Pilot project reply

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

It is a self appointed group who we do not know who they are .
Who make decisions unknown to us.
Who do not fully answer questions .
The director ( Bill Mullen ) has shown utter distate for NACHi and any Home inspector that dares challenge him.
AS I said ealier this is going the way of the DODO bird unless things change.
Like it or hate it at least on NACHI openions can be voiced questions asked and NACHI continues to grow .
OAHI/CAHPI lets little information out and expects all inspectors to follow along blindly.
I am now hearing that more unusual things are happening in the Ontario Inspection associations.
The more I hear,
the more I see!
NACHI is the one for me !
Can some one put this to music ,Sort of sounds nice.
Roy Cooke R.H.I. Royshomeinspection.com
A HAPPY NACHI MEMBER,... More find this out ever day!

[Claude Lawrenson]

Perhaps some underestimate the work of Bill and others to assure fairness, and inclusion in the process. Sure some people have openly declared their allegiance, but the same holds true than based on others and their claims and the comments against the process and CAHPI National as well as its affiliates.

Personally I find it a bit much for people to continue to assume that there are not others looking out to assure that fairness and equity in the process rule the procedures put in place to assure conformance to CAN-P-9. Some of the allegations posted only help define ones position on the issue. To continue to undermine and openly assert in a public forum otherwise defies the logic of why some are so bothered over the issues raised here.

It simply boils down to my earlier question with no response - are you for or it or against it. That decision is yours. Nobody is forcing an inspector to participate. Equally no person should assume that NACHI does not have fair representation in the selection process. What about other associations out there? What about the unaffiliated or independents?

The continuing efforts to assure fairness in the process will happen regardless of your position, your association or lack thereof. Regardless of names attached to the oversight committees work, one should expect nothing less than the integrity and fairness in the process - to protect every applicants opportunity in becoming a national certificate holder.

Again I only try to personally respond to keep some of the comments on the issues in a sense of balance. Do you see others willing to join me. No - than again I have often been encouraged to not respond. I wonder why? I known but that is another great unanswered question for you to ponder. Somewhere there needs to be a balance on the issues openly aired here - and that is what I fail to see in most every forum started that feels the need to use the National Initiative, CAHPI and OAHI as their personal bunching bag. So I feel the need to at least impart some comments to assure fairness and integrity. Perhaps I feel it also helps fill the gap of upholding our professionalism as a daily ongoing challenge.

[rrichards2]

Mr. Lawrenson,

When I applied for the program I was not yet a member of NACHI or any other association. With a one in four chance of being accepted into the National Certification Program, I knew the odds were not favorable. I come to this message board with no former baggage and try to keep a very open mind. I appreciate the fact that you are one of the few members of CAPHI/OAHI that regularly communicates with NACHI members on this message board. It may be possible that the selection process was biased from the beginning, although maybe not intentional. Only full disclosure of the numbers would put at ease anyone who is questioning the process. I for one will wait for the next group of inspectors to go through the program, provided the fee is reasonable.

Roy

[Claude Lawrenson]

Thanks Roy, that is all I think one can ask - is that we all keep an open mind! Agreeably personal vendettas and past baggage is often at the heart of blocking some from looking forward with a more positive outlook. I like to believe in the positive, and move forward away from the negative.

Sorry but I am not privy to the numbers other than the 100 versus the odds with almost 400 in the applicant pool.

Aside from that Claude is fine, Mr. Lawrenson even to my college students makes me feel like I am answering for my father. God bless his soul!

[wblakey]

The only questions asked on the pilot project application form were, name, address, how many years as an inspector and what organization. How can you make a decision for who is eligible on such a small amount of data?

Since it is supposedly a pilot project, it should in all fairness include the first 100 applications, that way you get all sorts of applicants, not pre-selected by length of time as an inspector and/or organization only.

It should be quite simple to show what the benchmark was...

1. Minimum time as an inspector.
2. Organization.
3. Province where business located.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

It simply boils down to my earlier question with no response - are you for or it or against it. That decision is yours. Nobody is forcing an inspector to participate. Equally no person should assume that NACHI does not have fair representation in the selection process. What about other associations out there? What about the unaffiliated or independents?

.

Claude Please do not think I dislike Bill or that I do not wish be was doing this . I most certainly have no dislike for Bill and do appreciate all he is and has done . He did give me much help when I needed it and I do not forget.
What I dislike is the complete lack of proper procedure on the way this is being Run . To your question " are for it or against it . How do you expect me to give an answer when I do not know what IT is or who is making the decisions for IT or how I will be effected by IT.
I would be so happy if My and others questions where answered so we to would know what IT is and then we could make a fair and sensible decision on IT.
I still am not convinced IT is being run fair and proper .
Just trust us is not the way things should be run.
The more I hear,
the more I see!
NACHI is the one for me !
Can some one put this to music ,Sort of sounds nice.
Roy Cooke R.H.I. Royshomeinspection.com
A HAPPY NACHI MEMBER,... More find this out ever day!

[rwand1]

And how are non aligned inspectors to know of this National Certification if they don't belong to any association or bullentin board?

The fact is the whole process does not meet CAN P9, therefore you cannot guarantee anything along with the others that keep telling us it meets CAN P9. There is no proof to the contrary to substantiate your claim it meets CAN P9. There has been no impartial review or comments from independant auditors to verify anything. Please don't try and sell something that is not true and not verified, that is truly misleading.

Again no one has proved that Certification will be positive from an inspectors business point of view.

This is still a project based on a model thats all nothing more with no legislation, run by self appointed people, able to con Federal money out of gullible civil servants.

[rrichards2]

I only found out about the program by stumbling across the info on the CAPHI website. I guess membership has it's privileges. In all fairness, I don't how they could have found me, considering the fact that I didn't belong to any association when I signed up. Which brings up the question, How were non-association inspectors notified of the program? Weren't they also mandated to be included in this pilot project.

[Claude Lawrenson]

It's interesting about the issue of being "mandated" to notify others. Fairly, it sounds great in principle but several realities come to mind. Thank you Roy for at least responding fairly about your experience in the reality of them trying to find you. The following is directed mainly to more recent questions in general.

From my personal POV:

1) With really no budget for communications short of the the blurbs through CAHPI National site, or here on NACHI, only part of the information was released, as we saw in prior ongoing hotly debated discussion even on NACHI and the OAHI website. CAHPI had an obligation to post it on their website, and they followed through. Initial information releases were also available on the Construction Sector Council site about CHIBO 2, and also on CMHC on CHIBO 2. Aside from that CAHPI National is comprised of members representing the provincial associations of CAHPI. Certainly they provided a link between the work and progress of the project. Afterall, who has invested the largest chunk of money into this project?

The National Initiative is nothing new, it started as CMHC study regarding the state of home inspections and inspectors in Canada. It has been in existence since well before 1997. Most of the CHIBO Committee work took place between 2000 and fall of 2005. I know first hand because I was the national education rep on CHIBO representing all home inspectors.

2) I will not get into a lot of detail, but I know that NACHI has simply offered mixed support on the National Initiative. Nick has more recently stated that members should not waste their money. The suggestion that membership has its privileges remains an unknown. Perhaps it depends, because certainly a lot of information has filtered down to here from members that are associated outside of NACHI. (Link added for edit) http://www.nachi.org/forum/showpost....9&postcount=27

3) CAHPI National has offered information. Who posted the "invitation"? Surprisingly, in several occasions I posted the info, when "others" did not. Perhaps that deserves a question within itself - the possible motives of NACHI not posting that info. I am skeptical about offering info at times - because of two concerns. 1. The possibility of overstepping my bounds, and 2. sometimes when I do, I end up getting attacked over it.

4) On the issue of audits - it seems that one needs do something and get the process rolling before one goes through an audit. On the other side - the mere speculation and suggestion that there has been "no impartial review" seems once again to be an attempt to undermine some highly credible "professionals" that are not home inspectors and that have nothing to gain or loose, other than to do the right thing required in accordance with the CAN-P-9 process. So with all due respect - unless you have facts to back up the suggestion of impropriety - I feel it is fairly not deserved, its premature, and serves no real purpose unless you have facts that can be substantiated to prove otherwise.

Again - its a voluntary process.

[rwand1]

Firstly, let the facts speak for themselves in regard to this comment...

With really no budget for communications short of the the blurbs through CAHPI National site, or here on NACHI, only part of the information was released, as we saw in prior ongoing hotly debated discussion even on NACHI and the OAHI website.

Yes and we all know how OAHI shut down the info flow when I posted all those links (public info) on the OAHI Cafe in an attempt to silence and stifle debate. Censorship by over zealous power hungry directors who couldn't and wouldn't follow the by-laws. Yes Claude even threats. That was sure professional now wasn't it. CAHPI's counter part OAHI has not followed the by-laws and has not voted on many aspects of the national as it affects OAHI. Just look at how OAHI changed its name supposedly by straw poll vote to CAHPI-Ontario. Just look at the infighting currently taking place in OAHI and it most certainly seems ego, personalities are fighting with CAHPI executive.

4) On the issue of audits - it seems that one needs do something and get the process rolling before one goes through an audit. On the other side - the mere speculation and suggestion that there has been "no impartial review" seems once again to be an attempt to undermine some highly credible "professionals" that are not home inspectors and that have nothing to gain or loose, other than to do the right thing required in accordance with the CAN-P-9 process. So with all due respect - unless you have facts to back up the suggestion of impropriety - I feel it is fairly not deserved, its premature, and serves no real purpose unless you have facts that can be substantiated to prove otherwise.

I think you have put the cart before the horse. How can people be certified by the Authority when in fact the NCA and its mandate as provided in the CHIBO model have not been audited? You assume the certification process meets CAN P9, you don't know that for sure, right?

Credible professionals? That has got to be one of the better lines I have read on this thread, come to think of it. These professionals are not even home inspectors, were given the job, could not reply or promise to do as they had told me, and to top it off I also understand the people given the jobs did not have to tender their services.

As to impropriety, it is CAHPI running around telling everyone it is the NCA, it can do this that and other things because it has a mandate, but it legally cannot state in a court of law that any of what it is doing is legal. Having said that I think the courts would not put their blessing on such matters. If you cannot unequivocally state the process has been audited by CAN P9 own standards, then its not legit, it has no legislation, is voluntary, yet is being sold as some magical standard it turns out that is not certified through authentication by audit.

Doesn't serve any real purpose to suggest impropriety? I think it is CAHPI/CHIBO/NCA who should be proving it can back up its certification program by an audit, otherwise it carries no legal weight. Even representation from OAHI on the CAHPI board appears to be special interests and special friendships.

Sorry to have to disagree. I think this whole process could be torn apart in a court of law.

[rrichards2]

"Individuals who are within the National Certification Program

MAY or MAY NOT be members of a
CAHPI Provincial Association. Provincial Association membership is not a requirement of entry into
the National Certification Program.
Rationale: It is not appropriate to require individuals who are within the National Certification
Program to be members of a CAHPI provincial association, because this requirement would give a
provincial association the power to determine whether or not an individual should be within the
National Certification Program. This power must remain with the National Certification Council."

Are they really not one and the same?

[Claude Lawrenson]

Once again there seems to be an assumption that the project consultants hired as "professionals" and "experts" are not "qualified" to uphold the requirements of "project". Their background indicates their expertise in this work. To that I state, show the proof if you know otherwise.

Regarding audit, it would seem appropriate to not forget that three bodies assured that the CHIBO 2 report was above board and acceptable. Remember the involvement of Construction Sector Council, Canada Mortgage and Housing and Human Resource Development Canada. They attended and oversaw every meeting and discussion, so what is missing? I would have to accept that if it met their review and scrutiny of the "final report" before it could be "officially" released that the audit would seem rather a mute point.

In addition, the certification council and accreditation council is comprised of a balanced mix of national profile inspectors and publicly held positions. Once again there seems to be allegations of improprieties. Your allegations and assumptions are unfortunately off the mark.

The bottom line members and non-members alike are slated for going through the process in the pilot run, regardless of the claims to try to prove or state otherwise. Which brings us back to the original discussion topic. Several of you indicated that you have been chosen, while I personally also know of a few others non-aligned that are also chosen. It seems to me that it must be an open process - regardless of the claims that would not be.

Besides expect to hear of other high level supporters of the initiative in the very near future.