Proposed Resolution to the Rowan/CMI Debacle

After two weeks of debate on at least a dozen separate threads initiated by Mr. Rowan, I think that it is clear to most that there is a need for the CMI designation to be removed from the present chaos while a viable plan for its further marketing and implementation is being established.

I would like to propose that the position of “president” of the MICB be immediately dissolved, that all parties appointed by the president be nullified, and that the existing MICB Advisory Board appoint a three man committee…made up of CMIs who currently hold that designation…to recommend to the board the following:

  1. A definition of “CMI”
  2. A means by which “CMI” qualifications will be quantified.
  3. A means as to how CMIs will be marketed to the public.

The MICB Advisory Board will then decide appropriate action and make its decision known to the world…and NACHI members…at the same time.

Any thoughts?

Dam James did you get a promotion? Is it now Field Marshall Bushart?

nein. just proposing.:roll:

Trying to end the urinating olympics and get this going forward…

The only thing I see here about CMI is James just being James and two others who took advantage of becoming a CMI. It appears that they are concerned about the bar being raised and then losing the title.

Then you support the Rowan/ASHI/FABI agenda? I did not know that. Why didn’t you speak up on any of the other 39 threads. Rowan was looking for you.:smiley:

Maybe Greg is just like me wondering why you are saying so much about the CMI .
I looked and could not find your name there .
Why are you so concerned about the CMI could it be you are.
(A) jealous
(B) Just being a $hit disturber
(C) nothing else to do
(D) upset because you have not been asked to be on the Committee.
(E) just enjoying keeping the fire burning
(F) All of the above.

It looks to me this is your favorite at this time and next year you will find another subject to have a go at.
It looks to me like you have sure enjoyed trying to get some different direction going here.
Hope you have a great Christmas James and enjoy it . I will be Having mine with another James and I expect you will be here making some more posts on Christmas day or soon after. 5 days till x and 60 days till NASCAR



You forgot (G) The day ends with a Y.

James just because people do not agree with your constant moaning and negativity does mean that they support Micheal. Most NACHI members, me included think the man should be given a chance if it does not work out then there should be a change. Yes Micheal is with ASHI but that is the way Nick would like CMI to go, open to all inspectors in all orgs. That will not happen if the board is made up by just NACHI members. If that happens CMI will just be a second tier for NACHI members.
Like some others I am also wondering why Nick has not had anything to say on this matter


I try to ignore you, out of respect for your excitability, but please note the following:

I was actually invited by Mike Rowan, two weeks ago, to consider being on his peer review committee. I respectfully declined.

Although I presently meet the criteria to be a CMI, I personally feel that three years (actually less) as a home inspector…no matter what my education and experience may be…is not long enough to call myself a “master”. Thus, I have also declined the invitations to join CMI.

My interests, unlike yours, go beyond what is directly applicable to me, personally. I saw a group of people, led by Rowan, with a history of promises and commitments to harm NACHI - vying for control over this designation. I brought light to it. The more the light shined, the more poeple saw. That’s all.

Now, go back to watching television.:wink:

Have A great Christmas


Last year, you may recall, I was among those who argued heavily against CMI being a “tier” for NACHI members. I agree that it should encompass all in the industry.

What concerns me with the Rowan agenda are two things.

First, whether it is due to his own personal beliefs or just his limited number of trusted co-horts, his choices in CMI administrators did not exceed his anti-NACHI connections in FABI (Hoopy) or ASHI (Patterson). It is easy to see from the brochure (that he has since removed from his site) that his own impression of our association matched those of Hooper, Patterson and his other friends at

Second, is the false front of pretending to seek ideas from the message board while in fact, as long ago as 11/30, he had already begun implementing changes to the system without even getting Nick’s permission to do so. He had gone as far as to advertise these changes and was soliciting others (including NACHI members) to assist him in putting out this information ---- while pretending to be considering suggestions to the contrary that were being posted on the message board.

So…give Rowan a chance…to do what? Further an anti-NACHI agenda? Further the distribution of unauthorized and false information about the CMI designation? I do not agree.

But…what we know…we now know. It is no longer necessary to continue to beat Rowan over the head. We can see he is the wrong guy for the job. I am of the opinion that our efforts, now, can be best spent in discussing the post-Rowan era for CMI and see what can be done to make it a good thing.

I will…and you, too, Roy.

Hello James,

The fact that I am not a CMI should tell you what I support or don’t support. My statements above were just an observation about this after reading the threads for so long.

I agree with your thoughts on why you are not a CMI and applaud your choice of action in that regard.

If you are not a CMI, why would Michael ask you to be on a Peer Review Committee? Are you sure he wasn’t being humorous? You can’t review a group of people when you aren’t even their peer.

Also, you say Nick hasn’t given Michael permission to implement changes, however, you ignore Nick’s plea on this board for members to trust Michael, and give him a chance.

Kind of dichotomous isn’t it?

No one has convinced me that a Master should be any less than 5% of an industry.

No one has convinced me that the MICB’s current requirements can be fulfilled by any more than 5% or our industry.

Certified Master Insepctor, the home inspection industry’s top professional designation, continues to serve it’s designation holders well.

That is kind of what’s behind my thought in creating a thread to discuss - not so much the Rowan/FABI/ASHI weaknesses - but how to address the CMI designation in the future, after this mess has been cleaned up.

If anything good has come from this little dip into the lagoon, I think it has caused all of us to look at this designation from a variety of sides.

It is obvious that ASHI/FABI exclusionists covet this designation. We should ask ourselves “why?” and see what can be gained from it, IMO. Maybe…just maybe…there is a way in which this designation can be meaningful and attainable…without the creation of a competing association like the one Rowan tried to create.

If the people who have achieved CMI already were subject to scrutiny, not all would come out squeaky clean. Several here know of particular people who do not meet the criteria, yet have still signed the affidavit. Shouldn’t that be taken care of so that the designation will have more clout?

Also, do you support Michael in his current position and current actions?

I don’t think it’s competing. It’s co-existant.


No. Otherwise every organization that makes any change in membership requirements would have to throw out all its members and start all over. That would be stupid and nuts.

This is why we issued lifetime memberships to current designation holders… we may make another change to requirements… or another 20 changes in the future.

He would have to answer that, himself - although, he did not ask me to be on the committee, but asked me to consider being on the committee. At the time, I was of the opinion that he offered it to me to shut me up.

I didn’t say we should make everyone comply with the new requirements. I said shouldn’t the ones who signed under the initial requirements, be evaluated to be sure they are telling the truth?

If they aren’t, then they shouldn’t be allowed to hold the position.

And I think it’s great that you support that requirement can and will change in the future.