I seriously doubt the CMI program is spending anywhere near the cost of a government security clearance. Or are you suggesting they do just that?
Naw can’t be as he has been given his Rocky & Bullwinkle decoder ring already. 
I have never seen it written that the Master Inspector Certification Board actually performs background checks. I’ve only seen it written that “All CMIs have agreed to submit to periodic criminal background checks.”
There is a big difference between a member consenting to a background check and the organization actually performing one.
Are you saying that the Master Inspector Certification Board has actually performed third party criminal background checks on all members?
On all CMIs. Yes. And it’s dang near free to do and finds sexual or violent convictions in under a minute. This is quite different than a full security clearance background check, but fine for our purposes as you can be a CMI with a criminal record, just not a violent one.
It’s the same criteria the State of Florida uses. If you stole a car when you were 20, you can get a license. If you stole that car by shooting the owner, you can’t.
Anyway, it’s easy for MICB to do it because they only get 2 or 3 apps a month. InterNACHI gets 1000+ a month: InterNACHI® - International Association of Certified Home Inspectors
If I’m reading this right if a CMI candidate has previously been convicted of theft, no problem, they’re “approved”. But if they’re a wife beater or shot someone they’re application is denied. If that’s true that makes no sense that the CMI Board has no problem with thieves walking around in stranger’s homes.
In the State of Texas we have background checks required for licensing. The Commission does have a list of offenses that are “considered” when a person applies for any TREC controlled license and these can be seen in Subsection 541.1 of the rules TREC Rules | TREC . However these are not “automatic disapproval” for a license. The Commission has reserved the right to review the person’s criminal history and decide if their current conditions warrant allowing a license to be issued. So theoretically the Commission could allow anyone in with just about any past criminal history. As a result the background checks are apparently used for no more than to let the Commission know if the individual is lying on their application for a license.
Even someone with a minor offense could be hiding a cauldron of hate and snap one day or revert to their past indiscretions if the opportunity arises. Ted Bundy had no recorded brushes with the law after his 18th Birthday and a couple of previous arrests (apparently never prosecuted) were expunged from his record which would not show in a background check. It wasn’t until he was finally caught for a murder that he confessed to at least 30 others. He snapped early and went undetected for many years as a serial killer. If he had not been caught or arrested/charged for anything his background check would have looked stellar!
Doing a background check is much better than not doing one. However they are not conclusive and even when past indiscretion are known the person may well be allowed to have that license, membership, etc.
Christopher, I argued your point many years ago and lost because it was reasonably counter-argued that if someone had a minor conviction for something non-violent that even state governments don’t punish that person forever and prevent them from advancing in their profession.
Government check is a third party check regardless of the department. They use contractors to run the checks and govt employees to issue a badge. If it was me it would be a pay to play system.
If you fail to meet these requirements do not apply. If you think you do then apply pay $200 for the background check. You will receive 30% back is you meet our standards.
I have had to pay for a background check to coach HS baseball. Every year it’s another fee. They allow no violent or sex crimes. Felonies are ok if 5 years have passed. It all depends on what you are trying to weed out I guess.
Shane confirms where most draw the line:
I agree. You can’t punish someone forever for a non-violent crime. More than half of the people convicted in the U.S. are there because of drug offenses (those same drugs are now legal in some of the states where they were convicted), theft trying to get drugs they are addicted to (drug addition is considered an illness), old crimes (that happened years ago), crimes they were actually not guilty of (don’t start a big Pro-Police thing over this statement, we all know the police lie to get convictions), or economic necessity (I’m a hard working guy but if my kids were going hungry I’d steal your TV in a NY minute).
Anyway, we have to draw the line somewhere and the MICB draws it where most government agencies do.