First Canadian inspector licensing meeting in Edmonton, AB on Jan 21, 2008.

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcooke
Gee Bill I wish that was correct but not knowing where you got your information Just possibly you thought you where telling the truth but unfortunately it was not the truth when you posted that I had cheated to get my RHI with OAHI .

I see you ignored this so do you still feel I am a liar and a cheat to get my RHI.
If so can you tell me what makes you feel that I am .

Not in the least I was under oath and every one else at my hearing was under oath .
You where not there and for you to spread that I cheated was completely False .
I care less about OAHI and doubt I will ever be a member again. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.Yes that is sort of obvious the way OAHI?CAHPI treated NACHI when they where offered a free booth at the Toronto Conference
NACHI is the only association in my opinion that is trying to improve the home inspection industry for every one . Wrong. CAHPI National has done far more than any organization in Canada to gain credibility and recognition for all competent inspectors.
Could you please just give a couple of examples what CAHPI has done to improve the home inspection industry in Canada.
It is reasonable ,fair and open to all. That's easy:
- The National Certification Program
- The PDI program that is being redeveloped
- Lasting working relationships with government and other bodies
- Credibility in the marketplace

... Cookie






So you think is fair to all when NACHI members have to pay $1,100;00 and CAHPI members only have to pay $500;00 to take the NCA.
Seems sort of unbalanced to me .
The fee is $ 850., not $ 1100 and that is much less than each CAHPI member has to pay. It also costs a lot more to process a non-CAHPI person. CAHPI has offered to even reduce this to par for any association that maintains an equivalency agreement with the NCA but NACHI has refused several times.
did not seem Fair to me when OAHI/CAHPI would not rent a booth to NACHI for the CAHPI Conference.
Now you are talking about the Ontario association, not CAHPI National. They are two very different groups.
I guess some associations have a different method of figuring what is fair.
Like NACHI BB gives information to all and OAHI/CAHPI gives outside information to no one .
OAHI has decided to have a members' only forum and that is their right. NACHI itself has a members' only forum, so what is the difference. NACHI also has a public forum but there is no requirement for anyone else to do so.


....... Cookie

As far as your RHI fight, let's leave that in the past, but don't forget that I saw all of the documentation long before your 'appeal.'

Bill Mullen

[Claude Lawrenson]

I find it very interesting that over the years that OAHI has been blamed for mishandling this issue with Roy. What is even more interesting is why Roy was given such a hard time. This all goes back to the lack of proper paper work (records) to verfiy his background review by the BOE (Board of Examiners).

The real culprit here is not OAHI but PACHI.

My advice to others when it comes to background review - keep your paperwork. The proof is on paper.

Regards....

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

I find it very interesting that over the years that OAHI has been blamed for mishandling this issue with Roy. What is even more interesting is why Roy was given such a hard time. This all goes back to the lack of proper paper work (records) to verfiy his background review by the BOE (Board of Examiners).

The real culprit here is not OAHI but PACHI.

My advice to others when it comes to background review - keep your paperwork. The proof is on paper.

Regards....

Claude,

As Roy has explained to me on another thread, it is wrong for anyone to try to verify another man's claims. We should take his word at face value. To do otherwise is an embarassment to NACHI, foaming at the mouth, and other descriptions employed to Roy to discourage this.

If a man says he is board certified...or if he says he has served in Special Forces...or has won certain medals....to request validation makes you a trouble maker.

It's a Roy thing.

[Claude Lawrenson]

BTW: Roy and others this is not an uncommon issue. We go through the same type of road blocks/issues in dealing with applications within the NCP. Than again we are only trying to live up to the level of rigor of the CAN-P-9 standard.

[rwand1]

au contraire,

It was also two individuals and BOD who knowing breached the bylaws. I was at the BOD meeting that night in the P2P corporate office (a conflict of interest btw) and there were terrible things said by the then President and VP in the boardroom, they were vindictive, mean, and filled with animosities. The president at the time and the BOE Chair both breached the rules knowingly.

That whole episode was based on, "lets get Roy!"

Can you say CONSPIRACY?

And they continue the same approach today, get those who challenge our right to dictate contrary to the bylaws.

PACHI from all accounts was rife with corruption at the BOD level and those people carried it over into OAHI.

TWS was no friend of OAHI, and I know personally he circumvented the rules for his own purposes.

[rwand1]

As far as your RHI fight, let's leave that in the past, but don't forget that I saw all of the documentation long before your 'appeal.'

Bill Mullen

That was the problem Bill. I remember that night in the P2P board room where OAHI was holding its BOD meetings when nasty things were being said about Roy and you sat there and said Dick!

I also was the DPPC chair and was privy to the goings on which I fought because of the issues and the conflicts and the conspiracy. That right of the DPPC to investigate Conflicts of Interest at the board level is well established in the bylaws. When I spoke out and tried to correct it the BOD in their infinite wisdom canned me and the rest of the DPPC backed me and resigned. Its been down hill ever since.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Yes the answer to that question over Roy's status cost how much of wasted membership money to an association in Ontario that simply demanded that paperwork for verification? The membership all paid the price for that one to be resolved.

It seems we are hitting on a common thread here - those that feel what they claim to be without validation versus those that have the paperwork to backup that claim.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

I find it very interesting that over the years that OAHI has been blamed for mishandling this issue with Roy. What is even more interesting is why Roy was given such a hard time. This all goes back to the lack of proper paper work (records) to verfiy his background review by the BOE (Board of Examiners).

The real culprit here is not OAHI but PACHI.

My advice to others when it comes to background review - keep your paperwork. The proof is on paper.

Regards....

Gee I was there and did not see any one from PACHI get up on the stand and admit that they had not followed the rules .
The only ones who admitted under oath that they had made up there own rules where all OAHI Committee members.
("As far as your RHI fight, let's leave that in the past, but don't forget that I saw all of the documentation long before your 'appeal.' Bill Mullen ")
To Bill.
Gee it would have been great for you to have been at the appeal and seen how stories given under oath are so much different then what I have to assume you read.
Having seen the documentation before the appeal ,I wonder does that mean you too knew about the lying and cheating of the Committee members , if so all I can say is Shame, Shame on you Bill for condoning such things.
Of course many would like to make sure Roy is seen as the bad guy and every one else is not.
It was also strange how OAHI paid me to drop my law suit and tried to also stop from telling what actually went on at the appeal.
The committee was very well run and all those who sat on it where honerable people .
Unfortunately OAHI turned around and then Treated those five very badly .
It to shows how OAHI had to take their vengeance out on some one for the wrong doing of the directors .
I understand they are still doing the same thing with other OAHI members at this time .
I guess dishonerable people have a hard time changing .

.... Cookie

[rwand1]

Bill you also permitted the BOD to use a post I made on your private closed Canuck forum to be used to do the entire DPPC in. At the time you were a Director, you certainly have a tendency to pick and choose your morals when it suits your agenda.

Practice what you so often preach.

[rwand1]

Roy

I still have ALL the files from PACHI and many documents paint a very corrupt organization run the then President of PACHI as well as being president of P2P.

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by rwand1

That was the problem Bill. I remember that night in the P2P board room where OAHI was holding its BOD meetings when nasty things were being said about Roy and you sat there and said Dick!

I also was the DPPC chair and was privy to the goings on which I fought because of the issues and the conflicts and the conspiracy. That right of the DPPC to investigate Conflicts of Interest at the board level is well established in the bylaws. When I spoke out and tried to correct it the BOD in their infinite wisdom canned me and the rest of the DPPC backed me and resigned. Its been down hill ever since.

Raymond:

I'm disappointed that you would say that because during that time I was almost an outcast as a board member because I had been fighting for Roy and others to get treated fairly. If I held my breath at that meeting I must have had a good reason, because I was always considered a black sheep on the Ontario Board for challenging the 'Powers.' Wht do you think to this day these same people are still trying to undermine me and discredit everything I do?
You also know that wasn't the reason you were removed from the DPPC Chair, not once but twice. I went to bat for you the first time and got enough support to have you reinstated but you violated your agreement with them within 24 hours so they did what they said they would do.
Ray, that's all in the very distant past. We should be concentrating on what can be done today. There are certainly enough modern day challenges to keep us all busy.

Bill Mullen

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Yes the answer to that question over Roy's status cost how much of wasted membership money to an association in Ontario that simply demanded that paperwork for verification? The membership all paid the price for that one to be resolved.

It seems we are hitting on a common thread here - those that feel what they claim to be without validation versus those that have the paperwork to backup that claim.

Exactly and that is what won my appeal I had the paper work it was just a few who felt they could change the rules to suit them selves .
Unfortunately I won the appeal and was paid to drop my suit but some still try and make me the bad guy.
Well sorry I want the truth and fair play for every one and it does not seem like those who have been and are still in power can not follow fair play and the rules of common courtesy and the government laws .
That is exactly what is happening again with the National Certification .
I am not fighting for me I am fighting for proper treatment of all Home inspectors and honesty from all leaders.
This demigods still do not have the courtesy to say sorry at any time they just want to maintain their power in this industry.
Those directors who sat and said nothing are just condoning the continuing dictatorship. Condoning the past just allows it to happen again like it is from what I have been told.
Strange how you would say that about Raymond we had a very honerable DPPC leader and members.
The DPPC would not let the BOD ( and I think Bill was on that BOD ) make decesions that had to be made by an arms length group.
They BOD also removed the DPPC before Raymonds group also ( Ruddolf ) . I also understand they have now been able to maintain a DPPC since .
That should tell you and the members that the BOD will not keep thier nose out of what must be at arms length from the BOD.


Cookie

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Gee I was there and did not see any one from PACHI get up on the stand and admit that they had not followed the rules .
The only ones who admitted under oath that they had made up there own rules where all OAHI Committee members.
("As far as your RHI fight, let's leave that in the past, but don't forget that I saw all of the documentation long before your 'appeal.' Bill Mullen ")
To Bill.
Gee it would have been great for you to have been at the appeal and seen how stories given under oath are so much different then what I have to assume you read.
Having seen the documentation before the appeal ,I wonder does that mean you too knew about the lying and cheating of the Committee members , if so all I can say is Shame, Shame on you Bill for condoning such things.
Of course many would like to make sure Roy is seen as the bad guy and every one else is not.
It was also strange how OAHI paid me to drop my law suit and tried to also stop from telling what actually went on at the appeal.
The committee was very well run and all those who sat on it where honerable people .
Unfortunately OAHI turned around and then Treated those five very badly .
It to shows how OAHI had to take their vengeance out on some one for the wrong doing of the directors .
I understand they are still doing the same thing with other OAHI members at this time .
I guess dishonerable people have a hard time changing .

.... Cookie

Roy:

You are welcome for being so grateful for all I tried to do for you at that time. I took a lot of vengeful hits because I was fighting for you, but you conveniently forget that. I certainly did not condone what was going on. In fact, I spoke long and loud about it at several board meetings, but I was only one vote, and a very unpopular one at that.

Bill Mullen

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by bmullen1

Roy:

You are welcome for being so grateful for all I tried to do for you at that time. I took a lot of vengeful hits because I was fighting for you, but you conveniently forget that. I certainly did not condone what was going on. In fact, I spoke long and loud about it at several board meetings, but I was only one vote, and a very unpopular one at that.

Bill Mullen

Then you should have told the membership exactly what was going on To say nothing did nothing to help the association.
John Lueck, my son, Raymond and Cam Allen are the only ones I know of who had the Balls to stand up and tell all exactly what sort of a group that are leading the Ontario Home inspectors .
("conveniently forget that. ") How can I forget what I never heard before the only thing I know is you are the one who has accused me in Print of lying and cheating.
This information was conveniently picked up by another old OAHI<NACHI home inspector who is now a NC holder . I do know you had fed him a lot of information and he has used much of it to belittle NACHI and some of its members .
Bill why should I be greatfull for treatment that has been given to me and NACHI that has been so very dishonest and hurtfull. '
It is you who should be ashamed of what you have done.

... Cookie

[Bill Mullen]

Whatever you say, Roy.

I hope you never need help in the future because you won't see me volunteering.

You burned me once. It won't happen again.

Bill Mullen