After talking with Nick and some others, after the North Texas
Chapter meeting… it appears there is a general feeling that
the CMI requirements need to be adjusted.
The term “Master” needs to reflect experience, education and
ethics. Without one of these legs, the chair does not hold its own.
I think the 1000 point system that Nick mentioned last week
is a good idea, and so do others that I have heard from.
1000 points (education hours + number of inspections)…
with a min. of 100 in each.
If the inspectors are willing to meet a higher level then why
would anyone want to water down the CMI certification
with the idea that “no experience is required”. It just does not
make sense to me.
I like the idea of CMI and I can see that someday many inspectors
will seek to attain it… if it looks like something real and reflects true
excellence, achievment and professional standards.
I really like the 1,000 idea (I confess, in part because I like round numbers ). I really want to see it become a reality.
Here is the problem:
My friends and NACHI veteran inspectors Joe Burkeson and Greg Bell have done a lot of work on CMI with respect to providing constructive criticism of the program. For that I am grateful. But the problem with the criticism is that it revealed a flaw that I don’t see how to repair… that being that although we consider experience to be a qualification (I think we all do), we (the MICB) has no way to verify it. We asked Joe B. to come up with a method and he has yet to succeed. In fact, no one has successfully solved this technical problem (how does the board verify it).
Joe did come up with ways for us to verify the number of inspections an applicant performed, but that doesn’t solve the problem.
He has yet to proffer a way for us to verify that any of them were done correctly. The day he (or someone) does… we’ll adopt the 1,000 idea.
Remember, verifying that a report complies with SOP in this day and age (when every reporting form and software generates SOP compliant reports)… means nothing. Any association that awards Full member status to its Candidates for having incorrectly and poorly peformed a certain number of inspections with SOP compliant reports, these days, is a silly-a$s association. The MICB wants to remain serious.
Performing 1,000 inspections poorly is not a qualification and so not meaningful.
Performing 1,000 inspections correctly is a qualification, but not verifiable.
How do we add an experience requirement to CMI that is both meaningful and verifiable? This is the riddle. A riddle no one has solved so far.
One solution to the riddle would be for every CMI to be required (within the first year) to ride-a-long with another CMI and co-inspect a couple properties. It would be very helpful to both inspectors and would fulfill the requirement for both at the same time. The inspections could be for real fee-paying clients of one or the other, or mock inspections on their own homes. Anyone who has actually done live ride-a-longs with fellow inspectors knows that it is very educational for both inspectors.
This would be a verifiable and meaningful requirement.
We already have CMI’s advertising they were first in their area with the Cert and other CMI’s recommending that the requirements be made more stringent when the ink has barely dried on their Cert’s. Now you are proposing that these same people decide if the next guy in their geographic area is worthy?
Brian, It has nothing to do with “people deciding if another guy in their geographic area is worthy.”
I’ve done ride-a-longs many times. I’ve also done mock inspections with as many as a dozen inspectors at once. Everyone who has done these can vouch that they are one of the most meaningful forms of inspection education that exists… maybe the best.
Every veteran inspector I know who has ever done a group mock or even a ride-a-long with a fellow inspector has confessed to learning much.
I still have all the comments from the mocks John Bowman held, comments from very experienced inspectors who surprised themselves with how much they learned from other inspectors. A very “worthy” opportunity.
I challenge you to reveal to us anything, anything at all, that is better. You can’t. No classroom, online course, or home study course can compete.
Having completed a few of these would be a very meaningful and easily verifiable qualification to add to the requirements.
But Nick, meanwhile, you have seen fit to hand out lifetime CMI status to anyone with $175 and who isn’t a sex offender. Oh…and 150 hours of unverified (probably) education with no passing requirements.
Now, I’m sure that a few that have applied may be deserving of the title “master”, but I’m equally sure that many are not. For example, one of the three so far in my state appears to have been in business for about a year and doesn’t show up on the state’s Structural Pest Inspector list. That means, by law here, that he can’t mention any moisture or insect related problems. Great…“I may be a certified master inspector but I’m sorry, can’t report your totally rotted deck or plumbing leaks”.
As I see it, you have made CMI totally meaningless and, in some cases, downright deceptive to the public. I bolded the “lifetime” above because it appears that once you “qualify”, you could then continue being the worst inspector going and never turn another page in a text or code book. I see no mechanism to rescind the title.
With apologies to those who may actually be worthy, and to those whose intentions were good, but CMI , as now applied, smells like a marketing scheme designed to eventually line the pockets of CMI training vendors. The worst part is that it will forever be tainted by the lack of any appropriate requirements for the initial lifetime members. 1000 ponts, even if applied down the road, isn’t going to wash away that dirt.
I think you (and/or the others involved) have taken what might have been a good idea and made it suck!
That may just be my opinion, but I’ll make it heard if I see a bunch of rookies touting their Master designation close to me.
Ah, Richard… you live in a state that allows every sex offender to be a home inspector, and operate under no Code of Ethics, so long as they complete a grand total of zero hours of continuing education…
so I wouldn’t throw too many stones at a professional designation that requires abiding by the highest inspector COE ever written, a criminal background check, and 150 hours more education than your state requires.
Also, I wouldn’t throw too many stones at a set of requirements that is being increased by adding a verifiable and meaningful experience requirement to it without offering your solution for us to read.
It makes you look like you really don’t have a solution when you complain, while suspiciously neglecting to include your solution in your post. We understand the problem. If you really have the solution… let’s hear it. I’m all ears.
Joe, I don’t know if they’ve done any ride-a-longs. I imagine so. The applications are so amazing. Some with 8,000 and 10,000 inspections under their belts. All of them with more than 150 hours of CE.
Anyway, if you look back at Richard’s post or any post that is critical of CMI you will notice something in common with them all. None, not one, has offered a way to add an experience requirement to CMI that is both meaningful and verifiable.
Many have come up with ways for the board to verify the number of inspections performed but none have figured out a way for the board to verify that any of them were done right.
Richard’s post proves it is easy to scream about non-veterans being able to get in and achieve the designation solely through education, but much harder for Richard and others to tell us how to keep veterans (who have done many inspections poorly)… out.
Doing it wrong, over and over, is not experience that qualifies.
Ah Nick…not quite right. Many of our sex offenders are locked up. Besides which, I suspect you could become one the day after receiving the coveted “master” seal. How often are the background checks going to be done?
As for the “highest COE ever written”…I see no discenable difference between this one and most others, unless you are referring to…
*2b. The Certified Master Inspector® shall assist in disseminating and publicizing the benefits of hiring Certified Master Inspectors®. * 2c. The Certified Master Inspector® will not engage in any act or practice that could be deemed damaging, seditious or destructive to fellow Certified Master Inspectors®. 2d. The Certified Master Inspector® will dress professionally when acting in the capacity of his/her profession.
…which all seems a little self serving…but nicely dressed.
Fine…but you already have “lifetime” members with minimal experience. You offering refunds?
You are correct sir! I have no solution to **your **mess. I wasn’t aware that it was my problem!
Richard, you are incorrect about the COE. The CMI COE is much, much different and better than others. NAHI’s for instance permits inspectors to work to correct defects they discover on an inspection! Read: http://www.nachi.org/the_lady_doth_protest_too_much_methinks.htm A CMI may never work to correct defects he/she finds on the inspection. That is just one “discernable difference.”
You are incorrect about lifetime CMI’s. Certainly a violation of the COE or a new felony would rescind one’s CMI designation. The “lifetime” doesn’t guarantee your CMI status forever… read it again slower. It was referring to the annual dues. There are no annual dues. The fee is a one-time lifetime fee. And as for the third qualification, it is a point of logic that one cannot earn negative hours of continuing education. Once you have completed 150 hours of education in your lifetime you can never… even if you live to be 98 years old… ever get to a point where you’ve earned less than 150 hours in your lifetime. Just like once you’ve turned 30… you will never be younger than 30 in your lifetime, regardless of how long you live. You will be older than 30 for life.
As for CMI, it is currently and primarily an education earned professional designation. It is not messy at all. It is very clean. What is messy is when someone makes a post criticizing the education-based designation as not also having an experience requirement without telling us specifically what that requirement should be and how we should verify it. I agree with the 1,000 idea. It was my idea. The problem is that we all have tried to come up with a method to verify the number of correctly performed inspections an applicant has done, but have found no way to do it. If you’ve solved the riddle you yourself pose… let’s hear the answer. I’m all ears.
OK…I’m going to reluctantly grant you the NAHI thing, but I still don’t see any real difference between the CMI and ASHI or basic NACHI COEs. This, frankly is all besides the point anyway. Those of us with naturally good ethics don’t need a code to serve our clients best interest, and abiding by any COE does not make one a “Master”…and that’s where my real beef lies.
So, despite the fact that you felt that experience matters, and that it should be a requirement, you rushed out the designation without that requirement because it was “hard”?
Ok…you asked. Refund everyones money and ask that they remove all mention of CMI from their webites and any promotional material (good luck with that). Then, once you have a method in place of ensuring that “master” actually means something, you can start again. I don’t want to start you on an anti-ASHI rant, but don’t they have a system for their 250 inspection full membership requirements? I believe it involves a test and random report verification. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
Nick…I let my NACHI membership lapse for a number of reasons, but I did it quietly and I won’t bash NACHI because I know there are a lot of good people there (here). However…this CMI thing, which, during my time on the education comittee, I thought had merit if implemented correctly, is, in its current incarnation, just plain wrong and has my back hairs up. I’m in my fourth year, with hundreds of inspections under my belt, a good ITA education and, I’d guess, thousands of hours online researching that which I didn’t know. I consider myself a good, thorough and knowledgable inspector but…I ain’t no “master”.
The exact antonym of “master” may not be “trainee” or “apprentice” but the word does imply some, make that a lot of, experience. Issuing “master” with such easy requirement cheapens the word at best, and dupes the public at worst.
Good, we agree on scumbag NAHI’s lack of ethics being on the other end of the scale from CMI’s.
As for the other two points:
There was no rush, I’ve been working on CMI for many years. The Trademark alone took many years. Anyway, it is not that an experience requirement is “hard” that is the problem. I’m looking at the CMI applications that come in and the applicants are so experienced as to put you and I to shame. What is “hard” is having the board give credit for having experience at doing something wrong. It is not just hard to verify that one has done a certain number of inspections correctly… it is close to impossible, as your failure to reveal a solution to the riddle proves.
You are incorrect about ASHI. I was an ASHI member as was my brother. ASHI does not verify that any inspections were done properly. ASHI only verifies that a small sample of the reports (done by whomever) submitted by the applicant, conform to SOP… which in this day and age, where every reporting form and software package produces reports that ONLY meet SOP, isn’t saying much… that is not a qualification. I understand ASHI uses it, but I hate to burst their bubble… it means nothing. The board can’t give an applicant any credit for purchasing software that produces SOP compliant reports… they all do that.
A test (proctored or not) of any type does not solve the riddle as a test can be passed by someone with no experience. A test does not determine experience.
Back to the riddle… How does the board (or anyone for that matter) add “experience” to the requirements necessary to qualify for CMI (or any professional designation for that matter) and verify that experience?
Simply owning inspection software that generates SOP compliant reports does not prove that one has done any inspections properly (experience). All inspection software generates SOP compliant reports. Whipteedoo.
Simply passing a test does not prove that one has done any inspections properly (experience). Many people pass inspection exams without ever having done an inspection (especially in licensed states).
“Good, we agree on scumbag NAHI’s lack of ethics being on the other end of the scale from CMI’s.”
No we don’t…not when you put it that way. I granted you one item in their COE…not the ethical intent of the whole organization. Why do you always have to go over the top? Language like “scumbag” and “diploma mill” from you is one reason I felt I had to leave.
“There was no rush, I’ve been working on CMI for many years. The Trademark alone took many years.”
Yes, I know this is the baby you have always wanted. It’s a pity that after such a long conception, the delivery was premature.
The rest of your post is the expected, typical, distorted and re-hashed BS. I probably could have typed it for you. I know I can anticipate more of the same nonsense…so I’m done with this.
I am sorry to hear that you have left. We need people like yourself to help with turning NACHI into a true member driven assocation. I do understand how you feel. I agree with everything you have written.
I had high hopes when first reading the title of this thread. But it seems that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
Here you go again spinning things to suit your desire. Please tell me how you verify that the education given is of any value towards making an inspector better at his profession? I have been to many classes since entering this profession and I must say that some left much to be desired. I can think of two instructors that you promote who IMHO SUCK. So it seems that you want to use education as a standard with no way of verifying that it was done correctly. How do you know if the applicant gained any value from the course work submitted? But you don’t want to add experience because it may not have been correct. I just thought of another class where the instructor fell in the classification above so there is 32 hours of education that was useless but still would qualify me for CMI.
It is my belief that if someone can stay in business for 5 years they must be doing something right. I feel that that has more merit than how much unverifiable education someone has obtained.
The only reason I can see for not adding experience as a requirement is that it would reduce the pool of inspectors that could qualify for the program.
). I really want to see it become a reality.