While his (Rowan’s) silence, so far, has been his major contribution to the credibility of the CMI designation…Mike Rowan made up a position and appointed a fellow to it, supposedly to “enhance the prestige” of the designation (CMI).
When this person appointed to this brand new position refrains from any public aknowledgement of it, or participates in any way with the program itself, it is legitimate to ask “why?”.
Nick has promoted CMI… the new guy has not.
Nick has listed CMI next to all his signatures… the new guy has not.
Nick has communicated to all CMI’s… the new guy has not.
Nick promotes the CMI logo… the new guy has not.
Nick is a huge public fan of CMI… the new guy cannot be
compared to Nick at all… please think before you post.
I’m sure the new guy is a nice man, It just seems very strange
to watch his silence. Like Mr Bushart said, he may not
even know whats going on.
I love you Wendy, and I enjoy hearing the breeze blowing between
your ears…:mrgreen: This is humor… please love me.
The original question raised was in regard to the current ED not holding the CMI designation. His credientials were questioned at the beginning of this thread primarily on this basis (see how you titled this thread). Please think before you title threads and then attempt to recant what your original criticsm was.
Nick also does not hold the CMI designation as far as I can tell. This puts them on equal footing in that regard.
Nick took 5 years (perhaps longer depending on which post you read) to develop to the point where CMI was publicly proposed. It would only seem fair to allow the current ED some time to develop a track record in the position.
Okay…perhaps I am not fully understanding your point.
Are you really suggesting that the person who has been appointed to lead the CMI Program, the new Executive Director named by Rowan, should be allowed some time (you mentioned “5 years” as a number) to decide whether he wants to acknowledge his appointment or otherwise be associated with the program?
John was comparing accomplishments of the 2 EDs as if they both had an equivilent chance to demonstrate their capabilities. Nick has been at it for at lest 5 years. As far as I know the most recent appointee was named about 5 weeks ago (or thereabouts).
I know some are predisposed not to like the new ED based on his associations and affiliations. But it seems unfair to 1) criticize him for not being a CMI when Nick was not and 2) to compare his CMI related resume to Nick’s since he is only newly appointed.
It should also be noted that he does not bear any responsibility to post or acknowledge the NACHI site in order to perfrom his duties as they relate to CMI. CMI is entirely separate from NACHI and perhaps his lack of posts here is another step to reinforce the association-neutral aspect of CMI.
They need to put out some information some where. Even the CMI MB is quiet. it appears they are moving everything over to Mikes site http://www.masterinspector.net/ they have been updating some of it today.