Sorry I will clarify Timothy. Ontarioachi.ca.
LOL. Good answer TJ. Yes on the coffee thing.
Roy, If you have proof of these types of cases, please forward them to me. I’ll be more than happy to present them to the panel at the MCS. Having actual proof carries a lot more weight than hearsay.
We can all go to the MCS and the Panel and say “we know of cases that show…” but to actually provide proof that this activity is going on will actually sway decisions.
What has OntarioACHI supposedly been nailed with Kevin?
I’m not only on the panel, but I’m also helping out getting accurate statistics across the landscape, and assisting in other areas where Government is having a not so positive impact on the Home Inspection profession and therefore I’m dealing with 3 “watchdogs” concurrently, so I’d love to hear you tell what you perceive the issue that OntarioACHI has been “nailed with” to be.
Oh! and the watchdogs I’m talking about are the MCS, the MOL and the FSCO.
Don’t even try Len!
You and your group have not come out unscathed for your actions and the so called Watchdog’s you are involved with are well aware.
Ontarioachi is but just one more Association to belong too and at this time you don’t even know how to listen. So what is your chances of success?
I am glad you have 3 Watchdogs on your tail because that is what you needed.
You need to listen first, act on what is requested, have the ability to act professional, display yourself as a professional and stop making any comments that show you have a short term memory, which I am pretty sure you do not have.
Kevin,
You continue to sling mud even after our agreement, and you have no idea in this instance what you are talking about.
We are working, together, with all the other panel members to create a consensus to take the profession forward to minimise the ongoing risks to the consumer, our clients. No-one is trying to “own” or “control” anything. It is only people who have outdated thought processes with regards their own particular importance or own concerns who seem to think this way.
Let those that have the interests of the other professionals in this industry get on with their work of trying to find a middle ground between what is needed for the clients (consumers) and what is needed for the profession.
Constant sniping from the sidelines with innuendos and false and misleading information about supposed “inside” information, which I have confirmed from the MCS you do not have, is derailing much of the good your panel member is doing on behalf of InterNACHI and what I am trying to do on behalf of OntarioACHI.
Either be part of the solution or shut-up until you’ve got something to say that is accurate, informative and constructive, and stop spitting your pacifier out, it must be half-way to Brazil by now!
I’m wondering why this uneducated, ignorant, fraudulent, deceiving, dumb person Kevin Wood always needs to have his worthless two cents in almost every thread on this board? Oh, yeah, I forgot, his title means nothing more than the number of his useless posts on the message board. Shame on you, Kevin! Shut up for your own good.
MCS needs to be asked the following.
-
Have insurers stepped up to the plate and provided claims data to the licencing panel? If not why not. That is the most accurate info, however over the years the answer from insurers has always been that they will not provide that info to anyone. How can anyone provide you info when all the anecdotal evidence suggests insurers are acting expediently and financially because it prudent to do so. We all know that and many of us have had it happen. Hearsay is the only evidence so please take it to the MCS. I am sure even the other panel members such as Claude can attest to it as he alway has.
-
Have any stats been put forward to the licencing panel as to litigation against home inspectors? If not why not. The MCS has said all along that they wish to protect the consumer. But overwhelming evidence suggest complaints against inspectors are very low.
-
Given the Liberals reckless abandon for respect of the taxpayers in Ontario with one fiasco after another how do we know they are acting in the best interests of all inspectors? What proof can you provide to this end?
-
Again why are corporate entities on the board? If you allow one large franchise on the panel why not other franchisors/businesses.
-
Once the recommendations are out for review by inspectors and the public what chance is there of making changes or deletions to the proposed licencing scheme?
-
Inspectors have not been asked for any input on what has thus far transpired.
-
Again you state here things said by others is not true, yet you provide no substance to anything you say has been done.
Worth repeating
Well so much for the high OACHI standards of ethics. Two standards as usual. One for the King and one for the rest. Have you read the COE of OACHI because its readily apparent you are in breach of same.
As to Insurance I suggest you take this to MCS. Its as relevant now as it was when it was conducted.
Thank you Leonard for clearing the air! I have not witnessed anyone trying to control or derail the process with the MCS.
I support your comments of the misconceptions most often based on false “opinions” that undermines the work and value of finding common ground to “constructively” move the sector forward.
Again - thanks and kudos!
Letter sent… Roy
Bingo!
Sent Len!!!
Claude this has nothing to do with MCS and I am well aware how this meeting is being conducted.
What I meant about unscathed goes back before the meetings of the so called Professionals.
Sent Yuri!
I would appreciate if some one would repost this as Yuri says he has me on his ignore list. a cut and paste would make sure it all included.
If Yuri does the proper thing then I will remove this post.
Yuri Looks ,like you a CMI has trouble following the SOP.
An apology would be a great idea ,This is an open forum where any one can read. the posts
Professional. ???
All CMIs abide by the inspection industry’s toughest Code of Ethics.
The Master Inspector Certification Board promotes a high standard of professionalism, business ethics and inspection procedures.
Certified Master Inspectors® subscribe to the following Code of Ethics in the course of their business:
1. Duty to the Public[FONT=Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]a. [/FONT]** . The Certified Master Inspector® will not engage in any practices that could be damaging to the public or that could bring discredit to the home inspection industry. **
2. Duty to the Profession and to Other [FONT=Cambria]Certified Master Inspectors®[/FONT]
a. The [FONT=Helvetica]Certified Master Inspector® will strive to improve the Inspection Industry by sharing his/her lessons and/or experiences for the benefit of all. [/FONT]
b.
c. The [FONT=Helvetica]Certified Master Inspector® shall assist in disseminating and publicizing the benefits of hiring Certified Master Inspectors®. [/FONT]
d. **The [FONT=Helvetica]Certified Master Inspector® will not engage in any act or practice that could be deemed damaging, seditious or destructive to fellow Certified Master Inspectors®. **[/FONT]
e. The [FONT=Helvetica]Certified Master Inspector® will dress professionally when acting in the capacity of his/her profession[/FONT]
I have passed along to Mr. Brazer at MCS your unwarranted, uncalled for comments to a fellow inspector.
Mr. Inkster it is clear you have two standards. One for yourself and one for others. Sanctimonious, self righteous. You sir are really a discredit to that which you aspire to be.
Set an example for once will ya!
Thanks Raymond. 
So the next logical question is who sits on the discipline/complaints committee at OACHI?