Astute observation - first I was “selected” half way into the NCA mandate. It is reasonably easy to say - my position expires at the close of the December NCA meeting and another member can be selected for the position of chair, and I am out the door.
My decision to run was based on a number of good reasons. But primarily it is based on my conviction to assure that the NCP -national certification program still needs a bit more work and some fine tuning in the “governance” area, as well as “representation” of inspectors, representing the national characteristics expected within all of the home inspection sector.
Personally, I will leave that to the lawyers to decide and get rich on!
Any organization providing false or misleading information can present a real dilemma. So with that stated - I am not an expert on the law or procedures of whether the “Bill” passed trumps the association by-laws or matters of which holds precedence. My belief was based on that one earns the designation, the same way that one earns the national certificate holder status, or CMI designation, etc. Perhaps I am wrong - but as I stated - I am not a legal expert on such an argument.
On the other side, National Certification is also about compliance along with common sense and agreement. Those that bend or break the rules can also be dealt with in due course. If policy or bylaws indicate that one can loose such a status, than perhaps that is the difference.
To me the “Bill” was about a named title/designation use in Ontario. It was not about the rules or procedures required to obtain that title.
I have information that suggests the OAHI BOE/AR are operating outside the bylaws and people are taking actions which are not supported by the bylaws.
I would file a complaint with OAHI DPPC but I know that committee is a reincarnate of the BOD and the BOE/AR and it won’t go anywhere. If members are arbitrarily being reviewed to a policy or standard that is not valid, there are very serious ramifications as you can well appreciate.
I also understand that OAHI through its board is peeved that Nachi members have been given the same opportunities as OAHI members to National Certification. It seems some can’t swallow that fact.
Some members of OAHI and some members on the Board feel that the National Certification Program should only be available to members of CAHPI associations, since they have invested a lot of time and money into it. This feeling does not exist only in Ontario. I have made many speeches and presentations across Canada over the past two years and that has been a sore point in all provinces
However, the NCP was created to give all Canadian Home Inspectors an equal opportunity to be tested and certified to a cross-Canada level of competence and ability. Claude and I have never waivered about this fact despite much loud opposition. Actually the derision and anger directed at us on the NACHI forum is child’s play compared with what we have endured elsewhere while trying to defend everyone’s rights.
The bottom line is that the provincial associations do not control the program. The NCA is in charge of it and through the many checks and balances that we insisted on during the Pilot Project, it must remain fair to all.
As far as OAHI and whether or not their RHI is valid or not, that has nothing to do with the NCP. If anything, the questions about the RHI enhance the value of the National Certificate designation in Ontario.
The fee structure is very fair when you consider the extra administrative work involved in processing someone who is not from an association that has signed an equivalency agreement with the NCA.
The opportunity for NACHI members to pay the same as CAHPI members is available and has been offered many times. Why should other applicants subsidize the additional costs incurred to process and test NACHI applicants?
If it costs XXX dollars to review, process, test and certify one person but
it costs XXX plus YYY dollars to do the same for a second person, why should they both pay the same?
Where will the extra money come from?
The secret is to reduce the work involved for the NCA by working together and getting an Equivalency agreement between the two associations.
I would love to see NACHI members pay the lower rates, but the costs are now much higher for their processing so more money is needed.
Here’s a scenario:
If I apply as a member of CAHPI Ontario, the NCA can merely contact CAHPI Ontario and verify that I have satisfied their requirements and they can confirm the courses that I have taken. CAHPI Ontario has signed an Equivalency Agreement that says they verify my credentials. The NCA has hired independent consultants who have verified the requirements for CAHPI Ontario because CAHPI Ontario applied for an Equivalency evaluation.
Processing my application is very simple for the NCA.
If you apply, there is no way for the NCA to easily verify any of your educational background or experience because you do not belong to a group which has successfully submitted their application for an Equivalency evaluation. If you send in a list of courses, etc., the NCA has to verify each one. The adminisitrative burden is enormous, therefore much more costly.
This type of equivalency is done all the time by educators. For instance, if the University of Toronto gets an application from a student at the University of Waterloo, they would refer to a previous equivalency agreement between the two universities so that U of T can be sure the courses the individual took at the U of W covered the requirements to get into U of T.
Someone has to bend on this and as long as the true costs are more, I don’t see how reductions are possible.
formal written completion of an equivalency agreement application by “said” association - just like all the others have had to complete for “independent” review by the management consultants
endorsement by the NCA of the management consultants report
Once again, both Bill and I are willing to support this; but we cannot force the powers to be to recognize the value it would provide even from a cost advantage and also from an administrative perspective to ALL Canadian InterNACHI members.
Bill’s points are right on target. Another case in point: The same thing applies at our college that I teach at - architectural technology graduates completing a 3 year program receive 2 years of university degree educational credits towards a degree for architecture at an (LTU) Lawrence Technical University right across the Windsor-Detroit border. This agreement did not happen over night. It took about a year and half of hard work.This was based on a formal agreement reached by faculty and administration heads with common goals and the foresight to see mutual benefits in education and recognition for hard working graduates. This was formalized in an “articulation agreement” recognizing such equivalency review of education and course content already completed by the college graduate as “equal”.
It’s sad to say and also extremely unfortunate that in Ontario our graduates get bestowed upon them - none, zero, zilch “credit” from a Ontario Architecture Program towards a degree. The choice for grads becomes really clear - we have on average 5 or 6 graduates go to LTU per year. The majority of these are recognized as outstanding even in the University setting. It simply Ontario’s loss and Michigan’s gain. Many graduate and go on to better higher paying careers on the U.S. side, and further stuidies for their Masters Degree.
Bottom line - communication starts with finding common ground and being open to sharing information to create such an “agreement”. This process is extremely common and takes place in a large part more often than people realize. “We” have provided a few examples. That offer was and still is open to InterNACHI, as well as other associations, having Canadian Home Inspection members. But the response to date by letter and here has not been receptive. That choice remains yours - but until we find that common ground - the fees represent the administrative cost differences already noted by Bill.
The same song continues to be sung by CAHPI.
We are not pleading for NACHI to go along with the NCA .
We are not trying to sell you any thing .
It is just to the advantage for the NACHI members to go along with it**.**
Sorry **It **will cost you more unless the NACHI Members go along with it .
Now if we could only find out the whole story about **it **.
All we get is Claude and Bill tell us it is great you will love it and we all will make more money with it .
Many years and we still no very little about it.
We know Roy is a LIAR and Bill always tells the truth ,Because thats what Bill keeps saying .
CAHPI just loves the ability to come onto the NACHI site and sing that same song Try **it **you will love it send in your money and we will love you at it.
I know that you and Claude care about this Industry. You have already reduced the fee for NACHI members or at least lobbied for a reduction. I just feel you should go all the way and make it (fee) the same across the board.