Deleted.
:shock: Given the recent developments with CMI, I am not sure if you are kidding or not!
Of course, I am not concerned since I know few have even submitted their 100 inspections for auditing and I know of no one who has had them audited!!
John:
http://www.parealtor.org/content/consumer_home_inspection.asp
PA Law requires that a Home Inspection be performed by a **Full Member of a National Home Inspection Association. **
NACHI Members that have not completed 500 inspections will need to join ASHI or NAHI to perform inspections 250 thru 500.
Thanks for the Heads Up.](“http://www.parealtor.org/content/consumer_home_inspection.asp”)
Once again, I believe this is designed to kill the CMI program. Its a damned shame, and I seriously doubt that the full membership requirements are changing. I will contact Nick today to verify this.
I am so damned tired of this game. It’s going to stop.
Deleted.
No, John
The discussion was pertaining to CMI. The 500 threshold represents eligibility to take a CMI exam absent of attending a CMI course. The CMI requirements were formally announced yesterday. One must be a full member in good standing, and have been in business for a minimum of 2 1/2 years and have completed 250 inspections to qualify to participate in the program.
Full member status represents 100 inspections performed.
CMI is based on the standards of membership as they exist at the present time. Those requirements shall remain in effect.
As I stated, I will cionferr with Nick this morning, and find out if he is really considering this. Again, all it will do is arbitrarily make membership in this organization more difficult, with little or no statistical justification for it.
Not to pee in anyone’s Wheaties, but 2 1/2 years and 250 inspections to take a class to take a test to gain a “Master” designation sounds both light and arbitrary.
I don’t like the idea of 500 inspections for full membership, but I find the laxed requirements for CMI equally distasteful.
Finally! 
I have to agree with Blaine, this is backasswards IMO
Regards
Gerry
I guess what I am reading is the mimum requirements to enter the “Master” program is roughly half of the requirements to reach full member status in NACHI.?
That’s what I get from it, Doug.
I agree that the CMI standards are too lax, and the entire concept is also unnecessary. current membership standards are fine.
Everyone of you are exactly right in your comments. Everyone should thoroughly understand - now pay attention - I am not against CMI.
But I am not for it either. Out of all the discussions and heated arguments one thing keeps blaring at me. The definition. No one has yet to define what it is other than a title.
From what I can see and understand the “CMI” designation and trademark stands for nothing more than completion of a certain amount of inspections and passing of another basic course and exam for a unknown fee.
Couldn’t we accomplish the same thing/effect for our members at no cost, no vendors fees, no exam fees, and no course fees by simply creating “logos” that indicate membership in a 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, etc. Inspection club. After all this is not about your performance proficiency, this is about the number of inspections you have completed. Put the club under the auspicies of the CMI program. Once a member has reached a set amount of inspections, by all means let them use the CMI designation. But for heavens sake set the bar so it is attainable and at the same time meaningful. Give the designation and logo dignity and respect, and don’t use it simply for a marketing tool with less requirements than most of the associations and some states.
As explained by Mr. Wiley and Mr. Farsetta, what exactly does a “CMI” do differently than any other inspector. Do they perform Electrical system inspections, or Water Heater systems any differently! Of course the answer is no. So I ask you then, “What is the significance of the “CMI” designation and Logo, as it is currently being administered?”
As far as the full member requirements, we are fine. We needn’t look down our nose at ours or anyone elses requiremnts to be a part of an “association”. Home inspectors aren’t hired on the basis of their association. It may be a part of the overall decision, but isn’t the basic premis.
Most of us agree that CMI will be a marketing advantage, and I believe in some of the minds of those who wholeheartedly support it see it in the same light as the Realtor GRI designation, so I have proposed the following:
Instead of worrying about all of the logistics of who can and who can’t attain the CMI, how many years and inspections, who does and who doesn’t have enough time in the business, or number of inspections to even take the class to take the test to get the designation, let’s make CMI a designation of higher learning.
Anyone who is a full member can take the course, which should be challenging, thorough, and certainly a huge step above the basic HI courses most of us took to enter the business in the first place.
At the successful completion of the course, the inspector gets to use the initials GCMI (Graduate of Certified Master Inspector course) which simply is a designation that the Inspector has completed and advance course in home inspection materials and techniques. The logo could be easily changed to add the G.
The course could be taught by schools, and at least part of it at the convention each year. It would demonstrate the things that most of us want CMI to be; a yearning for more education, a commitment to the business, more knowledgeable home inspectors, a marketing advantage, and yes, more people coming to NACHI for membership.
Any Takers?
John,
I am neither for it or against CMI. I long since quit worrying about how many inspections I have done and I am not about to go back and start counting them. I am more concerned about that next inspection. Each one is different. Arbitrary numbers of inspections to elevate ones status seems a little thin only in that what if the individual is one of those who does an inspection in 45 minutes and uses a four page check list with elements on it like “Garage Yes / No” Designations and certificates really mean very little to me. I have a file full of them. I am more impressed with how someone uses the information and experience they have acquired. If they are constantly moving this imaginary “bar” to match their own accomplishments then I am suspect of their motives. I would be very reluctant to use myself (or anyone else) as the measuring stick for everyone else to determine who is worthy of a particular designation.
Do I believe there are those among us that are operating at the level of “Master Inspector”…Absolutely. But you rarely hear any whining or raging debate from this corner on the pros or cons. These are the calm, confident individuals who have cut the trails in this profession. They know they do not need letters behind their names to be successful because they were doing this before all the associations became available and built a “reputation of professionalism” rather than hanging their hopes on slick marketing. These are the ones whose advise and posts are typically well thought out and deliberate, cut to question without all the hyperbole. Maybe now because the profession is becoming more saturated in areas we will all have to become more market savy and less reliant on reputation and professionalism. That would be a shame but that appears to be the trend in all professions. We see it in the homes we inspect.
I think Blaine’s proposal is extremely good. I believe it accomplishes the original intent of CMI and does not place the newer inspector at any disadvantage. It takes all the “designation” element out of play. Make it tough but attainable. Anything worth having is worth the effort it may take to attain it. It is no different than someone getting the training to do EIFS inspections. They will certainly have an advantage over the inspector that does not do EIFS. That is just business and a business decision.
Having just been elevated to ‘full membership’ and having had my reports personally verified, right in front of me, I would hope that any new requirements for ‘full’ membership that include more than the previously required 100 inspections be subject to ex post facto reasoning.
In other words, I just made full member. I would think that having that designation pulled after the attainment would be not a good idea.
As to 500 inspections, a class and a really hard test, CMI could be given. I much perfer some other determinations as well, such as number of CE hours, mentoring and being graded by those you mentor, and other contributions to the industry.
Just met two cents. Hope I am still a full member.
Somewhere in one of these posts it was said that full members are grandfathered.
We’ll see what transpires.
This will be a bummer for some PA members.
This alone has 86’ed the change. I must admit that I and Nick forgot all about Pa’s requirements.
Thanks Mr. Hagarty for the heads up.
Membership requirements are not changing. Full member status remains at 100 inspections with reports vrified by Nick and J Bowman