And yet another new CMI formula proposal (July, 2006). This one should satisfy all.

There appear to be two different camps with regard to the CMI formula:

One (I’ll call it the Farsetta argument for lack of a better title) says that applicants should be granted no credit for performing a number of unsupervised inspections as theoretically they could have all been performed wrong and MICB should not be giving credit to an applicant for doing something wrong a number of times. Furthermore, merely checking to see if a report is generated to comply with SOP means nothing as all reporting forms and reporting software do that already these days.

One (I’ll call it the Wiley argument for lack of a better title) says that applicants should be granted some credit for experience and longevity. Although number of inspections and time in business doesn’t prove competence, neither does sleeping through a number of continuing education courses, but all are legitimate indicators of competence. Furthermore, an experienced inspector, through real inspections, has been more thoroughly alerted to his/her own weaknesses and thus has been forced to go back and plug holes in his/her own skill sets. An inexperienced inspector is likely far less aware of what he/she doesn’t know.

Both arguments are strong and valid.

The prior CMI formula I proposed last month satisfied both arguments through a three prong formula based on (Continuing education fulfilled, time in business, and number of inspections performed). However, the latter two prongs were so strongly correlated that the formula was biased toward experience over education 2 to 1.

So I dervied a new proposed formula which gives credit for education, longevity and experience while preventing an incompetent but experienced applicant who has been in business for some time to slip through the approval process by requiring an even greater number of lifetime continuing education hours (200 total).

With the vast realm of continuing education options out there (initial licensing courses, NACHI’s online continuing education, inspection events, CMI approved schools, home study courses, online courses, etc.), I don’t see raising the total lifetime hours of CE to 200 to be a problem for someone seeking to call themselves a “Certified Master Inspector.”

Here is my new formula:

Number of continuing education hours completed in lifetime (200 minimum) + number of weeks in business + number of inspections performed in lifetime must be equal to or greater than 1,000.

Under this formula the only way an inexperienced, new inspector could qualify is if he/she completed 1,000 hours of continuing education. But by the same token the only way an experienced inspector could qualify is if he/she completed 200 hours of continuing education.

I’m going to receive some resistance from the schools, their argument being that their carrot is being placed on too long of a stick (Few will be enticed to take that much continuing education to achieve a professional designation)

And I’m going to receive some resistance from veteran inspectors, their argument being that they got their education in the real world by doing actual inspections. (200 hours is the equivalent of many years of continuing education requirements at an inspection association).

There are always reasons to be against something however I ask that you step back and look at this formula in its entirety… and I ask for your support.

Joe Farsetta should comment first, b/c if he doesn’t go for it, it will not go. Correct?

Ben, think about it. If Joe Burkeson and Joe M. were really correct in saying that Joe Farsetta runs things at NACHI… would I be proposing new improved CMI formulas at all?

Of course not, I would be secretly sharing them with him first and if he didn’t approve, I wouldn’t post them.

Clearly Joe B., Joe M., and others lose their argument by posting it on a thread which would not exist if what they said were true.

Those who falsely make wild claims about Joe Farsetta must choose which horn they want to be impelled by. Either way… they are dead.

The CMI will benefit the Home Inspectors. Evolution usually creates a better program over time. I am sure a great deal of thought and input went into this plan, and its implementation will make the program even better over the years. Many programs started at one level and evolved over the years to higher and more difficult to achieve standards.

Anyone making the stupid claim that Farsetta always gets his way, makes his claim even more stupid by posting it on THE VERY THREAD that proves the stupid claim to be false, by the mere existence of the thread.

If Farsetta always gets his way… the thread wouldn’t exist for anyone to claim so.

Back on thread topic now. Here it is again:

Number of continuing education hours completed in lifetime (200 minimum) + number of weeks in business + number of inspections performed in lifetime must be equal to or greater than 1,000.

Screw you I ain’t playing, take your CMI and place it where the sun don’t shine!

Joe B. … “not playing?” With your W/L record, I wouldn’t even watch from the stands.

Ben, you oddly posted a link to the previously proposed CMI formula which had only 6 voting against. What was the point?

If only 6 were against it, why change it. Who of the 6 carried the weight?

Like I said, I like the formula. We will see if it flies.

Dear God I hate to answer your question honestly… but I will…

Joe Burkeson carried the weight.

Yes, I said it.

I value his opinion on the CMI formula.

I just finished 163 lifetime hours of verifiable home inspection education hours.

I am required to complete 12 hours of state approved CE during the 2 year license term in Illinois. I have completed over twice that (28 hours, so far).

I have written and had approved 2 state CE courses, 12 hours of Illinois State approved CE (about 140 hours to prepare, but I only get to claim, I am only allowed, 12 hours credit).

I have taught both these classes, in Illinois and in other states, all for the benifit of NACHI inspectors. I have never recieved any remuniation for teaching these classes.

I have taken newly licensed inspectors on a cumulative 142 hours of ride alongs.

I have done 27 hours of ‘reverse ride alongs’ (where I rode along with a new inspector doing their first inspection and let them take the lead and was only there to ‘shlep’ their ladders and tools and back them up and do an ‘after action’ debrief to make sure that they did the report well and properly served their clients).

I have answered many hours (I can’t count them) of NACHI inspectors from around the country (and Canada) of questions via phone calls.

I have over 165 paid inspections, of which 12 are commecial.

I have done over 182 draw inspections.

I have served as Vice-President of a NACHI Chapter.

I have been appointed a NACHI education committee member (and been ‘Resigned’ from that position. My screw up.).

I am a member of the MAB, elected by the elected members to fill the positions of other members who had resigned.

I have used my own home as a ‘House of Horrors’ for newly licensed inspectors.

I have garnered the support of a majority of our Chapter members and been elected President of our Chapter, even against the desires, wishes and mass E-mailed (and not understood or explained) lack-of endorsment from the founding President. I still fully respect him. He was also the first CMI in our state and he fully deserves it. He is an awesome inspector. I only hope that I can be half the inspector that he already is and has been for many years.

Of all my clients, I have only had one complaint about my services. I have also had 23 client attorneys call me and say ‘Yours are the most thorough home inspection reports I have ever seen’.

I am applying for CMI.

I think it is worth something.

I sincerely promise to try to live up to it, to make it mean something.

I would hope that everyone else who recieves this designation will also work to make it mean something, and to never tarnish it.

Just my opinion, but I hope it helps.


Your new program floats as a good concept. Lets see if anyone has some positive additions

I would like to see a real inspection(s) in the program but one can not have everything

I am still putting together a web based virtual HI program. Too bad I can’t offer it as part of the program yet. Time and $$

I assume that the 200 hrs can come from related areas. This is only right

If people do not want this formula I really don’t see what they do want. With out going over the edge what would make a SMALL group happy.

I really think that may thousand inspectors would be for the original formula and the number really are probably not that much different with the new one. It is just a small number that don’t like and have not come up with something that is better.

Darn I really with you could put my idea into the package but I will be happy if you chase the people that are using the CMI trade mark and anything related that might be a violation

have a good day




I also applied based on my background after much thought. I think that this small group of us that are sort of first in the pond will have to help the CMI board to continue to improve the program. We will be the CMI’s that our followers will have to measure against - a large responsibility .

Go for it Will and keep the chapter wired up – Too bad you are not in FL – our chapters are not elected YET – even the State chapter is sort of hard to understand

BTW Did you all get your Corp paperwork filed or is it still a work in process??

I think I can find the Pix of the convention awards if you want - just give me the word and I will look.



Will, now I’m really more confused than ever, bear with me. If I quickly total up the ‘points’ you listed then it would appear you are only about 1/2 way to 1000 pts for the CMI. Am I missing something on the ‘ancillary’ contributions you’ve made? Are you saying those do or maybe should count toward the 1000?


The new formula is not yet law. The rules have not changed and might not for some time. They might get changed again when other thoughts are posted.

This is not a problem – this is just a part of growth


Ahhh…I now understand. Apply under the current 150 hour only rule. Go it!

OK Nick,

I like this formula too. It beefs up the education qualifications and
that matters a bunch. It is not too far away for someone who wants
to be a real “master” and not just a pretend “master”.

I am very glad to see the experience factor is still in place. Let me
share something I just read on an web site about novice home
inspectors. The facts are that many new inspectors who have been
in business for less than one year are more likely to be sued for
errors and omissions. Some insuarance companies do not like to
insure them at all. They want to see some experience.

In Texas you get your license with 488 hours of education and a passing
test score. But I guarantee you that those boys are still a novice when it
come to understanding what an inspection is really all about.

I have never, I mean never… met an any employers who went around
looking for people to hire that had no experience in the high quality job
they needed filled. Experience is not the perfect measure of someone,
but it looks very weak to hand out CMI certifications to someone who
has little or no experience. It makes no sense to me why some people
cannot see that.

John McKenna
American Home Inspection

Nick, kudos for all the thought & effort given, as well as broadsides taken on this. I think this will fly with the majority!