New MICB department to audit CMI designees and new applications

The MICB announces the formation of its new Audit Department. The Audit Department will provide oversight with regard to all new CMI applications. Additionally, it is empowered to conduct random audits of any existing CMI designation holders.

Though it has no authority to revoke anyone’s CMI status, the Audit Department may issue opinions to MICB President John McKenna, as well as a newly formed MICB Audit Committee, with regard to any rejection of new applications, or possible sanctions/revocations to existing CMI designation holders who are out of compliance.

Not to be confused with peer review, the purpose of the Audit Department is to validate applications, to digitize them for future use, and to verify compliance with CMI designation standards.

Now that’s something I can see being a really good thing, and it goes a long way to respond to my mention about verification. The makeup of this Audit Department is also important. I would think it needs to be not only totally neutral and unbiased, it must appear to be so.

I look forward to seeing the names of this group, their background and their mandate, scope and authority.

If you need any help with details, etc., I can likely give you some based on experience.

Bill Mullen

Bill, can you volunteer for this MICB audit committee? I’m able to digitize all new applications and accompaning documents do that review can be done easily.


After the initial audit, the documents are digitized and available for committee members to look at. The audit department validates the information and makes the recommendation to John.

Only if action is recommended will a decision be handed to John and the Committee to make.

This is not peer review by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I’d lke to see audit committee members have absolutely NO inspection industry credentials or experience at all.

The purpose of an audit is to verify compliance based on a number of requirements and documents. It is a yes or no thing. Industry “experience” often brings baggage with it. We have seen it in the past.

Can some one tell us what ( MICB )stands for and who sits on this commitee.

Go to the site, Roy.

Master Inspector Certification Board

aka the Vendor Board. :wink:

For those who also might not know I went to google to get what Joe did not supply no idea who sits yet

Can some one tell us what ( MICB )stands for and who sits on this commitee.


Have you now chosen to ridicule your own CMI designation?

When people get this senile,you know their dirt nap is near.

James you do have a problem making sense some times Can you find a place where I have not supported NACHI or the CMI.
My only complaint at this time is the useless bunch who do not have the ability to use plain simple logic.
Instant stupid decisions that do not help this great association.

Can you show me one bit of good that removing a person who has given so much help over the years.
He made a post that ticked off the leader.
Others have done the same and nothing was done .
Does not sound fair and balanced decisions to me .

Just one little bit of good?

Your group lacks good old common sense.

You guys can not admit this should have been handled differently

You lack the ability to admit you goofed

Another empty wagon makes a post.

You’re right, Linus.

I think that “the long sleep” is near.

Just keep walking toward the light, Roy…go to the light…

Roy try this

As I said before logic is not one of the ESOP members seem to lack.
Being factious adds nothing to a discussion.
Thanks for trying James hope some day a person can have a discussion with you.

James, you’re being FACTIOUS. :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: A couple more days of this will surely do him in.
R.I.P. Cookie

But then…who will be here to “help” all of the people?

Ray’s buddy Brian. The other Mr Know-It-All.

I am always willing to help improve the industry. I would need to see what the job entails, and whether it would be free of interference from anyone. I will give it some thought tonight.

Joe mentioned that he thought non-inspectors should be the committee. I agree to a point. I like the idea of people who are knowledgeable about certification and accreditation being aboard, but you also need an inspector’s perspective. I would suggest a 50/50 split.

In the NCP, we have a Certification Council with eight seats, and three are non-inspectors and five are inspectors. Each application goes to three people, one of whom is a non-inspector.

Bill Mullen

Hey Bill thats a great idea, then you can stream MCI’s into OAHPI and then into the National, to get the numbers up. The only problem is Nicks reluctance to bite the bullet and seek equivalency, but that may weaken his overall scheme with CMI, … I guess time will tell, but I like what I am hearing.