Do the math. A far cry from $2 million being quoted

[rwand1]

I guess the figures speak for themselves.

From the 2004 Budget

Note #14: CHIBO project - Construction Sector Council (CAHPI share) –The Memorandum of Understanding with CSC provides that both ACBOA and CAHPI contribute $35,000.00 each for the project of developing certification and accreditation standards for home inspectors and building officials. This amount was paid by CAHPI as follows:

(1)$7,500 – Feb.5/03
(2)$7,500 – Paid on Jan.20/04, however, Invoice from CSC was dated Dec.15/03 and Auditor
considered this to be a 2003 ‘payable’ and therefore total payment of $15,000 is shown
on the 2003 Financial Statement.
(3)$10,000 - Jan. 20/04
(4)$10,000– Feb. 23/04
$35,000

Note #15: CHIBO project – Construction Sector Council (CMHC contract) –The Contract with CMHC provides that CMHC will contribute the total amount of $22,135.00 to the CHIBO Phase II project. These monies will be paid to CAHPI who in turn will remit to C.S.C. (except the amount of $3,210, which will go directly to John Kiedrowski). The contract status currently is as follows:

(1)$3,210 – Paid by CMHC to CAHPI in Jan/03, deposited into CAHPI account Jan.27/03, and remitted
directly to John Kiedrowski for ‘Administration and Communication Plan’.
(2)$5,000 - Paid by CMHC to CAHPI in March/03, deposited into CAHPI account March 28/03. This
amount has not yet been remitted to C.S.C.
(3)$5,000 – Paid by CMHC to CAHPI in Feb/04, deposited into CAHPI account March 1/04. This
amount has not yet been remitted to C.S.C.
(4)$8,925 – NOT YET PAID by CMHC.
$22,135


From the 2005 Budget

Note #5: CHIBO project – Construction Sector Council (CMHC contract) –The Contract with CMHC provides that CMHC will contribute the total amount of $22,135.00 to the CHIBO Phase II project. These monies will be paid to CAHPI who in turn will remit to C.S.C. (except the amount of $3,210, which will go directly to John Kiedrowski). The contract status currently is as follows:

(1)$3,210 – Paid by CMHC to CAHPI in Jan/03, deposited into CAHPI account Jan.27/03, and remitted
directly to John Kiedrowski for ‘Administration and Communication Plan’.
(2)$5,000 - Paid by CMHC to CAHPI in March/03, deposited into CAHPI account March 28/03. This
amount has NOT yet been remitted to C.S.C.
(3)$5,000 – Paid by CMHC to CAHPI in Feb/04, deposited into CAHPI account March 1/04. This
amount has NOT yet been remitted to C.S.C.
(4)$8,925 – NOT YET PAID by CMHC.
$22,135
So balance still owing from CMHC - $8,925.
Balance owing by CAHPI to CSC - $18,925 ($10,000 + $8,925 when it arrives from CMHC).

Thats a far cry from $2 million. We know or have been told CMHC has kicked in a further $250K. Still doesn't add up. Someone is really playing fast and lose with the facts.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

About three years ago when I was on a OAHI committee ( sorry I can not give info on what it was about .)
I felt we needed to give a presentation to the membership and get some feed back from the membership.
I was told how will we pay for the hall . I said this should involve the members and could we not find the funds to spring for it .
I was told ( not very politely ) if we keep spending money for hall rental we will never be able to afford our own building .
My statement was OOPS am I hearing some thing I should not know about . Immediate silence . I asked for more information and was ignored .
It was strange but I was never asked back for any more meeting on that committee.
The info was never presented to the membership.
I wonder why OAHI never has much finical information given out for the membership.
Do they have a secret Bank account ?

Why I bring this out at this time is because I just received the following statement about CAHPI and know nothing about it .
.Now CAHPI is trying to seek membership funding to buy building in Ottawa.

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!

[Claude Lawrenson]

Ray - respectfully you only have "part" of the facts. Suggest you need dig much much deeper.

Or option B:
Perhaps CAHPI and its associations have paid the larger portion of the $2 mil, and obviously they have done one hell of a favour for the betterment of all home inspectors in Canada.

Or option C:
Perhaps the reality is somewhere in between!

[rwand1]

Well if that is the case then the bugets have been falsified? Firgures don't lie, but verbal assurance sure can be mistated. Prove there has been $2 million spent. Sorry volunteer time cannot be factored in to boost the figures to make something look bigger than it is. As to betterment of the home inspection profession thats your take. But then again why would you rock the boat? You have too much to lose.

This whole process certainly appears to be one gaff after another, with much back stapping, which is par for the course considering the players.

I am still waiting for proof this whole process is going to revolutionize the industry. All I hear and see is much talk by self appointed people.

Sorry to pop your balloon.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Ray respectfully I must question the issue of the meaning of in-kind contribution. An in-kind contribution is a non-cash input which can be given a cash value. The amounts represented by these contributions should be shown and are in the budget as program expenses for which no funding is required. They were considered and calculated with each and every meeting. As a case in point, how many hours do you see of in-kind contribution billed in 1999-2000 during phase of of CHIBO-1? I certainly as well as many others contributed a significant number of hours particularly in CHIBO-1, and also in CHIBO-2.

Was it or was it not part of the cost of doing the project? Was it, or was it not part of the contract and terms of the costing? If not, than why did each and every committee member have to log and submit the in-kind hours?

BTW: I also don't see expenses there for the Winnipeg Accord or the Ottawa wrap up meeting for CHIBO-2 held in June and September 2005. These are just a few of the glaring errors I have noted.

All I am simply trying to suggest from the details given is there is a very distinct possibility that your reported facts may really be clouding the real costs. Its simply as I stated before - only indicating part of the overall project costs.

[rwand1]

Its called creative accounting. I don't see corporate financial statements taking into account employees volunteer time. And no, it appears volunteer time is not part of a contract because no one has signed a contract.

Don't forget the large cash infusion from Carson Dunlop and Pillar to Post that they kicked in several years ago. I bet that wasn't reported either. Ooooops no one is suppose to know about that...

Yes I guess you are right the budget speaks more to the truth then we know who does. But I guess when you need to bolster the figures to make something look bigger and better and embellish things then it suggests its done for other non legitimate reasons.

But just my opinion.