NHIE Turn Down CMI Examinations!!!!


I am sorry for taking another tread here. I know a lot of the vocal members are still wondering about this exam but I will discuss very soon, as I am awaiting the final answers to questions and emails such as those listed below. Rest assured what I am working on, or at least doing the research on, will be brought to the board and peer review when I have my home work complete or as near as possible and the time is right. I know my words will be twisted every way by the same few, but at least an announcement with as much research and effort as possible I will feel much better.

As you can see one of my objectives was to organize a credible strategy, in the form of an examination for master inspectors wanting to take an educational route to full CMI, (will discuss tomorrow). I made contact with NHIE and discussed the plans in detail. When I spoke to Noel Zac initially about the concept she was very excited and emailed back with the same great excitement. She promised she would bring in front of the board for discussion. But what happened? Here is the first email –

“Mike, good to talk with you today. Please email me with your ideas for your “master” program.
I’ll bring it to the EBPHI board of directors for discussion.
Thanks, and happy holidays!

However, it is with great regret that I have to announce that NHIE have declined to proctor a CMI exam or even discuss it. I guess after research, reflection and most probably a lot of other things, it is not to be! Here is the response I got back for everyones benefit.

“Michael, the National Home Inspector Examination’s purpose (“brand”) is to provide credible, valid and reliable competency testing for use by government regulators in licensing home inspectors. Therefore, we must decline your request.

I am sure this is not Noel’s fault but what is a not for profit organization for, but to listen to its customers.

I asked for confirmation as to whether the topic was even brought to the EBPHI board for discussions on more than one occasion but don’t seem to be getting any result.

As a professional home inspector, almost past chapter ASHI president this is very disappointing and frustrating, that even the ASHI examination leaders are not interested in a quality mark or even entertain a discussion about it.

I will update you on other stuff tomorrow. The people I have spoken to over the telephone the last couple of weeks will be having a conference call this Thursday, at around 2pm. Make sure they are up to date on any issues to be discussed.

I have an infra red training class tomorrow so will be out of circulation for a lot of the day.

Many more battles to go!



Things are finally starting to look up.

Nick established standards for this program that still hold. This is one effort to change them that has failed. Hopefully, there will be more.


Since the CMI isn’t affiliated with NACHI any longer, why don’t you post your questions on the ASHI message board.

I would be interested in what they have to say also.

ASHI if it any thing like ASHI North… OAHI this could get you baned from their BB and possible charges laid.

Happened In Canada .


Really Roy…for a ASHI member posting a question to the members?

Maybe Mike isn’t a member, he has their logo’s on his website, I thought he might be.

Well maybe he could have one of his instructors post the questions there, their all members, maybe the members of ASHI would have some suggestions for Mike’s CMI guidelines.

Since it is supposed to be for everyone.

Oh I think he can post the question but he might get in trouble for telling us any of the replies he reads on the ASHI site . This is exactly what is happening with OAHI in Ontario. This is also leading a lot of the OAHI members to the NACHI site so they can get true unfiltered information.
Strange but true .


I don’t think he would get in any trouble, it’s a new association (I think), doesn’t hurt to ask the world what they think about the new association.

Or ask the questions on www.inspectionnews.com they have a lot of reader I believe. Or www.inspectorsjournal.com

Never hurts to see what other people than NACHI members think.

I doubt most the folks who visit those sites and post read this message board. If they do read it, none of them post here.

If this new association is for everyone, why does he keep asking all the questions here?

Doesn’t seem to be getting any where.

Michael has already been publishing that CMI’s have
passed a test such as the NHIE or FAHI. (which
is a false statement, but he refuses to admit it).

Since NHIE test is now not available, the only one left
is the Florida FAHI test.

No sense in changing the brochures though… are we
now suppose to travel to Florida and take the test there?

Minor detail… Thanks Michael.

Is this haste makes waste?

Slow down Michael… why not talk to the current
CMI board and it’s members like people are asking
you to do? You say you are concerned and want
to be fair…


Where is this brochure at?



Try here, if he hasn’t deleted it by now.:wink:

Go to:

Click on the link that says MASTER INSPECTOR NETWORK:

Look at page 32

Mr. Bowan pointed out that the description of NACHI is wrong.
Others have pointed out that the CMI description is a lie and
is not found on the CMI web site. No CMI member has been
approved by the NHIE or FAHI test. Now the NHIE test is not
even an option, but Michael has been publishing all this before
he even came on this forum to announce his search for
new ideas… hmmm.

Michael list ASHI inspectors first and does not state that candidates
of ASHI are sent out to do 250 inspections without ever being
tested or proved for anything. Then he list NACHI further down the
page with an incomplete and incorrect description, to ensure
that the top listing of ASHI looks best. Keep reading…

Look at page 36

Then Michael specifically instruct people to hire ASHI-FAHI
inspectors, and does not endorse NACHI at ALL on page

This is the Michael-Hoopy CMI brochure.

I think that is just an advertisement for his company, or maybe I’m looking at the wrong one, is it the one with the $2.50 price on it?

Nice brochure that’s for sure, must of took a long time to put it together.

Yep, that’s the one I looked at John.

I just glanced quickly, but it’s an advertisment for his company, or am I wrong?

Of course, but it is disguised as a booklet that promotes those CMI inspectors who pay a fee to be highlighted, while bashing NACHI and its members.

Read his condenscending description of NACHI, the false info about CMI requirements, and the neat little “What to ask your inspector” to be sure he belongs to either ASHI or FABI.

ACtually, it is still possible to require the NHIE of CMI’s it is just that the NHIE board does not wish to proctor a special CMI exam.

Also, in the interest of accuracy, the inaccuracies regarding NACHI’s description in Michael’s material were not correct. That is to say that Michael was correct in what he posted (according to what is on NACHI’s own web site) and the post attempting to “correct” Michael were in error.

Finally, James insists in promoting the fiction that Michael’s publication “bashes” NACHI. It does not. It lists the requirements to be a full member of NACHI. What Micahel’s publication is at fault for is not promoting NACHI equally as the other organizations.

John Bowman, NACHI Executive Director said:


This is an inaccurate statement for several reasons and needs to be readdressed. Most glaring was your use of “certrified inspector”. NACHI does not certify inspectors.

Just off the top of my head:

   *The National Association of Certified Home Inspectors, was 

formed in 1990 and is the largest trade association in the
world. Entrance requirements to be a certified member
with NACHI include a psycohmetric validated online
examination, completion of several mandatory core
subject courses and report review confirmation that
the inspector has completed 100 inspections in substantial
compliance with NACHI’s Standards of Practice. NACHI
also has an entry level working member program whereby
inspectors must have completed 4 mock inspections for
review purposes by NACHI peers before the new inspector
can undertake/complete his first fee paid inspection…


You need to read the difference between the proper definition
that Mr Bowman gives and the slanted and incomplete
definition that Michael presents of NACHI.

Michaels intentions are to promote ASHI-FAHI and to devalue
NACHI through omission and incomplete information in
his brochure.

The fact that a test can be given to CMI is not the problem.

The problem is the fact that Michael is stating as a matter
of fact that CMI’s are presently being approved by methods
that are untrue.

Since Michael printed false information and then got
denied the permission to get his plans approved, it
shows his disregard for playing by any rules but his own…

To publish things that are not true about CMI in his brochure,
Michael has revealed the type of nature he has.

I would not want him to run my business or be my

When his lips move, beware.

I read John Bowman’s version and it is a complete description, although I am not aware of who the validating authority on the psychometrically constructed NACHI test is. That info would be nice to have, if accurate.

Like I said in another post - if he wanted to belittle NACHI, would he credit them as the largest assocaition? Unlikely. He would omit it.

I think this is (at worst) a case of ASHi-promoting and certainly not NACHI bashing as some would have us believe.

Is the CMI description facutally inaccurate? Maybe, but your link took me to another thread, not the brochure. If it says they are tested, then it is inaccurate. I get the sense that this is a promotional piece and was drawn up with that purpose in mind, and perhaps not proofread for accuracy as you point out.

You attribute more sinister intentions to this than I am willing to assign.

I think if we get past the personalities, and association related in-fighting, we can have a useful discussion about building a bettter CMI program.


You amaze me. You have a great future in politics.

The link was to another thread because that is where Mr Bowmans
comments were.

You act like you have not even read what your talking about.
Yes is says CMI’s are tested… and it is a lie. The method
of testing is a stated lie also.

Michael even tried to get a national company to start the
testing and it was denied. Yet it is still being published anyway.

No wonder Michael did not even know what the CMI web
page said when he started these threads. He never
cared in the first place. He was already publishing his
version of lies before he got on this forum.

This is not a proof reading error. Please read things before
you comment on them.

I know that many people feel that a lie is all part of normal
business, but I don’t. That’s why I don’t mind calling it
wrong. Liars have a hard time saying that lies are a big deal.

Actually, he has an unsuccessful past in politics. But who cares.:wink: