The information about CHIA was posted in a thread on this MB after it occured…
This is in addition to the thread started about the conference in general.
Not sure what information some feel was not transmitted… It is of course easier to forget discussions once the “delete” button has been used to remove negative comments made by judging parties not in attendance… But it’s all good now…
Have a great day!
Pat
Sad to see you had this information and did not post it on The NACHI site for all to see .
Interesting you use the NACHI forum frequently and now you are trying to get NACHI members to join another association .
This in my opinion is extremely poor taste and not the proper way to do things .
Thanks Patrick ,I see this post is from March 2015 , Seems strange there was not a lot more info posted about his meeting .
Mr. Cooke:
We posted some of this information and were, together with a few others, attacked almost immediately… You know this! Some of the posts and further information was then removed.
The information was supplies to all parties who inquired and once the CSA discussion cooled off, OAHI and CAHPI (Under different captainship) decided this type of group wasn’t of interest to them.
The other Associations and a few other Members remained active with each other and continued to exchange information.
So Mr. Gratton is correct: The information was in fact supplied to him by one of his Associations.
Still unsure of what information you are claiming was “selfishly” held back by some “protectionist” group? More clarification required.
Very interesting ( ** You know this!** ) I would like to know where you got this information .
I would like to see more information on these attacks you are talking about .
This is new to me information .
Thanks for the reply … Roy
And you can have them: They are located throughout the MB, with a lot moved into the NFE… Warm up your digits as you’ll have to do a lot of type and click…
You’ll probably notice throughout your research what is being thought about and suddenly “remember”…
Good luck in your exploration campaign.
Sad to see you still are great at making statements and when asked for proof away you go .
Sorry you seem to lack the ability to back up your statements .
To bad so sad …
https://www.nachi.org/forum/f46/love-international-association-certified-home-inspectors-113359/
I WISH YOU A MERRY Christmas .
Sorry you feel that way but I am not the town crier!
Merry XMass to you too!
** That’s obvious https://www.nachi.org/forum/users/mgratton/**
fortunately there are many good inspectors like me out there who get great information who love to share and give help others .
You bring up a good. point.
I was not privy to the selection process but one would think why did any home inspection association members and other invited parties go along with attributing to the A770.
I voiced my concerns about the A770 from the start asking members to avoid the process altogether.
Transparency had to exist as not to skew the motive.
It was a hastened process using provincial tax payers money that were not fully informed.
Appears like the only information was selective, secretive but as expressed, I was not privy to the processes…
Methinks that is why you were left out.
Good at what???Never mind we know…I agree in part, with Robert’s post above!
So back to the original post discussion - meanwhile back at the ranch Tonto & the Lone Ranger…https://www.nachi.org/forum/f48/aibq-and-anieb-merge-again-adopt-770-standard-practices-117410/
Some how I get the feeling we are not privileged to a lot of information .
I do hope the full facts do come out some day soon.
CHIA was formed as a collaborative effort after what seemed to be little to no response from CSA on the thousands of comments offered to invoke change in the draft document.
As far as there being a conspiracy or act to subvert a selection process to my understanding it was largely based on inviting heads/chairs or presidents of Canadian home inspection associations. Several of those people selected also sat on the CSA Technical Committee. The goal being to solicit first hand discussion on what concerns home inspectors had with the document.
As Pat stated it was simply to present a unified front to invoke change.
Roy is asking questions. Pat, what’s with the attacks?
If I am not mistaken Roy, you and Char were ill with a nasty virus for several weeks during this time.
What puzzles me is why are associations outnumber by Franchises.
As well CAHPI I gets to be recognised by many provinces.
Claude, are you telling me this represents a national Inspection standard?
How does this look to you?
InterNACHI represents more members that CAHPI. How many InterNACHI chapters are represented?
http://www.chia-acir.ca/
Sorry for the typo.
Robert - to me there was a reasonable balanced representation. However and BTW I’m the one that raised the question about a rep from Quebec of even FNNBOA.
Yes - agreeably not every group or even stakeholder was represented, but others were added after the initial meeting.
On the issue the CSA H.I. Standard, it’s not bad, but I still believe that there are other standards of practice out there - free, and readily available, and best yet - time tested by 1000’s of home inspectors on likely millions of home inspections, and also with standing legal precedence.
To me the CSA H.I. Standard is simply a derivative of what already is available. To me much to do about trying to create one unified standard. As I said before it has no standing until it is mandated by regulation by each and every province and territory.
Again, as I stated earlier, even CAHPI’s claim is not a true national endorsement. CAHPI-BC became HIABC and left the CAHPI fold. Since it also seems that the Province of BC is possibly looking at their own unified SOP, and not necessarily the CSA Standard. So in my opinion - it’s not a slam dunk SOP that fits one and all.
Thanks for your answer.
Regards.
Whatever…
Seasons greeting to you as well.