NH meeting

[jbowman]

???????????

[William J. Decker]

Good one, John. Finally some sanity has been brought to the process.

Thanks;

[Nick Gromicko]

Nice work John.

[Russell Spriggs]

Sounds like a model for the other 49-
Great to have you present, Uncle John!!!

[Carla Horne]

We are making great strides! I am proud to be a NACHI member

Thanks John, I have a ready received thank you emails this morning

Carla

[Carla Horne]

ouch!

[wforsyth]

Yikes. (you okay Carla?)

[Joe Farsetta]

It has always been NACHIs position that the member representatives from states where legislation is an issue drive the boat. Any involvement from NACHI at a national level was only made after help was sought from member inspectors who asked for it. From what I've read in F Carrio's letter, there appears to be some disparity as to what involvement a national representative should have taken, or be taking.

When anyone states "get used to" something, I have to wonder why.

As Representative Gale's last attemt at licensing was squashed for obvious reasons, and as a direct result of the hard work of NACHI NH members, I need to ask if any of this latest meetng discussion was coordinated with those NACHI NH members directly involved before this. And why was this bill aparently resurrected? And by whom?

If not coordinated wth the blessings and involvement of those in this fight, then why not? And this involvement should have been more than simly being asked to attend a meeting.

There are multiple (two) NACHI chapters which exist in NH. There needs to be concensus as to WHAT is said, at what time, and to WHOM, before NACHI National representatives get involved. Of course, this is just my opinon. But, if the majority of rank and file NH NACHI members were opposed to this, then NACHI National should NOT have moved forward absent of their blessings.

That goes for Nick, John, me, or anyone else, for that matter...

Otherwise, we see letters similar to the one John posted from Frank, and I get multiple telephone calls from NACHI and ASHI members in NH and the rest of New England.

When we make statements like "a select few", the question goes to how many other inspectors do these few represent within their state. If they speak for the majority of NACHI NH members, then they are a far cry from "a select few". Chapters of different sizes cannot carry the same weight of vote. A chapter of two, for instance, cant drive the wishes of a chapter of 70... or have the same voice or voting power. It needs to be more like the house of representatives model rather than the senate.

I therefore request NH NACHI Chapter members to hammer out a concensus, game plan and strategy for moving forward. It is also my understanding that the former Gale bill was squashed after meetings with other NH legislative representatives, who have asked Frank Carrio to work with NACHI NH members and craft new legislation. It is my understanding that this process is nearly completed, and that we have several legislators in our corner. Mr Gale is not one of them. So my question goes to why any meetng took place when we have representation in the state house, and we are already engaged? NACHI National has NEVER acted without the knowledge and blessngs of those member inspector's involved. Tgis was true in Ky, NJ, Pa, NY, Fla, and so on. Why is NH suddenly different?

Was this meeting warranted or really productive for our members in NH? John, please work with Frank and his chapter membership. I believe its the right thing to do. Have them direct your involvement. If you are a hammer from National, let them swing you.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

NACHI National's concern in every state law is that they do not show bias towards any one or two associations or other participating Home Inspector Providor Business's. No individual business or association, etc. should be a part of a law. Subjects such as Grandfathering, and apprenticeships, etc. are of no concern to us, unless they show bias favorably towards any one of the above groups, including NACHI.

John,

Last Fall, it was also the stated position of NACHI National that no legislation will be supported by NACHI that would put any existing home inspector out of business.

Is this no longer the position of NACHI National? When and for what reason was this changed?

Grandfathering plays a very big part in that.

[Gerry Beaumont]

Originally Posted by jbushart

John,

Last Fall, it was also the stated position of NACHI National that no legislation will be supported by NACHI that would put any existing home inspector out of business.

Is this no longer the position of NACHI National? When and for what reason was this changed?

Grandfathering plays a very big part in that.

James, you may look to the New York legislation as supported by NACHI for your answer to that.

As to further discussion on the specifics on the current New Hampshire situation I believe that to get a full and "Frank" discussion of the issues we would need to move this thread to a members only area.

Regards

Gerry

[Joe Farsetta]

Gerry,

Here in NY, Dan Osborne and I were successful in squashing the NYSAHI bill, and in crafting the new and enacted legislation. There was absolutely NO involvement from NACHI at a national level. Any subsequent involvement came long after the fact and was a result of my not being able to attend a meeting in Albany. Big John went in my stead, which was fine, and later helped guide the folks in the DOS with regard to testing. He was a member of a committee (along with others) that could have input into the testing process.

NACHI National's involvement in NH is far different from its involvement in NY.

[Gerry Beaumont]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Gerry,

Here in NY, Dan Osborne and I were successful in squashing the NYSAHI bill, and in crafting the new and enacted legislation. There was absolutely NO involvement from NACHI at a national level. Any subsequent involvement came long after the fact and was a result of my not being able to attend a meeting in Albany. Big John went in my stead, which was fine, and later helped guide the folks in the DOS with regard to testing. He was a member of a committee (along with others) that could have input into the testing process.

NACHI National's involvement in NH is far different from its involvement in NY.

Joe, I was mearly answering James question as it pertains to NACHI's legislative policy. Passed legislation in NY, TN and KY attests to NACHI policy and that which our members have been happy to support.

Regards

Gerry

[James H. Bushart]

John,

Again, and for the record, when did NACHI National change its policy that it would not support any legislation that would put existing home inspectors out of business?

As you well know from many recent successful as well as failed attempts, legislation is a tool used by some to simply eliminate their competition and raise their prices - having nothing at all to do with consumer interest or protection.

Since the membership of this association covers the full spectrum of experience in this field, the association - very early on - took a strong position not to support any legislation that would put any of its members out of business.

When did this change, and why?

[Joe Farsetta]

Sorry, Gerry...

You are correct in that regard. The sole point I am trying to make n all this is that in the case here in NY, National's position was that they would get involved and support us in any way WE asked.

There seems to be some debate n that regard in NH.

[James H. Bushart]

8/19/05 Blaine Wiley, NACHI President, on this message board:

"Any enacted measure should not put anyone out of business who is presently in the field, should not have a bias toward any association, and should not keep new entrants out of the field via unreasonable requirements, such as mentoring. Ensuring that someone is qualified is fine."

8/6/06 John Bowman, Executive Director, in this thread:

"NACHI National's concern in every state law is that they do not show bias towards any one or two associations or other participating Home Inspector Providor Business's. No individual business or association, etc. should be a part of a law. Subjects such as Grandfathering, and apprenticeships, etc. are of no concern to us, unless they show bias favorably towards any one of the above groups, including NACHI. So get use to NACHI National being involved in State Licensing."

These statements of NACHI's position regarding legislation, made by its two top leaders, is inconsistent (at best).

Again...when did this change and who changed it?