National Occupational Standards Review

[rwand1]

Value?

They can't produce their financial records.

The BOE/AR is out of order and has put OAHI in a precarious legal position.

They can't produce the new bylaws.

It has been documented that the BOE/AR and report verifier have knowingly breached the rules repeatedly at the expense of the members and have personally gained from their positions.

The $15K plus they spent on self insurance evaporated into thin air!

They have tried to defraud me of over $500 by attempting to con me into thinking the bylaws permitted blatant and negligent actions!

They removed a director with no thought to the impropriety of it all!

The Registry is not correct.

The records the President of OAHI told members were at Mr. Segals office was a falsification.

OAHI lied on its D&O liability policy.

Thats quite a record OAHI has and sorry to burst your bubble but how can anyone now safely and accurately say its verifiable when there has never been any outside independant review other than the review internally by people who have let their positions go to their heads and have had their fingers in the til for personal gain.

The minute I said I wanted to run for office at the 2008 AGM, all manner of roadblocks have been thrown up by Terry Carson, Andrew Bennett, and the rest of the zealots who have no chance of any legal standing in defending their reckless negligence. Imagine the President of AATO Andrew Bennett partaking what amounts to fraud! He is one smart cookie!

I hope the BOE/AR can swim backwards, they have unwittingly made RHI undefendable.

Cheers,

[Bill Mullen]

I don't disagree with many of your assertions about OAHI. As you know I have been speaking out about them as well for many years.

As for the RHI designation, it must have some strength and value on its own because I don't see anyone refusing to use it. If it's valueless there's not much sense fighting over it. Anyone who thinks it has no credibility can just remove it from their websites, etc., but nobody is doing that.

Happy New Year

Bill Mullen

[rwand1]

Thats because most of the members don't have a clue whats going on.
We all know some got their RHI by paying under the table for favourable review and we know that some have been subjected to bylaws that don't exist in their endeavours to play by the rules.

If I have been subjected to rules that don't exist, who else has been conned? Its certainly appears that several liars on the BOE/AR have done just that, lied to others who weren't as savvy as I and I'm not going to be conned or hoodwinked, or pushed around by liars.

[George A. H. Luck]

"Shucks !!

I guess this means you won't buy me a beer when I'm visiting your area next week.

I'm visiting folks for fun and business in Brighton, Kingston and Ottawa but I'll scratch you off my list."

That's too bad Bill. I would have enjoyed meeting you.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by bmullen

I don't disagree with many of your assertions about OAHI. As you know I have been speaking out about them as well for many years.

As for the RHI designation, it must have some strength and value on its own because I don't see anyone refusing to use it. If it's valueless there's not much sense fighting over it. Anyone who thinks it has no credibility can just remove it from their websites, etc., but nobody is doing that.

Happy New Year

Bill Mullen

No way will you ever convince me to remove it from my web site .
RHI every one knows stands for
Roys Home Inspection .
Has been on my Cards like this and my advertising for years
Same reason I like others put on
National Certification #170220404...

I can see why others would not remove it .
There is a small chance it just might get them one inspection so why would any one take that chance as poor as it is ever little bit helps.
I remember when I was with OAHI ,
I got one whole inspection from being a member of OAHI ,Great reward I have cherished it ever since.

...Cookie

[rwand1]

Roy

The only reason OAHI took one former member to court is because Mr. Rudolf Ruese laid a private complaint. OAHI was not going to do anything until Rudolf got the ball rolling. Only then did OAHI get involved. The maximum fine imposed on that former member for continuing to use RHI was $1500! The maximum fine is $5000.

Given the current abuses of the bylaws and fraudulent attempts to extort money, and the breaches with the Corp. Act OAHI would not have much credibility in the eyes of the court fwiw.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

OAHI removed Rudolf Ruese then Raymond Wand .
They where both Chair's of the DPPC.
I understand OAHI has not had a decent Chair since then .
Two of the best and now??????????.
... Cookie

[Claude Lawrenson]

I would indicate that Mr. Christopher and his committee have undertaken the DPP tasks and cleared up a lot of the backlog that existed over the past while. I served on the committee for a while, and found that he was a person that at least took action when it was deemed required. In many instances he coordinated the work and left much of the decision making in the committees hands. Again - I feel a sign of a good leader. I never felt the he acted inappropriately or tried to act unprofessionally. A good example was his consultative process and review of the CHI designation being used. I feel that he proved that outside expertise must also be part of the resolving issues.

In fairness, a lot of the issues brought forward to DPPC have been addressed - including recommendations such as decentralizing the committee with regional representation, and expanding the number of members. This helps in having a regional group say from southwestern Ontario deal with an issue in Toronto or Ottawa. It help avoid any potential conflict of interest that might arise.

[rwand1]

Claude its clear the committee hasn't got a clue! How can you have the BOE/AR running around dictating terms that aren't backed up by the current bylaws or the invisible new improved bylaws, and the DPPC pleads ignorance? I have an outstanding complaint filed earlier in the year against the BOE/AR where has that gone? Swept under the rug I suppose?

Why isn't the DPPC as directed to do investigating the BOD for conflict of interest matters ditto the BOE/AR. The conflict of interest bylaws for directors is succint, given the misrepresentation of the bylaws by people who should know.

Fairness?

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by gluck

"However, no willing, experienced and knowledgeable practitioners will be disqualified automatically."

It will be interesting to see how many "experienced and knowledgeable practioners" who are also non-members actuallly make the cut.

Hi George:

In response to your show of interest above, I can now tell you that we had 27 applications to be in the Focus group and only one, Paul Blakey was a non-CAHPI member. As you know, he is a NACHI member from British Columbia and I am pleased to report Paul was chosen to be in that group of ten inspectors from across the country. So you see, a full 100% of the NACHI people who applied were selected.

Bill Mullen

[Claude Lawrenson]

Removed - wrong topic

[rwand1]

So you see, a full 100% of the NACHI people who applied were selected.

1% of the non CAHPI people who applied were selected; sounds more like it!

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by rwand1

1% of the non CAHPI people who applied were selected; sounds more like it!

Raymond:

Maybe you should brush up your arithmatic a bit.

Let's put it another way. Through this NOS Focus Group, a NACHI member will have solid input into what the future Canadian standards are for the NCP. I was very thrilled to see that the selection committee (on my recomendation) included Paul.

Bill Mullen

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by bmullen

Hi George:

In response to your show of interest above, I can now tell you that we had 27 applications to be in the Focus group and only one, Paul Blakey was a non-CAHPI member. As you know, he is a NACHI member from British Columbia and I am pleased to report Paul was chosen to be in that group of ten inspectors from across the country. So you see, a full 100% of the NACHI people who applied were selected.

Bill Mullen

Bill can you tell us how many are on the focus Group and who they are . Glad to hear there is a NACHI member on the Board .
But one member's thoughts might not be heard with many who are strong willed .
Example I am sure there was more then one great member on the OAHI BOD but when you have some very loud Strong willed who demand their own way .
One great voice is soon intimidated and they can do little .
Past records have shown this many times .
I wish him all the best and hope it goes well.
... Cookie

[Bill Mullen]

Roy:

I can't yet make the names public because not all of them have agreed to serve, not because they are reluctant, but because the timing might not work with their schedule. Once it is nailed down, I will gladly provide the names.

One member might not make a huge difference, but it's better than having no representation at all. I don't know Paul Blakey really well yet, but from what I have seen, he is not afraid to speak his mind.

This group is actually nothing more than a Focus Group reviewing the National Occupational Standards. Once that is done, the revised standards will be sent to every home inspector they can find via an online and print survey. In other words, we will all have an opportunity to provide our thoughts and ideas.

Bill Mullen