We recently sent out an invitation to National Certificate Holders to volunteer to be on the NOS Review Focus Group. (NOS = National Occupational Standards) The selection committee will soon be deciding on the participants, but I invite anyone, whether you are a ‘Holder’ or not, to send me your name ASAP to email@example.com. Here’s the text of the invitation message:
Several years ago, as part of the National Initiative for Canadian Home Inspectors, the National Occupational Standards were created. The NOS were the culmination of hundreds of hours of hard work by many volunteers from all sectors of the Canadian Home Inspection industry including people within CAHI organizations and outside.
The NOS document defines the ‘basket’ of skills, knowledge and experience that competent home and property inspectors should have, and is the standard on which certification and accreditation are based.
As with many documents, the NOS needs to be reviewed on a regular basis and improved and updated to reflect industry and housing changes, and this review is about to begin. In order to provide the Canadian Home and Property Inspection industry with as much credibility as possible, the NOS review process will follow established standards for this type of work. CAHPI and its consultants intend to use the ‘DACUM’ approach as per Canadian Vocational Association guidelines.
CAHPI will hopefully be scheduling a DACUM session facilitated by its consultants in Ottawa sometime during the last two weeks in February, 2008. We will bring together 7 to 10 subject matter experts (experienced and respected home inspectors) from across Canada for two intense days of discussion. Following the DACUM session, a DRAFT Revised NOS will be widely distributed to Home and Property inspectors across Canada for validation in the form of a survey. The information gathered through the validation survey will be used to create the FINAL Revised NOS.
We need some volunteers who are willing to spend two long, arduous days with seven to ten of their peers. There is no financial compensation although reasonable expenses will be covered if pre-approved. (ie: Air fare, hotel, meals, etc.) Since the NOS is part of the National Initiative, the obvious group to help with the review would be those who are currently National Certificate Holders. However, no willing, experienced and knowledgeable practitioners will be disqualified automatically.
Indeed it will, George. You can’t be chosen if you don’t offer your name. The selections will not be made by members of CAHPI. The Management Consultants conducting the review will decide who participates and they want a broad cross-section of people from all areas and all philosophies.
I posted this to advise people it was happening, not to start some silly argument.
Bill, I have never said that you are stupid, no matter how tempted or how much corroborating evidence you supply. The quesiton is implied as in “How many ‘experienced and knowledgeable practitioners’ . . . . . ?”
"I guess I’m just not smart enough for you, George. I’m so dumb I can’t even see a question in that message of yours, let alone a legitimate one." You said it Bill. Not me. :roll:
Bill You have made about 600~ posts in your name on the NACHI site most have been pushing CAHPI and the National Certification . http://www.bluewaterhomeinspection.com/profile.htm
One of the stipulations of being a NACHI member is to have the InterNACHI Logo as big as other associations logo on your Web site .
I do not see this or a NACHI logo on your web site .
Do you feel you should follow the NACHI rules ?.
You most certainly have made use of our facilities to push your agenda.
You have and continue to insult fee paying members and our great association.
We have welcomed you into our home with open arms and allowed you Cart Blanch when you did not even post on your Canuk list that NACHI was giving a free booth to CAHPI and OAHI and allowing all CAHPI members to attend the NACHI Toronto conference at NACHI members rates.
Question’s for Bill
Do you think that you have treated NACHI and its members fairly ?
He may not have the Nachi logo, but I think Bill needs to remove the “What is a RHI?” None of the claims stated are verifiable now that OAHI has and is in breach of its own bylaws by the exmplary actions of the BOE/AR, DPPC, BOD, By-law Committee! :mrgreen: :shock:
If you look closely at my website you’ll see the information is more than two years old. I have a web guy redoing a brand new site but I haven’t had time to get the content gathered for him. If it was current, I would certainly have my National Certification mentioned but even that is missing.
Hopefully the new website will launch early in the New Year and it will be nothing like the old one. I’m sure it won’t please everyone, but it will be an improvement. BTW, Roy, I have discussed this situation with Lisa from NACHI and she has been very gracious.
As far as the RHI, some of the rules around it might not be valid, but nobody can deny it is an earned and verified credential, so I am proud to show it off. I earned it and even if the designation is somewhat tarnished it has value.
The BOE/AR is out of order and has put OAHI in a precarious legal position.
They can’t produce the new bylaws.
It has been documented that the BOE/AR and report verifier have knowingly breached the rules repeatedly at the expense of the members and have personally gained from their positions.
The $15K plus they spent on self insurance evaporated into thin air!
They have tried to defraud me of over $500 by attempting to con me into thinking the bylaws permitted blatant and negligent actions!
They removed a director with no thought to the impropriety of it all!
The Registry is not correct.
The records the President of OAHI told members were at Mr. Segals office was a falsification.
OAHI lied on its D&O liability policy.
Thats quite a record OAHI has and sorry to burst your bubble but how can anyone now safely and accurately say its verifiable when there has never been any outside independant review other than the review internally by people who have let their positions go to their heads and have had their fingers in the til for personal gain.
The minute I said I wanted to run for office at the 2008 AGM, all manner of roadblocks have been thrown up by Terry Carson, Andrew Bennett, and the rest of the zealots who have no chance of any legal standing in defending their reckless negligence. Imagine the President of AATO Andrew Bennett partaking what amounts to fraud! He is one smart cookie!
I hope the BOE/AR can swim backwards, they have unwittingly made RHI undefendable.
I don’t disagree with many of your assertions about OAHI. As you know I have been speaking out about them as well for many years.
As for the RHI designation, it must have some strength and value on its own because I don’t see anyone refusing to use it. If it’s valueless there’s not much sense fighting over it. Anyone who thinks it has no credibility can just remove it from their websites, etc., but nobody is doing that.
Thats because most of the members don’t have a clue whats going on.
We all know some got their RHI by paying under the table for favourable review and we know that some have been subjected to bylaws that don’t exist in their endeavours to play by the rules.
If I have been subjected to rules that don’t exist, who else has been conned? Its certainly appears that several liars on the BOE/AR have done just that, lied to others who weren’t as savvy as I and I’m not going to be conned or hoodwinked, or pushed around by liars.
No way will you ever convince me to remove it from my web site . RHI every one knows stands for [size=5]Roys Home Inspection[/size] .
Has been on my Cards like this and my advertising for years
Same reason I like others put on National Certification #170220404…
I can see why others would not remove it .
There is a small chance it just might get them one inspection so why would any one take that chance as poor as it is ever little bit helps.
I remember when I was with OAHI ,
I got one whole inspection from being a member of OAHI ,Great reward I have cherished it ever since.