As I have stated before - I am not the spokesperson for the National Certification Authority (NCA). It is best to go to the source. Mike G., is not the NCA chair or committee person if you are looking for an official response. Even the Chief Examiner position is one of reporting to those higher up the chain of command, and following a set procedure, ultimately reporting to NCA. So its rather simplistic to imply that process and committee work is operating in a vacuum, or without knowledge of representation outside of the inspection realm. Its interesting to see the implication that those examining have circumvented the process - that is far from the fact.
I must commend those that are from outside stakeholders that have positively contributed and supported the work of the national initiative. They certainly are owed much more than just a thank you or unfair comments from those that are yet to be substantiated by facts.
In addition, those such as representatives within CMHC are well aware of the inner workings of the NCA, and the various related committees. So mere speculation is likely not holding a lot of weight, versus first hand oversight of whats going on a the committee level, regardless of the letter writing campaigns and tidbits of inuendo.
The answers will not and should not be expected through this forum or through NACHI itself. Remember it was Nick himself that posted that NACHI members should not support the project. That’s fine - it seems to sum up NACHI’s position. Interestingly enough, some NACHI members have chosen to go through a TIPR and have applied to become a national certificate holder. Certainly there are already a few members here that have decided to opt out for various reasons. That is truly their perogative.
Again, I would suggest going directly to the source if you expect a response. Past history has already proven that “official” responses are not likely going to surface here.