A proposal has been made to add two Canadian Representatives to the CMI board to make it an international certification board.
To do this the Certified Master Inspection board is going to be expanded to include Canadian Representatives. Nominations are now open for a Canadian representative from NACHI and a CAHPI Representative.
To sit on this board the member must be CMI certified, a Canadian resident, and a member in good standing of InterNACHI or CAHPI.
Where has this been okayed?
Never hear about it.
Proposal only. Vern didn’t say it was going to come to fruition.
Strange to me when the CMI Chair knows nothing of this .
Strange when the CMI members know nothing of this .
Is this is some ones way of testing the water .
Looks to me like he has put the cart ahead of the horse .
If some one thinks it is good isea then I feel a questions should be asked and information traded before even talking about a proposal.
… Cookie
Actually its not a bad idea, personally speaking of course. Not sure about CAHPI member being on the board, but would be supportive of that only if CAHPI has a Nachi member on the National board.
CAHPI is an association. The MCIB is a ‘certifying’ body. Since they are not the same thing, why would they swap reps? In fact, Nick has mentioned many times that the MCIB is not a NACHI entity. Therefore, why would membership on the MCIB be restricted to NACHI and perhaps CAHPI people when there are other organizations out there and thousands of non-affiliated inspectors?
Now the NCA is also a ‘certifying’ body and it has open elections next week, and one candidate is Brett Bernier who happens to be a NACHI member. Therefore, if the wish is to have someone from NACHI or anywhere on the NCA, people should try to get Brett elected. Only National Certificate Holders can run for the job and only they can vote. Maybe some of you know some NCH people who could be persuaded to vote for Brett.
Bill Mullen
Oh! they will have Bill is making sure he get Brett from BC on to NCA board .
He has posted it twice here.
Of course we all know the NCA is well run and complete non biased and fair.
They still refuse to answer a question I asked about a year ago about NC holders .
What % are CAHPI members
what % are NACHI member
What % do not belong to any Association .
Of Course they still have not posted true numbers of how many there are .
Of course they still have not posted the Members names .
Great way to show unsuccessful it is .
… Cookie
Bill they are the same thing. Both have been set up to do the same thing.
One has taxpayer money and CMHC.
One has members money, and no public money.
I fail to see if Bret runs for office his chances of election as there are only a handful of Nachi members not all in BC. So how many Nachi members will be able to vote for Bret and get him elected? Zilch!
Every member across Canada can vote, not only those in BC, and there are several NACHI members. Perhaps you folks would prefer that I not try to help Brett?
CAHPI and the MCIB are far from the same thing and I won’t get into that because we know where that will lead.
Bill Mullen
Bill
What are the chances of seeing the documentation/policy with regard to elections and how they are to be conducted?
Just can’t carry on a civil disussion, can you Roy?
It seems I’m even wrong when I try to help one of your fellow NACHI members.
That’s a big chip you’re carrying on your shoulder.
Bill Mullen
Bill
I can’t help Brett, I am not a Nat. Cert. Holder.
Also if there are only 12 Nachi members Cert and over 100 CAHPI members certified what chance does Brett have of winning. Zilch. Its only being done to give the appearance its all on the up and up.
I beg to differ CMI and NC are the same thing. The only difference is the way they are administered, the bylaws, and both are non profit corp. One requires peer review the other a affidavit. But the end result is more unlicenced, self regulating inspectors reporting to self regulating associatons.
Bill
I didn’t think Roys questions were anything but civil. Me thinks you read to much into posts and your sensitive nature gets the better of you.
They are logical questions and some documentation would be welcome. If you can’t post them, send the documents to me and I will post them. Like I have had to with all the other documents that you wouldn’t post even though they exist.
WOW! I make a true statement and Bill again goes into the attack mode.
Please Bill can you show me where I deserved for you to attack me .
It is you who says you give lots of answers and when the questions do not get answered for a year .
WHY do you continue to evade ?
Why do you come onto the NACHI site if you do not wish to give information?
What are you so afraid of the truth?
… Cookie
Strange that Brett is running but I haven’t seen him post asking for support, as a matter of fact I haven’t even seen a platform from him.
Just stating the obvious.
Roy:
Black.
Bill Mullen
Wow! Bill’s answer to my post ,I wonder with his spelling did he mean Blank.
… Cookie
WOW! I make a true statement and Bill again goes into the attack mode.
Please Bill can you show me where I deserved for you to attack me .
It is you who says you give lots of answers and when the questions do not get answered for a year .
WHY do you continue to evade ?
Why do you come onto the NACHI site if you do not wish to give information?
What are you so afraid of the truth?
… Cookie
As a disinterested third party looking in, Joe Farsetta and John McKenna, I would suggest that the toilet be flushed and that the endless circlejerk regarding who has the biggest “wand” in Canada be kept far, far away from the CMI designation.
As it is, you have Canadian CMIs. If home inspectors from other countries wished to qualify and use this designation, I see nothing in the rules that would prohibit them…or require that a member of their country sit on a board of some sort.
Bottom line: To incorporate this “urinating olympics” into the program would do nothing to enhance or promote the designation.
I think we should have our own CMI board in Canada.