Claude, thank you for posting Mr. Mullen’s letter to me. I will take this opportunity to respond below;
Dear Mr. Mullen
Thank you for your note posted on this bulletin board through the offices of N.A.C.H.I. member Claude Lawrenson. I understand your irritation at the comments I posted earlier but must point out that “where there is smoke there is fire” and certainly, judging by your ‘voice’ there is something going on behind the scenes.
I would like to point out to you several false statements and assumptions under which you are labouring;
You personally and the chief officers of your organization are on record as having made many derogatory statements about N.A.C.H.I and all members of this organization. I will not attempt to document them here, as others have a more complete catalogue of ‘your’ insulting, demeaning, and unacceptable words than I. Suffice it to say that these are not the actions of an organization that has been tasked with building a working relationship with ALL Home Inspection organizations in Canada. Reports from within your organizations offices indicate that this hatred of all things N.A.C.H.I. continues to this day and that, in fact, the statements I have referred to above are but the tip of the iceberg as confirmed by C.F.I.H.I. I trust that a record of these offerings has also been sent to the parties you mentioned.
C.A.P.H.I. was mandated to involve as many Home Inspectors in Canada as possible. What percentage of the oft quoted 5000 actually were contacted by your orgainization? 1% ? 5%? Without corroborating evidence as supplied by C.A.P.H.I. we will never be sure. However if a straw poll is acceptable it appears that a real number is somewhat less than even that modest 1%. this is not the sort of “inclusive” programme that was originally envisaged. Certainly with a budget of $2 - 8 million tax dollars every inspector could have and should have been involved.
You and the chief officers of your organization are constantly decrying N.A.C.H.I. as being nothing more than a privately owned AMERICAN organization. ( for your information being AMERICAN is not a sin in this county . . . yet) ‘You’ refuse to have anything to do with N.A.C.H.I members and claim that big bad old Nick put the skids to any kind of involvement by N.A.C.H.I. members in the National. Well sir, if ‘you’ had really wanted to include us ( N.A.C.H.I. members) in the programme ‘you’ would have made the effort to go over the head of Nick and appealed directly to Canadian Members of N.A.C.H.I. Like those who list all of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners as “Ditto Heads”, marching lock step, you have assumed the same of us. We are independent home inspectors capable of independent thought and actions. Unfortunately, because of the attitude of you and your organizaton the fleeting moment of cooperation may be past.
And that is your fault.
Statements of " Alll are welcome" and " This is an open and inclusive programme" do not constitute a real, honest and determined effort to involve anyone other than those already inside the stockade. The failure of C.A.P.H.I./OAHI to reach out to the members of Canada’s largest home inspection organization is a failure to live up to the mandate passed on to C.A.P.H.I./O.A.H.I. and will ultimately doom the programme from within.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that Nick put an end to the involvement of N.A.C.H.I. members and then say that you won’t talk to us because of Nick’s statements. The fact is that you never tried. Because you don’t want us. Never did.
I might add that being offered the chance to be governed by a group who have expressed their disdain and dislike for all N.A.C.H.I. members is both; more than a little uninviting and; not the same as being involved in the planning and forming of the national programme.
So, Mr. Mullen, if you were to ask for advice on how to heal this wound that you have created I would suggest that a genuine offer be extended to N.A.C.H.I. members to become involved in the process . That there are many concerns that have not been addressed is a given. That these concerns might have been addressed had a majority of Canadian Home Inspectors been involved is also a given. The blame for the fact that this consultation was not carried out as per the mandate given to C.A.P.H.I. lies squarely on the sholders of you and your organizations.
If you wanted to give a sign of a more open and inclusive programme to N.A.C.H.I. members, we would suggest that the list of inquisitors that have been appointed to vet applicants, should be abandoned and the people on that list sacked. Nobody in his right mind will subject themselves to the misitrations of these persons, particularly those appointed in Eastern Ontario. Their views on N.A.C.H.I. members are well known indeed and the fairness of any verrification process in which these people are involved is questionable at best and a joke at worst.
Although I do not expect that this or any other communications with you will make the slightest difference to your " stockade mentality". I do, none the less, hope that ‘you’ will recognize that you can reach out and build bridges anew with N.A.C.H.I. and its Canadian members. Whether or not this happens is entirely up to ‘you’.
The ball is in your court.
Thank you for your time, patience and efforts on behalf of all the inspectors you never contacted. We deserved better treatment at your hands.
Dominion Home Inspectors Inc.