The Master Inspector Certification Board which administers the *Certified Master Inspector professional designation is 100% association-biasless. *No association has any more advantage or mention than any other. In fact in #3 of the application http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org/cmi/app.html MICB lists, among 6 other association’s, CAHPI’s Standard of Practice as being one that is board approved. As MICB’s Executive Director, I can attest that CAHPI did not have to apply or fight to be treated fairly among the other associations.
Will the National Certification program treat NACHI and NACHI members similarly by approving our Code of Ethics, approving our Standards of Practice, removing the non-CAHPI member surcharge, and giving us fair representation, etc. without us having to apply or fight to be treated equally?
Can my questions be answered before my trip to Canada next week where I will be meeting with Canadian officials regarding licensing that NACHI is proposing?
CAHPI was created through the National Initiative and its primary mandate was to own and operate the National Certification Program. The National certification Program is now a CAHPI asset. In order that there was an opportunity to include people outside of CAHPI in discussions and even decisions after the program got off the ground, CAHPI created the National Certification Authority. This is the group that actually administers the certification program. Its members are rightly all CAHPI members because CAHPI is the only association that has submitted its requirements, standards, code of ethics, etc. for evaluation and acceptance. Other organizations, including NACHI, were invited in early 2006 to have their requirements, etc. evaluated through an equivalency process, but they declined.
Until it can be determined how any other program stacks up against the National program, (better or worse), the association that owns that program can not be given standing.
By cooperating, any association can help their own members.
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the National Certification Authority will eventually be made up of people who are National Certificate Holders. Next year half will be elected and the year after that, the other half. This makes it a democratic group that can and likely will have representation from other associations and perhaps even some unaffiliated inspectors.
The Code of Ethics is but one document that would be included when an association applies for Equivalency evaluation. It’s all part of the association package. Once again, that’s something you and I have discussed.
Now that everyone is bogged down with a number of tasks, the entire evaluation would likely take a few months.
A provincial affiliate is CAHPI Ontario or CAHPI Alberta. Here again, it’s a CAHPI asset, and so far CAHPI is the only asociation that has shown an interest in cooperating, so that could explain that wording.
Not quite. I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I believe there is a maximum number of credits you can get through association work, and it is small in comparison with the total.
"Can my questions be answered before my trip to Canada next week where I will be meeting with Canadian officials regarding licensing that NACHI is proposing?"
So Nick, just what “licensing” is NACHI proposing? Shouldn’t you have at least conferred with some members up here before making any such proposal to the CANADIAN government? If you are in fact making such a proposal to anyone without the courtesy of informing the Canadian membership beforehand you are acting in a manner that will only undermine membership numbers.
On the contrary. The National Certification Authority wants people to enter the profession, but their mandate is to ensure that people actually know what they are doing before they become National Certificate Holders.
We don’t apologize for trying to due diligence. People have to start somewhere, and if it means working as a Candidate, so be it. Hundreds of us did just that in the past.
Those requirements, by the way are for someone who has no building background or any previous experience. Other methods of evaluation are in place for experienced practitioners.
The NCA appointed five people to a National Accreditation Council. They include three very experienced inspectors, one Past President of the Canadian Real Estate Association, and Professor of Engineering from the University of Manitoba. All of these people have had extensive experience in accreditations in one way or another in their past.
Course providers provide their curriculum and course information, completing a very lengthy application form. Here again, during the Pilot Project we invited evry course provider we could find, including NACHI course providers.
George I do not think that is a fair comment. It’s an unfortunate character assassination before you have even see their CV. That generalization also can speak for itself.
How fair is that?
What about the part of “experienced in accreditation”? That should also be paramount skillset of one sitting on that council.
Could you define “building background” and what exactly that criteria involves? “Other methods of evaluation are in place for experienced practitioners”, this sounds a bit like grandfathering to me.
Claude, do you REALLY want realtors making decisions about our futures in the H.I. business? Know anything about ‘conflict of interest’?
Engineers build bridges, buildings, space shuttles and drive trains. We are doing visual inspections here Claude. It might make you feel better about yourself to have been judged worthy by an Engineer but that judgment is hardly necessary or applicable to a visual home inspection.
You titled your presentation for our convention “The Canadian National Certification Program - Everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask.” so I tried to throw everything I could at ya.