ASHI members going bullistic over CMI Terms of Use.

Now that we have adopted requirements for the Certified Master Inspector (CMI) professional designation ( we have been getting bombarded by inspectors from other associations (especially ASHI members) who want to earn and use the professional designation.

I think this comes from the fact that ASHI is mostly a logo with very few other membership benefits (certainly in comparison to NACHI ). People who are inclined to pay for nothing but a logo are also inclined to like other professional designations (such as CMI) and so ASHI members are attracted by nature to our Certified Master Inspector designation and many want to be Certified Master Inspectors.

Anyway, NACHI’s Professional Development Director and I have been working on authoring some Terms of Use which will allow NACHI members who belong to other associations (dual membership) such as CREIA or FAPHI or FABI or KREIA or MAREI or whatever earn and still use the Certified Master Inspector designation. NACHI members who maintain dual membership in associations such as these will be unaffected by these Terms of Use. However, ASHI and NAHI members won’t be permitted to display the logo of or link to any anti-consumer sites including ASHI’s and NAHI’s logos and websites. They can still belong to ASHI or NAHI, they just can’t tell anyone about it, as under the Terms of Use we are working on, it appears we will be prohibiting Certified Master Inspectors from displaying or linking to any anti-consumer sites.

Under the Terms of Use for Certified Master Inspector, anti-consumer sites are defined in part as: “any consumer unfriendly websites such as diploma mills (associations with no entrance requirements, for example), unethical organizations (associations that permit inspectors to work to correct defects they themselves discover, for example), child pornography sites, …”

Furthermore, under the Terms of Use we are working on, no CMI site will link to any site containing links to anti-consumer sites.

:nachi: :nachi: :nachi:
Planet NACHI.
One House at a time.

We have plenty of fine ASHI & NAHI members at NACHI. I was a member of ASHI myself at one time. They are all very welcome at NACHI and welcome to earn and use the CMI designation, it is just that the Terms of Use we are working on will prohibit anything anti-consumer such as no-entrance requirements whatsoever diploma mills.

DIdn’t we just go around on this on this thread?

And didn’t Nick just say:
“I’m 100% for this brilliant idea Blaine.” (in regard to the proposed change to alter the CMI designation and disregard the linked requirements in this post)

Specifcally, for those who missed the proposal, CMI was going away and GMCI was propsed to replace it - being an educational desigantion.

Here is the proposal:

CMI has not gone away. GCMI has gone away. It never existed, really. The proposal would have only been valid for those NACHI members who were not eligible to use the actual CMI designation, but may have wanted to take the CMI course. But, why would anyone want to use GCMI, anyway. Let’s see… you’re marketing that you graduated a course, but dont have the years or inspections under your belt to use the CMI designation.

Its worse than saying you’re a “candidate”.

CMI is moving forward at an accellerated rate. Another school has asked to teach the course. They were provided the curriculative outline, and are developing a NACHI-specific course that fits it. They are very excited. By the way, they are already approved ASHI and NAHI educators, and no, they are not ITA.

We receive better than 20 e-mails and telephone calls a day, asking how or where to get the training and designation.

CMI is alive and well. It will be a tremendous success for many NACHI inspectors. Those who choose to participate are welcome to. Thoise who dont buy into it, can refrain. Those who are only interested in the program to earn CEUs toward NACHI membership will win, as well.

Sad news.

CMI is a way to segregate the membership for a cheap marketing gimmick. Nice to know we are selling out a core NACHI principle (New inspectors will not be stigmatized by being branded - instead they will just NOT be branded CMI!!) for the sake of those schools that are eager to pimp the program. some $, go to a required schoool, pass a test, and have 250+ inspections… I think I just joined ASHI!!

Of course since everyone but the newest of the new will have it (anyone under 2.5 years), it won’t mean very much so the potential negative impact will be mitigated.

Funny, cause bno one seems to be complaining but a handful of folks. I do not think its a cheap marketing ploy. I do not think it is unreasonable. As it does not affect a person’s membership stature, it will not segregate the membership.

The training counts for CEUs in NACHI, regardless of the designation. Schools are providing a service to our membership, If no one is interested, then schools will discontinue offering the course.


Do you see the part where Blaine says “Let’s make the CMI a designation of higher learning”?

That - to me indicates that he is fundamentally changing the structure of what the CMI is, and changing it to the proposed GCMI.

It was no longer going to be the equivelent of ASHI full membership that the CMI is now. It would be something for personal satisfaction and some small degree of marketing - to say you have added another level of education. The home inspector equivilent of a Masters, if you will. It would actually make someone a better inspector - not just note how long you have worked and how many inspections you have performed (oh, and the required course $$, and the test - just like ASHI!)

GMCI was going somewhere - why else would Nick run out to register a site for it?

Furthermore, Nick participated in the GCMI discussion and expressed “100% support for this brilliant idea”. I’d hate to have any less than 2000% of Nick’s support for something if this is what happens to ideas that are 100% supported!!!


There was indeed a discussion on GCMI. Was it legitimate, or a means to control and ultimately kill the CMI designation? Nick never supported scuttling the CMI program. I believe he thought it was a means to get everyone trained who would need it, regardless of their time in service. After that, when they were eligible to use the CMI designation, they could. I was not privvy to the chat, and discovered it after the fact. I also learned of the nature of the discussions taking place, was informed that GCMI would not be pursued, and that CMI was to continue moving forward, absent of any shadow designations.

I know that what you are saying is the end result. I still think it sucks.

Nick should learn to either understand a propsoal before announcing his 100% support, or perhaps not have such discussions on the web in public threads.

I know enough about politics to know a misdirection to tone down criticism when I see it.

Two points:

  1. One thing NACHI members know about me is that I discuss everything with them. I have a lot of faults but I can honestly say that I’m very certain that I am the most accessible trade association founder in the world:

– I personally answer the phone all day.
– I personally answer hundreds of emails a day.
– I publish Inspector’s Quarterly.
– I personally appear at Chapter meetings and NACHI events many dozens of times a year.
– I personally make thousands of posts on this message board.

Most active members think things out better than I can and NACHI would be dead and out of existence if NACHI relied solely on my intuition. NACHI relies on on all its members (including the Joes on this thread).

  1. Just as we figured out a way by developing a Terms of Use to keep ASHI diploma mill inspectors from getting a CMI to use as a marketing weapon against NACHI members, we are also close to figuring out a way to have NACHI CMIs help promote NACHI non-CMIs. CMI will help ALL NACHI members (and most members won’t have to do anything or spend anything to benefit from it). Just watch how this develops.

Besides, all no-entrance-requirements-whatsoever associations that encourage their desperate come-only-with-cash candidates to go out and work for poor unsuspecting consumers as the only way to full membership don’t just hurt consumers… they hurt our whole inspection profession. They should all die a horribly painful death and go to hell.


Trust me… we’re going to take the rest of this whole industry very soon.

I can’t see how this will benefit CMI’s and non-CMI’s. The only reason to get it is to promote yourself versus theose who do not have it by making non-CMI’s seem vastly inferior and potentially dangerous (NACHI members included).

Nick, you may be accessible. That is nice.

It also has nothing to do you with expressing 100% support for the GCMI idea (which was clearly meant as an alternative to the CMI) while still intending to proceed with the CMI.

I am not nearly as interested in the frat war between orgs that you seem to love to perpetuate as I am in the idea that NACHI USED TO BE a place where all inspectors were equal and newbies were not branded or stigmatized (by the lack of a brand - like CMI, or “Full ASHI Member”).

If I were a newbie considering associations today, with CMI on the horizon (holding the same requiremetns as ASHI full membership) I would look at it as being another way of stigmatizing the newbies (and a less forward way than ASHI’s at that.) I can no longer tell the potential inspectors I talk to that NACHI is undoubtedly the place for them.

WIth CMI looming, I think I will just say that they are all the same - because now, it’s true.

I agree…Nick always answers my e-mails…tehhehe

Do you really believe that brand new inspectors (especially those know-nothing types who in their previously career were a failed hearing-aid salesman, or the do-nothing types who refuse to obtain accredited education and submit themselves to proctored testing) should be allowed to be considered equal to experienced, educated and tested inspectors? I am just not sure what you are asking for, please clue us in.

Yes, Joe. I don’t think it is the responsibility of the association to brand, label, stigmatize, or otherwise segregate the membership.

I have read your posts and you are proud of your education, training, and experience. Good for you. That should be enough to make you feel personally satisified.

There is no need to force labels or stigmatization on newer members when they may just as easily be Structural Engineers or Contractors, as they can former salespeople. None of that - even the previous career path - prevents them from perfroming a quality inspection on Day One.

People will rise or sink to their own level regardless of organizational labels and other artificial means of recognition. If they strive to be good at what they do, they will take courses and pass tests, and further themselves in other ways if they feel they need to.

If not, it really doesn’t bother me. The association doesn’t need to create articificial labels for such a purpose.

I joined NACHI because this organization was clearly different and moving in a direction that I thought was progressive and positive.

Now we have become that which I opted not to join - ASHI. The labels are different and the dues are lower, but tiered membership is just silly and an inane markting gimmick (or a bone to make some old-heads feel better about themselves.)

Joe M… Pay attention. It is not a membership status. New members are not being given any different status or term as our veteran inspectors. We are all simply “members.”

“CMI” is simply a professional designation that you can attain if you want, just like you can attain and tout any other qualification such as “Mold Certified” or “WDO Licensed” or “Over 2,000 inspections performed” or “My 11th year” or whatever. Not every member has every qualification that every other member has, get used to it.

On a related note, I heard a rumor that ASHI is no longer calling its newbies “Candidates” because REALTORs boycott Candidates. They are changing the derogatory term “Candidate” to “So stupid I sent money to ASHI to have them brand me with this derogatory term that causes me to lose business Candidate.”

I think the new term is more accurate.

Hee hee :stuck_out_tongue: .

Nick. Pay attention. (probably not the best tactic to use if you are attempting to make a point, is it? It makes you sound arrogant and tends to discredit anything that follows it…)

The other designations you mention are not designed and offered by the trade association. When the association formally recognizes new classes of inspectors (CMIs or whatever) you have, by definitiion, created a tiered membership structure.

The fact that it is almost identical to ASHI’s requirements for full membership tells me that this is an attempt to a) prevent defection of experienced members to ASHI or b) model the organization I used to respect after one that brands its newer members as incompetent.

No, I know we are not branding new members - we are giving credentials to older ones! It’s the same thing and it is driven by the association (unlike every single one of the other items you mention.)

I am used to the fact that there are inspectors of varying credentials, most of whom market them very effectively. Until now, NACHI has not been a part of providing a marketing tool to some members to bludgeon newer members with.

By the way, I notice you did not mention how you believe this will benefit newer members, as well as older ones. I find that a stretch at best, when my first email marketing piece to Realtors would be: “Don’t let your clients use an unqualified rookie - demand a Certified Master Inspector!” and then go on to explain how the lack of such a designation for a NACHI member indicates the same thing that “Candidate” means to ASHI members.

I don’t see the CMI Designation in the same light as you, Joe! I think you are way off base, but you are intitled to you opinion.

The CMI is in no way “Membership” driven. NACHI is not labeling members who do not choose to get the CMI designation. A tierd membership would be if I have to meet certain requirements to get to the next level of membership.

CMI is NOT a requirement as far as I know!

I failed to see in your posts why ASHI and its members have gone ballistic over the NACHI CMI program. Please explain.


One great thing about the New York State Licensing is we are all the same status.  We are License Home Inspectors with no organizational requirements.  We have to prove to our State Organizations that we are qualified.  Now here is the biggest job for us as inspectors.  We have to change the minds of the Real Estate Salespeople.   

I am sick of Branding. I was told the other day by someone if a state called me and asked if you were in membership in good standing, I would have to say, “No!” Oh well if that is how people feel then I will take the boot because all I need is a State License to do inspection. I think the states should take more control and not the organizations. I am personally sick of all the CMI and Branding garbage. Then when I question anything about membership, I get the statement well Nick is the only one who makes any decissions.
I personally joined NACHI because I thought and still think it had a lot to offer people but if the levels of inspectors takes place. Just as Joe M. has been saying there is no differance because the state of classification will appear.
Sometimes, I think the main agenda of this organization is to stomp the other organizations. The real reason the growth of NACHI has been so great is for what it offers, not the classifications.