Jump to content

Shining a light


Recommended Posts

I wouldn't say it is a plug for ASHI. It is more of a plug for licensing in Utah. ASHI did not have anything to do with this. It came from a local group of inspectors, who happen to belong to ASHI, NAHI and AII.

I'm sure Nick will try to get that pulled, but this is on a site that he can't do much about. Kind of like those paparazzi photos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by a46geo

It was not meant to be such, but I can say that if I wanted to be a member of an organization of home inspectors, I would avoid any association with NACHI like poison ivy.

I would (and do) however have the opposite attitude toward ASHI.

The one and only time I ever talked to those folks was when I was trying to stop them from emailing me (posted here).

I was taken aback by the total lack of professionlism and school yard antics. Total ASHI bashing, quite unprovoked.

I'm proud to be ASHI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK fine,

But lets not make it about ASHI and NACHI. It is, after all, about entrance requirements that were too simplified, applications that apparently weren't checked and verified and a too-simple un-proctored entry test. That condemns the entry process, not the inspectors in the organization - many of whom we all know to be honorable and competent folks who obviously have a different take about belonging to NACHI than the rest of us.

I think it's more important to use this as an example to focus on how all of the associations, and the profession in general, is too easy to get into and none requires anyone to truly prove that he or she is fully competent to do the job before practicing in it, and all allow new inspectors with little or no prior experience to experiment/practice on customers' homes, unbeknown to their customers.

Personally, I have a rather controversial take on this topic. It's this:

I think that every single inspector in this profession, whether in the job a day or twenty years, whether a member of an association or not, should be required to submit to an on-site peer review done during an actual fee-paid inspection, in order to prove that he/she knows how to properly inspect a home and to see how that inspector interacts with the customers and subsequently reports his/her findings.

I think that every inspector should have the ability to write at a level that is at least as good as a 6th grader (12-year old by the way) and each should be required to have a high school diploma or at least be able to sit for, and pass, the GED (Which most 9th graders who are average students can pass if they have a mind to.).

Graduation from one of the inspector mills is all fine and good, but I don't think that an inspector should be considered competent based on his/her graduation from a course when he or she hasn't got any experience (Would you want a doctor that just finished med school and has been granted his MD, but hasn't got any experience, diagnosing or performing surgery on you without supervision?).

I don't think that the number of years an inspector has been in business, or the number of inspections he or she has done, or passage of the NHIE or an equivalent written test, is a marker of competency without an on site peer review for anyone. We've all seen reports written by folks who've been in the business for decades which were, to say the least, an embarrassment to the profession.

I don't believe that new inspectors should be allowed to experiment/practice on clients' homes unsupervised. For any inspector in any state to be allowed to do inspections unsupervised, I believe he or she should be required to first demonstrate that he or she is fully competent by taking the NHIE or an equivalent test, such as the NAHI CRI exam, plus undergo an on site peer review, during an actual fee-paid inspection, before he or she should be allowed to inspect any home unsupervised.

If any inspector fails to pass the initial written test or get a "Go" on the peer review, he or she should be considered unqualified and placed on probation and required to work under the supervision of an established and vetted inspector for a period of not less than 60 days, before he or she may again sit for the exam and submit to another peer review. No exceptions.

I don't think that any inspection organization should accept anyone for membership who hasn't completed at least a year in the profession, completed a minimum of 100 inspections, passed a tough test like the NHIE or the NAHI CRI exam, and then submitted to, and successfully received a "Go" on, an on-site peer evaluation.

Every single inspector should be required to complete continuing education, whether in an association or not, and I think that, once those initial requirements are met, that every single inspector should be required to re-take the written exam and re-submit to a peer evaluation every 5 years, to ensure that he or she is up-to-date on the latest information and methods in the profession and is applying that information appropriately.

I believe that these should be the standard for every state and every organization and that the organizations should make them uniform across the board and it should be illegal in every state to practice the profession without having met them.

And yes, under this standard, I do consider myself not properly vetted to do this work, and I'm a graduate of a 10-day 140-hour school, have extensive background in construction and investigations, and over the past ten years have completed somewhere around 3000 to 4000 inspections, without ever having been sued or needing to sit down to an arbitration table.

But, then again, this is only my opinion of what constitutes truly qualified] and just me being me.

Guess it's a good thing that I'm not King, huh? [:-king]

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'tis nice to be the king!

For what it is worth - I agree with Mike except for my attitude regarding peer review. I believe peer review is very regional in nature and has been abused.

Peer review, in it's present state, is very subjective and far too simplistic. There is not a body of knowledge that has stood the test of time to be used for "judgement".

Mike, Kurt and I have often opined about a traveling inspector roadshow and never figgered out a way to do it and pay expenses. Every inspector on this board, me included, could use a little constructive criticism and yet we are the most arrogant bunch of people out there.

I have been personally humbled, humiliated and embarrassed by my peers more than once. I have also been embarrassed and humiliated by idiots in this business that hold high office and position and really don't know crap about inspections and the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peer review is like nuclear power: It's wonderful in theory, but is fraught with problems in practice. When they used to do it (ASHI's peer review) in NE, it became extremely parochial and if one of the reviewers didn't like you, you wouldn't get approved no matter your qualifications.

I think it's possible, though difficult and expensives to make it work properly and relegate personalities to the background. If such a system were made viable, I submit it would be the single best test of an inspector.

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Morrison

..............but is fraught with problems in practice. When they used to do it (ASHI's peer review) in NE, it became extremely parochial and if one of the reviewers didn't like you, you wouldn't get approved no matter your qualifications.

Yes. I go to the conferences, & most of the speakers are embarassingly goofy, or arrogant fools, or misguided folks who want to be Bob Vila. Some of them are just plain dumb.

These are often the guys performing the peer review(s). I'd have to know who was the reviewer before I'd submit to the humiliation of that process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a good deal to me. Problem is, you'd have to come to Chicago & look @ the goofy stuff I look at & I'd have to come to Mt. Clemens & look @ your stuff.

Neither of us would know what we were looking at.

Then, there'd be the inevitable disagreement on how to best report the problems, w/the usual home inspectors that don't know how to write, being absolutely insulted when they are told they don't know how to write.

At the end of it all, someone would suggest I was an arrogant ---hole.

I'm still looking for the peer review team that I felt was competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...