I suppose if you have an employee like Hooper working for you at Inspection Depot, and knowing his position and history, you put him on this committee, you could continue to “support and speak well”, no matter what your true agenda was. Right?
Besides, it’s bad business for any vendor to “go on the record” against a potential customer. You don’t go by what the vendor says…you go by what he does who he supports.
I don’t think Jeff was an employee, from what I know he was contracted to teach one course for Inspection Depot. Regardless, neither Michael or Inspection Depot should be held responsible for Jeff’s political views anymore then Nick or NACHI would be held accountable for your political views.
Hoopy’s photo and bio did appear (and still may, as far as I know) under “Faculty” on an Inspection Depot web page.
I agree with you, Joe…except when Mike, knowing of Hoopy’s position regarding NACHI and its members, wants to put him in a position of authority (peer review). Then he is, indeed, responsible for his selection and the views it would represent.
The fact that he would consider such a person is, to me, is a window into Mike’s real thinking and - as he put it - “outline plan” for CMI. The jig is up.
IMO, it is one thing to have a vendor as a member with full board access, etc. That is cool. We need them and can learn a lot from them.
Put a vendor in charge or otherwise in control of some aspect of the association and it is totally different ----and it is only reasonable to expect them to utilize that position to further the business they “vend”.
Hell, I’d do the same thing. So would anyone else.
I think it is time to take a hard look at this. Rowan lobbied Nick to throw me out of the association last year when I raised similar issues. I’m still here.
For clarification, there are NACHI members…long standing, contributing NACHI members…who later, after being members, become vendors. It is not of them that I speak.
I speak of the opportunists…those who are in business to sell wares to home inspectors and who become members in order to have direct access to a market of 9200+. They are the folks who, IMO, least deserve to be placed in positions where the marketing of their own product would or could interfere with the overall benefit of the member.
There is no conspiracy here whatsoever. We are working on some great programs in the New Year for NACHI, which will bring many more inspections to every member. Yes we will announce these soon also.
Right now, we really need to focus on who best represents NACHI for the CMI program.
I know there are some great contenders, Paul A., Jeff P. and many others. There are many others around the country also such as Larry Cerro, Scott Patterson that I know have spent hours seeking a higher designation. If every association is represented, this qualification will hold water and will be one to be reckoned with.
You maybe asking yourself “Do we need this designation?”. As inspectors we do need this designation today. Ten years ago the average fee was approximately $250 dollars. Today it is still not much more, but our liability, dept of inspection and cost of doing business have skyrocketed. What have we done, or rather not done? This designation is for the good of the inspector, who gets paid far less than he/she is worth for the liability he/she takes on and the credibility he/she brings to the table.
For inspectors to move with the times, we must move on. We need to mature with our industry. The need for this qualification ten years ago was non existent. We cannot say that today.
This designation will raise the bar, consumer awareness and every one involved will be able to charge more, which means that all the other inspector certifications will be able to charge more too.
As far as education and selling education, this is the furthest thing from my mind. I have volunteered for the better of our industry for years, just like many of these boards. As far as what education has and will be approved, this is what the peer review group is for.
Let’s move forward, three years have been wasted here. Change is scary, but the glass is half full here! In five years you will look back and ask yourself what the heck I was so worried about.
Those of you in the business of creating and marketing “credentials” may think so. I don’t blame you for wanting to make others think so, too. Lot’s of bucks in it.
The truth is, however, as NACHI has been illustrating for these “wasted three years” you are referring to — the need is for educated and trained inspectors who can do a good job (regardless of the initials that follow their names). That is the value of these “wasted three years”, Mike.
We have the highest annual CEU requirements in the industry and the most training available to HIs anywhere.