Some questions for Bill Mullen:


First, thank you so much for agreeing to answer questions.

Question #1:

In CAHPI’s National Certification Project, Questions and Answers under #12 it says that the reports in the Peer Review “must meet the requirements of the Standards of Practice and the Code of Ethics” Which Code of Ethics is this? Does the National Certification Project have their own?

Good question?
Perhaps they could be posted here so we can all review them.

Thanks for the opportunity.

The National Certification Project uses CAHPI’s SOP and Code of Ethics. The reason for this is that it is the only association that has submitted theirs for evaluation.
Other associations are welcome to have theirs evaluated as well, which could make it easier for the reviewers to check reports from those associations.

That’s all part of the ‘Equivalency’ evaluation that we have talked about, Nick.

Bill Mullen

Question #2:

As you know, one of the criticisms of this project is that it isn’t association-neutral but rather very much CAHPI. In CAHPI’s National Certification Project, Questions and Answers it says:

That (in #16) non CAHPI applicants will have an additional review to complete by the National Certification Council and that (in #19) the National Certification Council is appointed by the National Certification Authority and that (#18) the National Certification Authority is appointed by the CAHPI Board of Directors.

Although camouflaged, this is worse than a CAHPI bias, it is outright full CAHPI control. Will you personally support a change in writing which would require a couple NACHI/non-CAHPI members to be drawn from a list submitted by NACHI and appointed to both the Authority and Council ?

Back to my question #1:

You write

Now it is a simple task to compare CAHPI’s 1 page Code of Ethics to say NACHI’s or the MICB’s and see that CAHPI’s is much weaker to the detriment of the consumer.

For example, knowing that impartiality is what the consumer needs and expects the most out of an inspection, NACHI prohibits inspectors from doing repairs for a year after the inspection. MICB prohibits inspectors from doing repairs on the inspected home forever. Yet in #7 of CAHPIs Code of Ethics (the only Code adopted by the National Certification Program) permits an inspector to violate his duty of impartiality by only prohibiting certificate holders from using inspection work as a vehicle to “deliberately obtain work in another field.” Although camoflauged, CAHPI’s Code of Ethics permits certificate holders to violate their duty of impartiality and sell repair services provided that the inspection isn’t deliberately (in the mind of the certificate holder) being used as a vehicle to obtain the work.

You said that CAHPI is the only

I have the authority to submit the superior Code of Ethics found in the aforementioned links. Seeing that they are merely 1 page documents, how long will they take to get approved in your opinion?


Question #3:

It says in the National Certification Brochure that:

Which includes

What is a “provincial affiliate?”

Question #4:

I’m assuming that Examiners, Chief Examiners, National Accreditation Council members, National Certification Council members, National Certification Authority members, and CAHPI Board of Director members who provide “service to the National Certificate Body” won’t have to complete (or pay for) the mandatory 20 hours of continuing education from an approved school like the rest of us have to complete (and pay for) every year.

Am I reading this correctly?


Code of Ethics [CAHPI]

Bill you stated that the national certification was separate from CAHPI.

If that is the case why do all the independent and other association members have to go to the CAPHI web site to find out what is going on with the National program.
It is not that difficult or expensive to set up an independent web site that would have been association neutral.
I submit the National certification was never intended to be neutral. It is just lip service to garner government support for CAPHI’s hidden agenda.

Did the national Certification programmer try to find out what other Associations had for COE?
If so what other Association’s COE did they review?

Question #5:

As you know, one of the criticisms of the project is that it is designed to keep new inspectors from being able to enter the field, regardless of their qualifications.

In CAHPI’s National Certification Project Questions and Answers it clearly says (in #9) that

and that

And even goes on to brag about relocation services and other stakeholders using ONLY certificate holders by 2008.

Now in the brochure it says that even after a Candidate completes a minimum of 200 hours of training from an accredited (by whom it doesn’t say but that’s my next question) institution AND completes 50 hours of practical field training (approved by whom it doesn’t say but that’s my next question) AND passes all training course exams, and passes one test-inspection with peer review, and applies to CAHPI’s (I could have guessed) National Certifcation Council for a background review and passes two test inspections (at least three months apart) of houses with know defects AND has them reviewed by a peer… he/she still must…

Perform a minumum of 150 paid home and property inspections as a Candidate, using an inspection system that complies with CAHPI Standard of Practice (approved by someone?).

And just in case someone branded as a “Candidate” actually overcomes this derogatory label and somehow lands 150 paid inspections… he/she still can’t be a National Certificat Holder…

He/she has to wait as a Candidate for a YEAR!

My question is, how do you respond to criticism that this whole program is designed just to keep others from entering the profession?

Talking about COE here is ASET’s Code.

  1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, the protection of the environment and the promotion of health and safety within the workplace;

  2. Undertake and accept responsibility for professional assignments only when qualified by training and experience;

  3. Provide an opinion on a professional subject only when it is founded upon adequate knowledge and honest conviction;

  4. Act with integrity towards clients or employers, maintain confidentiality and avoid a conflict of interest but, where such conflict arises, fully disclose the circumstances without delay to the employer or client;

  5. Uphold the principle of appropriate and adequate compensation for the performance of their work;

  6. Keep informed to maintain proficiency and competence, to advance the body of knowledge within their discipline and further opportunities for the professional development of their associates;

  7. Conduct themselves with fairness, honesty, courtesy and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional comment;

  8. Present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences if professional decisions or judgments are overruled or disregarded;

  9. Report to the appropriate agencies any hazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by other members or others; and

  10. Promote public knowledge and appreciation of applied science, information and engineering technology and protect the Society from misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Refer to Guidelines for Interpretation of the Code of Ethics at](

Question #6:

Who accredits the providers of the 200 hours of training required?

Question #7:

Who approves the providers of the 50 hours of practical field training required?

Question #8:

Who performs the required background review?

Question #9:

Who determines if the “inspection systems” (I guess that means software or reporting forms) being used to peform the 150 inspections comply with CAHPI Standards of Practice as required. We’re not all going to be stuck using those outdated, stupid Carson Dunlop forms, are we?

Question #10:

How does one get Standards of Practices that are superior to CAHPIs approved, and does approval take long, and who approves it?

CAPHI requirement that inexperienced people do 250 inspections and get paid for then is a total violation of ASET’s #2 in my previous post #13.
Bill I draw you attention to ASET’s #3 in my previous post #13.

It’s a good code and is worth a serious look.

Question #11:

As you know, critics of this project accuse CAHPI of designing this program to economically force inspectors to join CAHPI by charging non-members ridiculously higher fees.

In CAHPI’s National Certification Project, Questions and Answers under #10 it says

Isn’t this an outright admission of the aforementioned accusation?