National Certification Program - Preliminary discussion to Bill Mullen presentation.

[Bill Mullen]

Nick has invited me to say a few things on the forum to clarify a few misconceptions, add some factual information that seems to be misunderstood, and hopefully help people understand more about the program and how it will help the entire industry and all Canadian home inspectors.

I need to make it clear from the start that I do not intend to get into arguments with anyone about the program, the past, the present or the future. Everyone has an opinion, but dredging up the past will add nothing positive. However, I have a few 'rules of engagement' because I want to provide some positive information, not get mired down in innuendos and accusations based on past perceived shortcomings:

1. I am here as a private home inspector, and I will be giving my presentation at the convention as a private home inspector. I just happen to have a lot more information on one particular topic than almost anyone else, and I am happy to share it. Neither my presence here or at the convention is sponsored by CAHPI. They are aware of it, but have neither encouraged or discouraged it.
2. I will try to reply to any questions specific to the present and future National Certification Program that are asked politely and with respect.
3. I reserve the right (because I am an invited guest) to decide what topics to discuss. Any properly worded polite and respectful question about the certification program won't be turned away. However, if you preface it with a negative diatribe against me, CAHPI or anyone else, don't expect an answer.
4. I will not reply to any question that challenges my right to be here or which accuses me, my association or any other person of wrongdoing, misrepresentation, lies, or anything else derogatory.
5. I will not discuss what was said or done in the past. I believe in moving ahead. Remember, I am now retired from active CAHPI duty, so I really don't have any agenda.
6. Nick and I have laid down our swords and we both believe that the Canadian home inspection industry can benefit greatly if we all try to get along. There are now and likely always will be differences in philosophies, but even dogs and cats can learn to live together.
7. If this part of the forum turns into a pissing match, or an outlet for unsubstantiated accusations and innuendos, I will leave and not bother saying anything until May.
8. We will have a one-strike rule. If you break any of the rules even once, I will have no future dialogue with you.

Now, before I go I want to respond to a couple of erroneous statements made recently.

• Raymond Wand this morning said:
  "When Bill was in Kingston, (the town, and not the Kingston Penn) he swore up and down that he was not compensated, and did it of his own free will. Well we all know it came out subsequently that Bill had in fact been compensated!"
  The truth:
  In early 2005 I gave a presentation to the Kingston NACHI group. I paid my own train transportation (about $ 250.), took two days off from my business and paid for most of my meals. My hosts provided a hotel room for one night and a supper. I hardly call that compensation. That trip cost me personally at least $ 1500.
• Raymond Wand asked Nick how I was being compensated for my presentation. As Nick said, I did not ask for and was not offered anything......nothing. I am doing this because I believe in our industry and I want to help improve our overall well-being. I am pleased that Nick has now offered to comp my room, but I did not ask him for that. As a speaker, I believe I also get free registration, but I haven't really had that confirmed.
• I also heard that someone has suggested that I am being paid a fee of $ 10,000. While that would be wonderful, I have a bad agent and he didn't negotiate very well. I will come home from Toronto with no more money than I go with.
• Some have stated that people on my Canuck Forum are forever badmouthing NACHI and Nick, as well as a couple of other people. That is false. About a year ago we decided to take the high road and not speak badly about NACHI or Nick. For the most part, everyone has stuck to the agreement. Every once in a while someone slips, but they are quickly reminded about their error. In fact, about 20% of the Canuck Forum membership is made up of NACHI members.
• It has been stated that OAHI controls the National Certification Program. Once again, false. OAHI is a provincial association and the program is national. Ontario had no more input into the program or control over it than any other province. In fact, decisions are made by the National Certification Authority, not the CAHPI Board or any provincial board.
• It has been stated that the Pilot Project was unfair to non-CAHPI inspectors. As coordinator, I ensured that there was a fair representation of NACHI people and non-affiliates included. In fact, at least two NACHI members can confirm that I made special arrangements after the Pilot project started to include them just to ensure fairness. (We had a list of alternates in case anyone bowed out)
• Roy Cooke has said many times that the Pilot Project was to be First come - First serve'. That was never the case. The confusion was caused by an error in a message sent out by the OAHI office announcing the project. When we at National saw the error, we had them change it promptly. While we appreciated Roy's support for the project, he was unfortunately not among those chosen in the random selection process.

I am genuinely looking forward to helping people understand the details about the Certification Program. The rules, regulations and procedures have been tried and tested during the Pilot Project, and we are moving ahead now. Very shortly an invitation will go out to all Canadian Home Inspectors, and I will ensure that this forum receives everything at the same time as any other group.

Bill Mullen RHI
National Certificate Holder # NCA00001

[tflaro]

Bill,
Thank you for posting.
I have not found out my results yet, but was e-mailed to say that would be this month. My first question is: If I didn't meet one of the requirements then would I have to re-do the whole process?
#2 Is it true that if you are a non member then you will pay more for certifacation?
Thank You in advance
Todd

[Bill Mullen]

You need to satisfy two streams to become a National Certificate Holder. One is the TIPR, which you likely took in late summer or the fall. The other is the Background review process. During the Pilot Project you will have filled out a seven page document asking for details about your education and experience.

If you had provided all of the neceesary documentation and if it satisfied the requirements, and if you also passed your TIPR, you would have been advised that you would become a National Certificate Holder. Since you were not advised that you were successful, either you fell short at your TIPR or some additional information is needed for your background review.
I understand that everyone in your situation will be recieving the details very soon, at least before the year end.
No. you do not need to re-do the entire process. I can't tell you exactly what will be required because I am not privy to individual information.

The fees for certification are $ 500. for CAHPI members and $ 1100 for non-CAHPI members. Those figures recognize that CAHPI members have provided more than $ 600 per person on average to this initiative in the past ten years. That investment is part of their certification fee. It also recognizes that it will cost less to process a CAHPI member because their documents are already on file and can be readily accessed.

Bill Mullen

[wblakey]

I would like to confirm that Bill has been very helpful in my particular case, not only did he find me a place on the pilot project (though I did not make the original cut) he also aranged for me to take the TIPR at a later date (and at no extra cost) because I missed the first opportunity due to a family emergency.

However, I would like to call attention to a statement you made Bill, which was that CAHPI has only been in existence since 2002 and yet you say that CAHPI members have been paying into the certification process for 10 years. Perhaps you could explain this in more detail. Certainly a CAHPI member who joined in 2005 has not paid into the process in any meaningful manner?

This payment inequality is unfortunately going to be seen by non-members in a very negative light.

[Bill Mullen]

Today's CAHPI members include people who belonged to other associations previously. Granted the bulk of them came from the old CAHI, but some came from PACHI, WAPI and some smaller groups and even some independents. Many of those people contributed to the earlier functions as members of those other groups.

I agree that a CAHPI member who joined in 2005 hasn't paid a bunch of money, but on the other hand there are several who paid money to the program years ago and have dropped out.

Take me as an example. I know that at least $ 50.00 per year of my membership dues for ten years have gone to the National Certification Project. Sorry to use you as an example, Paul, but you have paid nothing. It seems fair to me to recognize that I have already paid a large sum. In realty if you accounted for the thousands of hours I have volunteered on the project, I'm the one being hosed.

There are ways to reduce this difference in fees in the future. If associations such as NACHI provide their requirement data to the program for evaluation against the certification requirements, it can shorten the steps needed to evaluate individual members. Until that is done, each member's file is a huge task because we have no records of what courses NACHI recognizes, etc.
Obviously it will also be much more difficult and costly for the NCA to respond to complaints against people who are not members of a CAHPI association unless some equivalency agreements can be reached. That all has to be factored in.

I know it looks like a sore point, but costs have to be covered somehow.

I'm glad that since you had such a bad year I was able to save you $ 1000.

Bill Mullen

[wblakey]

And much appreciated I can assure you. Though I must correct you on one small point, I have contributed exactly $107.00 to the pilot project so far...

[Marcel Gratton]

Bill,
How will my being a *NCH* in comparison to being a *CHI* or *CMI* for that matter benefit me?

[Bill Mullen]

It might and it might not benefit you. Each person's circumstances will differ.

However, the certification was created as a result of demands by consumers, government and other organizations that our industry come up with an identifiable, credible, defensible, consistent and fair method of identifying competent Home Inspectors from coast to coast. The goal was not to create a 'super' species of inspector, but merely inspectors with a reasonable level of education, training and ability.
The trick was to develop a system to ensure people actually had the training they claimed and could prove in the field that they were competent. It had to be strong but yet fair.

This certification is not something that someone just threw down on paper and issued a proclamation calling it valid. This certification was the product of thousands of hours by home inspectors, homeowners, lawyers, realtors, insurers, and others weighing the value of hundreds of sets of criteria. Some wanted a very rigorous level of certification, while others preferred an easier route. Many meetings later some decisions were reached on the levels needed.

We now have this system and those stakeholders who demanded it ten years ago are now welcoming it. Based on actual meetings I have attended, I predict that within a short period of time a minimum status as a National Certificate Holder will be required for relocation work, bank and insurance work, and to satisfy real estate home inspection clauses.

In the next few months CMHC will be issuing seven or eight publications stating their preference for National Certificate Holders. Notice please that the word CAHPI is not in there. That's because this certification is open to all.

I was asked by CREA to submit an article about the program and last month my article was pubished in their REM magazine which goes to all of their 84,000 members and others. As a follow-up, they have also sent out an abbreviated version of the article electronically to their members and affilliates.

I doubt that it will put anyone out of work, and I hope not because there should be lots of work for everyone.

I firmly believe that this certification can be used as a tool to convince Canadians that there is an identifiable, strong, consistent level of competence available in our industry and that it reaches beyond individual association boundaries. It should very shortly add to the credibility of the entire industry and that means more work for all of us.

Bill Mullen

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by Bill Mullen

However, the certification was created as a result of demands by consumers

That was a very good explanation of your program and its history, Bill.

We have a strange phenomena in our country where those who are advancing the cause of licensing using "the best interest of the consumer" have absolutely no basis for that - in that there are no consumer interest groups or other consumer-based organizations having anything at all to do with the effort.

Sometimes, a home inspector (or association) will be able to convince a local news station to set up a sting operation where they can create news by catching another inspector botching an inspection...all in the hope of garnering consumer support for their efforts - but still, to no avail. Consumers in the United States have no interest or participation in the legislative efforts of home inspectors wishing to restrict their competitors.

Is this different in your country? Are these "demands" that Canadian consumers are making coming from any sources that you can cite?

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by jbushart

That was a very good explanation of your program and its history, Bill.

We have a strange phenomena in our country where those who are advancing the cause of licensing using "the best interest of the consumer" have absolutely no basis for that - in that there are no consumer interest groups or other consumer-based organizations having anything at all to do with the effort.

Sometimes, a home inspector (or association) will be able to convince a local news station to set up a sting operation where they can create news by catching another inspector botching an inspection...all in the hope of garnering consumer support for their efforts - but still, to no avail. Consumers in the United States have no interest or participation in the legislative efforts of home inspectors wishing to restrict their competitors.

Is this different in your country? Are these "demands" that Canadian consumers are making coming from any sources that you can cite?

Thanks for your first sentence. I'm trying to explain it as best I can. I have nothing to hide but I want to make sure all of my information is clear.

Ten years ago, our government housing agency, CMHC, had a stack of consumer complaints against home inspectors and the government of the day told them to do something about it. That was how the seed got planted.

Today we have individual consumers still complaining, fanning the flames. We also have two very active consumer groups, the Canadians for Properly Built Homes and the CASH Society, B.C.’s housing consumer advocate body watching every step taken.

Bill Mullen

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by Bill Mullen

Thanks for your first sentence. I'm trying to explain it as best I can. I have nothing to hide but I want to make sure all of my information is clear.

Ten years ago, our government housing agency, CMHC, had a stack of consumer complaints against home inspectors and the government of the day told them to do something about it. That was how the seed got planted.

Today we have individual consumers still complaining, fanning the flames. We also have two very active consumer groups, the Canadians for Properly Built Homes and the CASH Society, B.C.’s housing consumer advocate body watching every step taken.
Bill Mullen

Cash society is an Consumer Advocacy http://www.cashsociety.net/
not one Home inspector that I could see this scares the Hell out of me . These are sure not the type of people I want controlling the Future of home inspectors

I think all should know Bill Mullen : R. H. I., , Mike O'Grady : R.H.I. ,Paul Wilson : R.H.I., also members of OAHI are on the executive of Canadians for properly built homes hardly an unbiased group.
and all have been or still are on the OAHI executive.
I still do not know who is on the board of the Secret Society who is trying to take control of all Canadian Home Inspectors .
What I have read and heard it is far from fair and balanced . Roy Cooke

Advisory Council members from across Canada is continuing.

• Robert Bean, R.E.T. (Registered Engineering Technologist)
• Marcel Beaubien : Former municipal and provincial politician
• Don Buchan : P. Eng., Chairman, Buchan, Lawton, Parent Ltd. Consulting Engineers
• James M. Davidson : Partner, Nelligan, O'Brien, Payne LLP
• Alvin Epp : Vice-President, CASH Society
• Carmen Maretic, President, Consumer Advocacy and Support for Homeowners Society (C.A.S.H. Society).
• Dr. Martin L. Martens : Assistant Professor, Concordia University
• Neil McManus : Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), Registered Occupational Hygienist (ROH), NorthWest Occupational Health and Safety
• Liza Medek : Architect
• Dr. John Molot : Environmental Medicine Expert
• Bill Mullen : R. H. I., Past President, Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (CAHPI)
• Mike O'Grady : R.H.I.
• Dr. Michael Thomas : P. Eng., Professor, University of New Brunswick
• Paul Wilson : R.H.I., President, Home Inspectors®

[Vern Mitchinson]

The only study I can find is the Ohio study that has asked home buyers what their experience has been with HI's.
The BC study did not survey any home buyers.
Until someone can show me a scienctific study that poles buyers for their concerns and that the study shows that they have some concerns it is all smoke and mirrors.

[Bill Mullen]

Roy:

Try to pay attention to what you read. The CASH Society does not'control' the future of home inspectors. I merely said they were watching us. What's wrong with that?

Paul Wilson and I are on the Advisory Board for CPBH, not the executive. Mike O'Grady resigned quite a while ago. We are consulted about some housing issues that involve home inspectors. We have no say in how the group runs their affairs.

Your use of the word 'control' irritates me. I have seen nobody else, especially me, use the word 'control' when discussing the certification program. It's a voluntary program so nobody needs to join unless they feel it will benefit them.

CAHPI is the body that was created to ensure the National certification program moved ahead. The National Certification Authority administers the program and yes, they are now all CAHPI members. They were appointed because they believe in the program and have worked to make it a reality. It would have been difficult to get the program up and running unless everyone was in favour of it.
Starting next year, half of this group will be elected from the National Certificate Holders. The next year, the second half will be elected, not appointed. Since NACHI members and even non-affiliated people are now and will be 'Holders', they will not only have a vote, they could conceivably be elected to sit on the 'Authority.'

It has nothing to do with control. It has everything to do with providing consistency and competence in our industry.

Bill Mullen

[Vern Mitchinson]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Advisory Council members from across Canada is continuing.

• Robert Bean, R.E.T. (Registered Engineering Technologist)
• Marcel Beaubien : Former municipal and provincial politician
• Don Buchan : P. Eng., Chairman, Buchan, Lawton, Parent Ltd. Consulting Engineers
• James M. Davidson : Partner, Nelligan, O'Brien, Payne LLP
• Alvin Epp : Vice-President, CASH Society
• Carmen Maretic, President, Consumer Advocacy and Support for Homeowners Society (C.A.S.H. Society).
• Dr. Martin L. Martens : Assistant Professor, Concordia University
• Neil McManus : Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), Registered Occupational Hygienist (ROH), NorthWest Occupational Health and Safety
• Liza Medek : Architect
• Dr. John Molot : Environmental Medicine Expert
• Bill Mullen : R. H. I., Past President, Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors (CAHPI)
• Mike O'Grady : R.H.I.
• Dr. Michael Thomas : P. Eng., Professor, University of New Brunswick
• Paul Wilson : R.H.I., President, Home Inspectors®

Where is the home buyer in all this?
Since the cash group seems to be home inspectors this does not represent the home buyer.
!4 members. not one home buyer.
Even if cash was 100% home buyers the other 13 would overwelm them.
So where is the buyer in all this?

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by vmitchinson

The only study I can find is the Ohio study that has asked home buyers what their experience has been with HI's.
The BC study did not survey any home buyers.
Until someone can show me a scienctific study that poles buyers for their concerns and that the study shows that they have some concerns it is all smoke and mirrors.

How about all the insurance companies that have hundreds of complaints against inspectors laid by consumers? That's pretty serious consumer feedback. Or better yet, research some lawsuits against home inspectors. That's a pretty good indication tha consumers aren't all happy with us.

Bill Mullen