deleted
Yes and its still called censorship. It is no more different then the uncensored crap that comes to us by way of the Canuck list!
Claude perhaps you can explain why three documented cases fully known within OAHI Discipline have not had the courtesy of a reply or any manner of were in the process those complaints are. Excuses, excuses, excuses. These same folks are going to be overseeing NCP in Ontario? You have some serious problems on your end to deal with as Ethic Chair. Certainly OAHI cannot fulfill it position and is knowingly burying complaints, this is not acceptable. I have never seen so called professional people as directors hide so much truth and so much bias as I have seen within OAHI. This reflects badly on everyone, and you as Ethics Chair who is helpless to take on the task of cleaniing things up less you cause to many waves. Nice work I guess if you can get it.
Claude with out a doubt I feel you are the most honest person possible to sit on the ethics committee.
MY past experience has shown how hard it is to make a proper decision with those in power above you.
OAHI removed two of the most conscientious and honerable people
( Rudolf Reusse & Raymond Wand)that I feel they ever had on their DPPC .
They did not like the decisions that where made by their committees.
Being on one of those committees I saw the undue influence the OAHI directors tried to have on our committee.
Our committee was removed when we would not let the OAHI board influence our decisions.
Unfortunately OAHI has a large contingency of members sitting on the CAHPI board and committees.
Claude I wish you all the best in even making a decision .
Roy Cooke… RHI… Royshomeinspection.com
deleted
Hi Claude,
Here is a question for you, maybe you can answer, maybe not. But on the National Cert. Program Background Application Review form (page 7) it states:
Firstly there would seem to be a problem in that a member of Nachi, is a member of Nachi, accepted into the National Cert. Program, it would appear that the Nachi member would be beholden to conduct inspections no longer under Nachi SOP and COE, but the CAHPI SOP and COE?
How can that be possible? Isn’t that a conflict? One can only serve one master? This National Certification was to be open to all home inspectors, no one said anything about a clause forcing one to redirect alliagance to CAHPI. I am I reading this the wrong way?
Don’t recall seeing that disclosed anywhere either.
I noticed that no where is it mentioned that any of this info asked for is protected under the privacy act. Given what occurred on the CAHPI discussion forum, what safeguards can you assure me that information submitted will not be abused or tampered with as appears to be the most recent case on the CAHPI discussion forum?
Curious.
Thanks.
Claude: Keep on Keepin’ on !
This is what I don’t get about this whole National Certification project.
If one is qualified as a home inspector as per CMHC guidelines, why the requirement to abide by one particular associations SOP and COD? Choice of association should be the right of the individual inspector. After all, as Claude stated earlier the SOP’s and COD’s are not that different from one association to another. What about the many inspectors out there who have chosen not to belong to any association for whatever reason. . In an industry that relies heavily on referral business, how long does anyone think a disreputable inspector can stay in business. Consumers do have other avenues to file complaints other than CAPHI. After all there are many other business out there that provide consumer services.
Please don’t tell me this “voluntary”. We all know that it’s not. The reality is that inspectors are being given the choice of either getting in line with CAPHI or go find another line of work. This is not “voluntary” in my book.
What about engineers, architects, builders, that offer home inspections? Do you think they will become Nationally Certified?
Seeing as a few Nachi members were chosen for the Pilot project, I think a legal opinion is required because CAHPI has no authority to demand that non Cahpi members must conduct their inspections to CAHPI SOP/COE. This is voluntary, it is not mandated, but its being presented as if it is. One of the other long term requirements as I understand it will be mandatory insurance for Nationally Cert. Members.
CAPHI has been doing a very good job lobbying. I believe that it’s is only a matter of time before NC will become mandatory for anyone working as an inspector. I can also see E&O becoming a requirement for NC holders, possibly through some CAPHI insurance plan.
deleted
deleted
Endorsement…looks like they already have.
My apologies for deleting my last post. My reply with comments
did not view they way I had intended.
They may own it but were is the legislation backing it up? We are not arguing inspections must be performed to a standard, what we need to understand is that CAHPI has no mandate other then its own to dictate the terms. Because you have dual membership entering the picture, you cannot demand that I or anyone inspect to CAHPI standards. If the standards are much alike as alluded to I think there should be no problem having members abiding to their parent organization. The benchmark is the review process, not a demand that you must meet the SOP/COE, that is a demand and a specific clause. The document says that if you do not inspect to CAHPI SOP/COE you are out. If members are being reviewed based on their standard in this case Nachi or Ashi then how can you demand one standard over that of another if they are equal. It also contradicts that the National is not open, but a closed shop. Perhaps the clause should have read, “member will endeavour to inspect to their associations standards, failure to do so may result in disciplinary process.”
ALSO…
…non compliance may be grounds for removal from the National Cert. Program. How can you remove someone without due process, you can’t remove anyone without a hearing.
Is there any documenting evidence in the CAHPI by-laws suppporting any of these caveats?
Well if the standards are pretty much the same, how do you inspect to the highest common denominator? There is no common denominator its equal if anything, but that thinking is not supported with the clause in the Application, it is saying CAHPI is by its own decree the higher standard. Not to mention nothing has been certified to meet CAN P9 we are only told the National does. Is CAHPI going to subscribe to a higher standard? Apparently not because it did not have the National audited. So which standard is CAHPI beholden to, its own by appearances, based on a recognized document.
Its a “common benchmark” it is not one better than the other, and that I think is what is being portrayed and stated that one is better.
Okay I understand that, but were is the documentation (by-laws) to support this requirement and the power granted to CAHPI to do it? CAHPI power is granted only by itself, it has no legislation to demand anything, its voluntary, if its restrictive as seems to be you will not get the voluntary numbers wishing to join, because its being set up as a private club.
Concerned because I haven’t read that anywhere on anything yet. We know that some in CAHPI are not following the rules they are to subscribe to because we have one issue that would suggest otherwise that someone gives an order (outside the confines of the by-laws) and those orders are carried out. Sorry this raises serious issues about influence, bias, and acting outside the confines of what is right and what is wrong and who can hide and get away with what. If someone can manipulate the CAHPI forum and remove posts you have a problem. That brings into question CAHPI’s ability to do as it wants others to do. You can’t reasonably expect anyone to have any confidence in the system contrary to what you say because it has been proven otherwise. Most likely you are not in any position to do much about anything, because you will be ignored or told to not get involved. That makes your role as Ethics Chair very questionable in my opinion. The way I see it you are either going to have to stand up to the pressures or you will find a way to back away from it.
If this is the case how does one excutive continue to carry on misrepresenting the facts repeatedly and knowingly known to be false and misleading?
Lastly there is a huge problem signing the Application form along with the condition of practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE because ultimately practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE and discipline will be given to OAHI to act on. That again raises issues about freedom of association, and conflict of membership alligance. This is the case because the documents suppor that role that OAHI and CAHPI are trying to sideline anything Nachi. I wonder what the case would have been had Nachi signed on. I would suspect the same sort of issues. We truly know how CAHPI feels about Nachi because it is well documented.
I am very concerned that CAHPI is trying to maneuvre itself into a position it cannot logically or legally back up.
I think Joe Ferry needs to comment on this from a membership legality point of view, and I would like to hear from Nick Gomicko on this subject because there seems to be an attempt to dilute Nachi in the overall scheme of things by CAHPI making demands that may not having legal standing.
Also…
On page 5 of the Application A10 Complaince with Standards of Practice for Home and Property Inspectors.
Do you perform home and property inspections that comply with a Standard of Practice" for Home Property Inspectors?
That question and the answer provided contradict with the requirements of Page 7. If one answers Nachi I guess that answer could be considered to be a filtering question and the application and processing could be denied. Something does not jive here.
deleted
Roy’s sr replies in red…
vbmenu_register(“postmenu_42647”, true); [Ontario Home Inspections, Inc.
http://www.nachi.org/forum/images/2006/misc/homepage.gif](http://www.inspectsupport.com/) NACHI Member User Name: clawrenson Location: Tecumseh-Windsor, ON Posts: 152
Re: Cahpi Message Board Censorship! Ray - I do not pretend for a moment to have all the answers to your questions. Why do you not write and request the answers from the “real” source…If you mean buy the real source I have communicated with Bill mullen and he chooses to not give the answers. / If you mean OAHI they choose to not Give the answers( I Still outstanding charges laid correctly via the DPPC for a considerable time … Perhaps some may forget that many within CAHPI have been either “banned” or not allowed to post on the NACHI forum…If you mean Dave B may I tell you he did not pay dues to NACHI and posted ( On the NACHI BB) many nasty statements about NACHI and its Members and leaders and did not try and give any help to any members . /If you are talking about Gil S may I tell you he did not pay any dues to NACHI and made many false statements about its members and leaders after he accused our association of wrong doing ( It now has shown NACHI was correct all along ) … It seems I am one of the last resources allowed to post the other side of the issue or at least offer some of the answers…Wrong I have NOT seen one example of what you are talking about… So I would not expect that you will ever get all of the answers here. It seems proper protocol prior to posting assumptions,.Wrong assumptions Possible but until the correct infomation is posted by YOU! or CAHPI this is the best thing we the Canadian Home inspectors can do… or making claims in letter writing campaigns would seem to be address the questions in a professional manner to the main source…Professional Source ? Come on if there is a Professional Source they have had lots of time to speak up… Believe me I do not for a moment question your questions, however, it seems a lot more credible and logical to get it from the “source”, not just from me or not from mere speculation.
…And why is it you or others do not stop the speculation and give us the true facts!.
I do know for a fact that part of the plan does include a disciplinary review process. That is a given. There cannot be any automatic expulsion of a national certificate holder without “due process”.
The CAHPI SOP and COE are the accepted standard for this process. That is not to state that others have been discounted, excluded, or forgotten about. After all, the intent of a “national standard” seemingly was to invoke one standard not 4 different ones. Equally the national standard a standard based on a common benchmark of skills and abilities required by a home inspector, not just OAHI’s, or ASHI’s or CAHPI’s. It is a blended model with a set standard. It is as simple as that. It’s voluntary, one can take it or opt out. No one is forcing any person to participate.
Quote: If this is the case how does one excutive continue to carry on misrepresenting the facts repeatedly and knowingly known to be false and misleading?
Lastly there is a huge problem signing the Application form along with the condition of practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE because ultimately practicing to CAHPI SOP/COE and discipline will be given to OAHI to act on. That again raises issues about freedom of association, and conflict of membership alligance. I have no definitive response. This is your allegation, of which I have no knowledge.
I am not sure about who you claim to be misrepresenting the facts repeatedly. I only respond to help dispel some of the misconceptions. As I stated earlier I do not have all the answers, or can claim I know everything about the work of other “authorities” or “councils” within the National Certification process.
I do know about posts that have made NACHI’s position clear to CAHPI about the National Initiative. Nick and NACHI has made it very clear to its members to not waste their money. .I have to agree until CAHPI tells us how and why and gives answers …Certainly and it is my understanding that there have been missed opportunities for NACHI to support and participate in different parts of this initiative…Come on you ask for support of What ? … It seems a bit presumptuous if not too one sided to assume .Not at all until CAHPI tells all they are completely responsible …that only one party is to.Typical blame the other guy for there own wrong doing… blame here. …It is like buying a home with out knowing where the home is how big it is what condition is is in .Can it be lived in. Is it big enough. Has it got termites . is it ready to fall down. Last I and others have excepted you and you thoughts and have discussed or feelings and ideas with you. You have said what you feel about us and I think this is great . Dialog is important. I do not think Mr Bill Mullen has ever been told to not post here and where possible I have posted much information for him here and would do it at any time . Good or bad If CAHPI wish information to get to the NACHI members you and I both know it would be done in its entirety. I reiterate I am ashamed with the lack of answers and Information given to the Canadian Home . I am also disappointed in the incorrect information that come out and . I again ,also say shame on CAHPI for not giving and continuing to supply the Canadian home Inspector with the information they should.
I would like to remind you and others I was a member of OAHI and PACHI, served on committees of both and saw how they are run and how much they did and do for their members.
I also saw there was no improvement comming. I chose to not renew my membership with OAHI do to the way they treat those who wish to join the home inspection Industry ’
I also saw how they and CAHPI wish to control the home inspection Industry.
I am one of the first Canadains to Join NACHI and have seen how much they have done for the home Inspection industry in the USA
I also see how much they have and are doing for the Home inspectors and the Industry in Canada.
I also see how when I have a question NACHI gives and answer very fast and does not Ignore ANY of my questions or ideas…
Roy Cooke … RHI… Royshomeinspection.com ,
</IMG></IMG></IMG>
</IMG></IMG></IMG>
So you are telling us that CAHPI/OAHI has a muzzle order? That confirms what we have said and suspected all along. Now you suggest published documents are not questionable and to seek a answer from the source. I would seek an answer formally, but alas as I have already told you and can prove OAHI does not answer questions, let alone dealing with complaints. I don’t see any difference with CAHPI approach either. Particularly in light that someone in CAHPI is able to exert a lot of weight and give orders. Seemingly you appear to be taking orders just as easily. You have a knack to skirt the questions by replying with questions. I don’t think you are free and independent enough to act diligently and free from influence.
Well that is not the way it comes across on the application. Surely others can see that, and it seems as more documents come out they are contradicting what we have been told. The fact one must subscribe to the CAHPI SOP/COE is in itself troubling, if you can’t see that then maybe you are outside of your sphere and legal knowledge, of course why would you change your tune when you have been told how to respond. No offence but I think you tow the party line no matter how wrong its going to be proved. Are you a free thinker? Did someone provide you with a script.
But you just got finnished saying all Assoc. SOP and COE are equal, that is contrary to what is written and what members are obligated to do. If they are all equal there would be no need to state one SOP/COE over the other would there? You are correct on one aspect its voluntary, but no one should be opting out because of questionable stipulations that seem to fly in the face of freedom of association particularly when we keep being told this is open to all regardless of affiliation. Again that is not what is being demonstrated. I am not opting out of anything, because I believe I am correct and have been able to demonstrate this is not a fair and open process. Just look at the facts to date.
- Minister Fontana states the National is open and inclusive
- CAHPI spokesperson making false statements, with regard to membership numbers (5,000). All inspectors will be certified even though its voluntary.
- 100 invitations sent to those interested in becoming certified. Only to find out it was a choose and pick the applicants.
- The fee is $100, send us your money then we will release the rules and obligations.
- Now a demand that other alligances which have just as much weight are being discredited.
- someone able to delete posts at will on a CAHPI message board by parties not liked by CAHPI. What else is in store by those able to exert influence?
- If you don’t like the entry requirments and demands opt out. Nice, when the hard questions start being asked it sure looks like there is an effort to back away. No one has seen any documentation on anything other then the skewed picture being presented. Something does not wash, something is amiss.
As to Oahi it is quite apparent from reports and statements in documents published by OAHI they will solely deal with National Cert. holders. Maybe you missed this info because it was published here on this board. That is not correct because only the association a member belongs to can carry out discipline. The proper protocol here is for National Cert. holders to be discipline by Nachi. Nothing more, nothing less, that is the spirit of the National Initiative or was, that seems to be no longer the case.
But Claude you are in a position to know. We see your name associated with the National, First Nations, OAHI and CAHPI. I am not in your position but I do know when things are highly suspect. If you admit that you don’t know then just maybe others could be right?
Well it is voluntary, but it would appear this was the intent to cull the applications based on membership alone. Its as if someone came up with the idea to introduce rules that appear to be discriminatory. Nick under the circumstances had every right to advise to stay out of the National, but it does not allow the National to act with a degree of bias, and exclusivity because someone did not cooperate. I think the application and its demands is saying the same thing. "Co-operate by inspecting to our standard or you are out. I think the message is clear enough.
Nachi does not have anything to lose, but rather it appears CAHPI and the National could have everything to lose considering what they are asking and demanding, and what others in CAHPI are on record as saying.
Thanks.
Maybe the way to deal with this is civil disobedience. By civil disobedience I mean for Nachi members to use the CAHP logo and state they are certified. If CAHPI does not want to hear real concerns and can’t provide the answers perhaps misuse of a designation is the answer. I don’t like to promote civil disobedience, but let CAHPI prove they have the enshrined rights they say they do. They should be able to provide legitamacy by providing by-laws, registrations, legislation to state they have sole jurisdiction from a higher authority. Sorry just cause CMHC and others say so, does not give it legitamacy.