Keith Swift and I are proposing a new Standards of Practice for the industry.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

This is all good discussion, but I must stand with the group that claims... "First do no harm" and "don't fix what is not broken". I was a member of FABI over the two years in which they meticulously rewrote and toughened up their SoP, they also expanded their scope adding sections for pools & spas and appliances, all good work.

In the end though none of it was adopted and they reverted back to the ASHI SoP because the new standard they came up with would provide greater liability for FABI inspectors and some would lose their E&O because their insurance providers were unwilling to cover the risk associated with the expanded SoP.

Whatever is decided we must go slow and not create more problems where non existed before.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Whatever is decided we must go slow and not create more problems where non existed before.

Yes.

As I suggested in an unscathing email to Keith last night, the SOP is a foundation that has many things resting upon it. E&O coverage, pre-inspection agreements, various report writing software programs, pending and approved state legislative measures, training school curriculum....just to name a few.

We need to approach any modifications in "baby steps" and we need to fully implement and weigh the impact of any modification before moving on to the next. Once we destroy the credibility of our SOP, there is no going back.

On a relevant side note:

Fear is a powerful motivator and, if you go to our Legal forum and read the lengthy thread called "HI Lawsuits" you will find it full of fear mongerers attempting to build a case for a need for their wares.

Do home inspectors get sued? Most certainly, and from some of the things I read and hear, not all of it is undeserved or frivolous. We do have people out there who probably don't belong there. The biggest multi-inspector firm in St. Louis grabs rookie "candidates" needing their 250 inspections for full membership in ther organization and pays them $40 an inspection to run through a six-page checklist with no pictures in less than 90 minutes per house.

Among lawsuits, there are probably some frivolous ones, as well. But so far, in a very, very long thread (referred to, above) not one person asked could answer the question "How many home inspectors were tried in a civil (not small claims) court in 2005, 2004 or any other year?"

Was it 10, nationally, or 5? or 25? Was it one?

Now...to bring this to immediate relevance...to Keith, or Nick or anyone else presenting this proposal of Keith's as a needed replacement of our existing SOP...I ask this question: How many NACHI members using the existing SOP were sued in a civil (not small claims) court in any of the last five years --- and lost their case because of any wording of the SOP?

Without this knowledge...and without knowing in what way the existing SOP was insufficient...how do we know how to change it to make it better?

[rwand1]

I to am with John Bowman.

This was an idea, put forth for discussion. An idea!

His ideas and suggestions were not hyped.

It appears that Keith has certainly taken his toys with him, hopefully he will reconsider. Someone who has done so much and given his time effortlessly.

I was pleased to have met Keith at the recent Toronto Conference. He is a gentleman, and true professional.

Keith has been insulted, and was only acting on advice from Nick.

His treatment has been anything but professional!

This is Keith's wife.

Keith works tirelessly for NACHI. In fact, he is on a plane right now flying across the country to attend a NACHI chapter meeting and help the members. I am shocked by the attacks he has received regarding these SOP's.
I believe when Nick posted this link he said: "It has not been adopted as NACHI's SOP of course, it just an idea we've been playing with."

Can anyone read? This whole document is just a thought, a first step! and it was presented to the membership openly on this message board so all members could look at it. I believe that Mr. Farsetta is not capable of constructive critisism, but I don't know why. What has Keith ever done, other than be helpful?
I see what Keith does every day, on the phone, and on the message board, giving advice and help to anyone who asks.

How very sad.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Keith has been insulted, and was only acting on advice from Nick.

You may have this backwards. Perhaps you should look into this a little more. According to Keith, he acted with "Nick's permission", not "Nick's advice".

[rwand1]

Jim stated...

The following is an excerpt from the cover letter from Keith that accompanied the copy of the SOP that was sent to me. The people that you credit seem to be missing in Keith's account of his writing of the document.

Quote:

...Then one day circumstances impelled me to look at our industry standards, and to my amazement I concluded that they were without substance, neither able to sensibly educate clients nor offer inspectors the protection they should. With Nick’s permission, I resolved to rewrite them and offer them to the membership for constructive criticism. They were written early in the morning, late at night, and at points in between, and I apologize in advance for their shortcomings. I have very little ego invested in this work, and would welcome constructive criticism

Jim I suggest you read between the lines and stop making a mountain out of a Mole hill.

Fear is a powerful motivator and, if you go to our Legal forum and read the lengthy thread called "HI Lawsuits" you will find it full of fear mongerers attempting to build a case for a need for their wares.

Yes I have noticed you practice your own brand of fear monegering. You are pretty good at it.

[rwand1]

Advice or permission? Now you are splitting hairs. Either way Nick was aware of what Keith was doing. Otherwise Keith would not have done what he did, because Nick would have advised against it.

Now isn't that easy to understand rather than trying to spin it into something its not?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Advice or permission? Now you are splitting hairs. Either way Nick was aware of what Keith was doing. Otherwise Keith would not have done what he did, because Nick would have advised against it.

Now isn't that easy to understand rather than trying to spin it into something its not?

You claimed that Keith was operating under Nick's "advice". Aside from your extraordinary ability to "read between the lines", there is nothing mentioned from Keith or Nick in that regard.

I see Nick being aware of Keith's rewriting the SOP to be considerably different than Nick's advising Keith on rewriting the SOP. I disagree with your attempt to push this off on Nick, based upon your unusual literary ability to read what is not there.

[rwand1]

James

I can comprehend what I read. Whether Keith asked for advice or not he spoke to Nick and they most likely discussed the issue at hand. Whether or not there was any advice, is not for you to speculate on. Only Nick and Keith know what was exchanged in that conversation. Regardless it is not a factor in what transpired.

There is no need to analyze every nuance of the issue, rather the outcome of an idea that was presented innocently, and in good faith.

[Joe Farsetta]

Ray,

Keith sent a cover letter to Nick on an SOP he was working on. Knowing Nick, and the fact that he has a thousand things on his mind at one time, he probably got excited and said "thanks, I'll post it".

Now, I have stated that I don't have a problem with folks discussing how if and why the SOP should be changed. I do have a problem with THIS particular cover letter and process.

As I have stated, let's move the discussion to members only, as it is a NACHI thing. The first thing to deside is if the SOP was so BAD that the whole thing needed a re-write, as is what Mr Swift decided.




Roy,

Chill out.




John B,

As to your comment regarding who contributed to the creation of the doc, it is clear from his own words it was Keith, and Keith alone. There were no we's, only I's.

It doesnt count to say that his interaction with folks over the years meant that those individuals crafted it, or had input into it.

You stated E&O carrier. Which one? I'd like to speak with them.

Which inspectors involved in litigation? Were they sued, and how would this SOP and the changes contained therein have protected them? I believe it would hurt them.




Mrs Swift,

I'll apologize in advance for this, for I believe you (and probably Keith), may get torqued over it. But, by including me in your post, you have begged a response. So, I'll respond...

First of all, you really know nothing about me, nor does your husband. You probably wouldnt know me if you struck me with your car. Since you DONT know me, and DONT know what relationship I have had with NACHI over the past 5 years, you are unqualified to judge anything I do, or do not do.

No distrespect intended, but your husband is a big boy. When he has a problem with me, he can tell me to my face.

His cover letter to Nick was absent of any true justification for the need for the changes and bulk re-write he proposed. Further, he failed to take into account that his opinion is not paramount or always correct. Adding verbiage from a copywritten product he owns the rights to into a document which is core to this association also carries some genuine concerns. Finally, he didnt tweek the doc, he trashed the old and replaced it with his own.

As to the aforementioned included verbiage, was the intention to give NACHI perpetual and irrevocable rights to those words, for free? Was there a reason for it? Did it mean that for any software competitor who chooses to include NACHI's SOP in their competing product must then pay PV for the rights to include those very words in that competiting product?

So, you see, there are legtimate concerns. Yet, my thoughts and opinions are met with snippy comments from one with an apparent thin skin.

You speak of my incapabilities. Sorry you feel that way. I am constantly looking out for the best interests of our members. Some would say that attending a meeting with the intention of hawking a product aint support: it's marketing. I have never accused Keith of doing that. Just dont fly how great it is in my face. Please.

Keith contributes to NACHI. His responsibility, however, rests squarely with you and his family. PV is the mechanism. I commend him for what he does. Nothing wrong with this. But, he needs to grow thicker skin.

[James H. Bushart]

Okay. You can comprehend what you read. Can you comprehend what you wrote?

Originally Posted by rwand

Keith has been insulted, and was only acting on advice from Nick.

That is what you said...not me.

To this, you respond...

Originally Posted by rwand

Whether or not there was any advice, is not for you to speculate on.

It seems you forgot that it was you, not me, speculating on whether or not Keith was acting under Nick's advice.

You are going to have to find a position and stick with it long enough for someone to "comprehend" it, Ray.

[rwand1]

Whatever James, you are correct, I didn't read what I wrote or what I said, and what you said.

You are still the one making statements that are nothing but your attempt to defeat someone you obviously have no use for.

[rwand1]

Nick would you care to jump in hear and set the record straight?

I don't want to speculate, and I am sure James shouldn't be speculating either.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rwand1

You are still the one making statements that are nothing but your attempt to defeat someone you obviously have no use for.

Your statement is unfair and has no basis in fact. What is "obvious" to you must come from something that you have read "between the lines" again, Ray. Cut it out.

[Joe Farsetta]

By the way...

Keith wrote this:

Then one day circumstances impelled me to look at our industry standards, and to my amazement I concluded that they were without substance, neither able to sensibly educate clients nor offer inspectors the protection they should.

Really.... And Keith decided this. For the entire industry. Across all associations. Across all the land.

Guys and Girls... REALLY read this and ask yourself if you actually believe these statements to be true.

The SOP is intended to lay out what gets inspected and what does not. It is not intended to educate the client beyond its written word and general purpose. They are typically short, and are absent of flowery words or babble.

Standards of practice are actually the combination of a statement of work (also reflected in the inspection agreement), and scope of work. They are referred to, and serve as the general guide as to how we conduct an inspection.

They are not glossaries. They do not contain narratives.

There is a reason for all of this. Ratified SOPs in licensed states help support my assertions.

As to any validity for these proposed bulk changes, I say to first justify any truth in the comments I highlighted in RED above. Use facts, not rhetoric. Show me where the "suggested" verbiage helps anyone, definitively...

[rwand1]

James get over yourself. You seem to like putting people on trial who don't meausre up to your illusional standards.

You cut it out, you have made a mockery of an idea and the discussion that should flow from it because you can't be subjective. You have to shove your opinion and your thinking down everyones throat.