just because it is your money doesn't make it right.

When my son qualifies for InterNACHI and passes his Texas exam,
I am going to pay for his fees. As long as he is qualified, what is
the problem?

For someone who did not have to pay for your own membership in
InterNACHI, to now say your membership was not "right", seems
a little disingenuous.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by bmullen

John:

I think the latest version of the requirements is good, provided they are verified. Merely signing an affidavit doesn't cut it. I think the issue is more with those who joined in the beginning when the only real requirement was a pulse and a the ability to write a cheque.

Bill Mullen

Saying the qualifications were just a "pulse" is an exaggeration.

Many trade designations have evolved over the years and
all those who were already members, were grand fathered-in
as the qualifications were increased. It's called "keeping an
agreement".

The present CMI's all seem to fit the qualifications. Do you
have any challenges? I had some question your qualifications,
but I think you fit the bill.

[bmullen]

Hi John:

I'm not questioning anyone's credentials in particular. I'm trying to point out that the qualifications from day one to now have evloved dramatically and quickly. I too have a problem with the term 'master' when some hasn't had to prove any ability at their craft.

If challenged in a court of law, I'm wondering how someone who didn't go through much rigor will be able to defend their piece of paper.

Bill Mullen

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my abilities.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by bmullen

Hi John:

I'm not questioning anyone's credentials in particular. I'm trying to point out that the qualifications from day one to now have evloved dramatically and quickly. I too have a problem with the term 'master' when some hasn't had to prove any ability at their craft.

If challenged in a court of law, I'm wondering how someone who didn't go through much rigor will be able to defend their piece of paper.

Bill Mullen

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my abilities.

If someone cannot prove 3 years exp. and 1000 inspection/education, then
they might have a problem. If they have it, then then there will be no problem.

Here is something to consider...

A master electrician cannot do the job of an inspector, but the inspector
examines and corrects his work.

A master plumber cannot do the the job of an inspector, but the inspector
examines and corrects his work.

As you said... the "latest version of the requirements is good"... but how that
is verified is always a matter of opinions.

When I was licensed in Texas to become an inspector, they wanted proof
of the required years in construction that I claimed. They required that I
send in 3 affidavits signed by business people in my area. Many state
governments use affidavits to verify proof of various things. Why can't
CMI do the same?

Which CMI is lying? None that I know of.

1. Completing 1,000 fee-paid inspections or hours of inspection-related continuing education (combined) in their lifetime.
2. Proving they've been in the inspection business for at least 3 years.
3. Abiding by the industry's toughest Code of Ethics.
4. Substantially following a Board approved Standards of Practice.
5. Submitting to a criminal background check.
6. Applying for Board certification by signing the affidavit in front of a Notary.

[Raymond E. Wand]

Anybody worth their salt does not rely on free memberships to gain entry into any professional body regardless who pays for it. The die has been cast, by giving away CMI or Nachi memberships someone has unwittingly created questionable credentials. There is no assurance other than someones word that everyone completed an affidavits, this has been proven. No bylaws, no elected board, just some individuals who decided to set up a questionable designation.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by Raymond E. Wand

Anybody worth their salt does not rely on free memberships to gain entry into any professional body regardless who pays for it. The die has been cast, by giving away CMI or Nachi memberships someone has unwittingly created questionable credentials. There is no assurance other than someones word that everyone completed an affidavits, this has been proven. No bylaws, no elected board, just some individuals who decided to set up a questionable designation.

So your free InterNACHI membership makes you worthless salt? You said it.

If someone is qualified, and I pay their fee, what is the problem? Think about it.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bmullen

If challenged in a court of law, I'm wondering how someone who didn't go through much rigor will be able to defend their piece of paper.

If such a challenge were made, it would be for only one purpose and that would be to establish fraud.

In the U.S., alleging fraud in a lawsuit allows a plaintiff to claim unlimited punitive damages. Without this, the plaintiff is limited to only his actual damages.

If I wanted to turn my claim for a new water heater into a multi-million dollar law suit, my attorney (through the discovery process) would acquire from you every shred of evidence that exists regarding the number of verifiable inspections and hours of education obtained, along with actual proof of all other criteria.

Proof of failure to achieve any level of these would mean instant fortune for me (and 33% of it to him) for now I can show that you misrepresented your qualifications to me in order to get my business.

But this is not limited to CMI.

This can happen to a NACHI member who claims to be a member in good standing, but only acquired 15 hours of CEUs the passed two years.

NACHI and the CMI Board, IMO, are wise not to share liability with me by "validating" or providing anything more than my affadavit. To do otherwise would implicate them as a co-defendant in perpetuating the fraud if, indeed, I was deficient.

[Nick Gromicko]

Jim figured it out. By being a CMI or an InterNACHI member or IAC2 or more recently www.nachi.org/ir.htm YOU are making a claim, not the org, hence the affidavit. And as John points out, even states rely heavily on the claims of applicants. Making a false claim is not wise.

[Raymond E. Wand]

Or having to provide no affidavit(s) is not wise.

NACHI and the CMI Board, IMO, are wise not to share liability with me by "validating" or providing anything more than my affadavit. To do otherwise would implicate them as a co-defendant in perpetuating the fraud if, indeed, I was deficient.

Well if thats the case Nachi would have an onus to ensure members have met the rigors, which in this case they did not. Nachi is holding itself out as a body granting designations it had better be sure it carries out its requirements to ensure members are in compliance.

[Nick Gromicko]

Ray, InterNACHI doesn't sign affidavits... its members do. InterNACHI sets up the speeding signs, it doesn't drive the cars.

[Raymond E. Wand]

Nachi is the one offering the designation. It is the body that must ensure members are in compliance. No special status, no favours, no special privileges, everyone must meet the same conditions. We know this not to be the case.