NH meeting

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by prussell

I can't understand how a select few represent the hole organization in NH. I think it's time to get together and try to keep everyone on the same page. We need to be informed and organized.

Many reasons Those who seem to represent the whole industry are the most active and wish to help all.
Many others do not have the time or maybe not sure they know how or what to do .
Many others just do not want to be bothered.
Many others seldom or never read this Bulletin board.
There is always room for those who wish to help and have the time and ability.

My thoughts others may agree.
Roy Cooke Sr . Royshomeinspection.com

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by fcarrio

We have all the best knowledge and skills and details right here in our own state. After all, it is the N.H. home inspectors that will be most impacted by the bill.

Nick and Gerry

Do you agree? ...


--
Marcus Hutnick
SNH Home Inspections & Testing Services, LLC
603-571-0035
www.snhinspect.com

Marcus Hutnick you need to get new glasses your letter is impossible to read.

Roy Cooke sr.
..Marcus Hutnick you need to get new glasses your letter is impossible to read.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rcooke

Many others seldom or never read this Bulletin board.

Over 90% of our membership have never posted, God love 'em. Probably too busy doing home inspections and enjoying the fruits of their labors to participate in this "lonely hearts club".

At any rate, Roy, I will have to disagree with your equation. About a year ago, NACHI leadership published its position on state legislation and (IMO) should stick to it.

At every state level, with every law, you will have those home inspectors who are for it and those who are against it. NACHI National, who collects dues from and services those on both sides of the issue, should be independent of factions - entirely - and stand by its published position as to what it will and will not support.

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Over 90% of our membership have never posted, God love 'em. Probably too busy doing home inspections and enjoying the fruits of their labors to participate in this "lonely hearts club".

At any rate, Roy, I will have to disagree with your equation. About a year ago, NACHI leadership published its position on state legislation and (IMO) should stick to it.

At every state level, with every law, you will have those home inspectors who are for it and those who are against it. NACHI National, who collects dues from and services those on both sides of the issue, should be independent of factions - entirely - and stand by its published position as to what it will and will not support.

Post the whole thing for us Jim. If I remember correctly the one I posted began with the words....NACHI does not have a position.... Am I missing something now.

[Joe Farsetta]

NACHI does NOT have an official position relative to legislation, nor does it have an example of "model" legislation, as some other orgs have.

Why not?

The reason is clear. It's because one size does not fit all. We have always believed that the destiny of home nspectors in all states and Canada should be in the hands of those members directly affected by it.

Sure, from a national standpoint, we want to ensure that any association-specific language ideally be removed, and if it must stay that NACHI is included in it. We work hard to have states adopt a "more than one acceptable test for licensure" stance, or help them develop their own test, whenever possible. As to specifics, we are guided by state-members.

It is a sound policy, and is designed to allow members to steer their own boats. There are many of us who have helped along the way: myself, gerry B, John B, Nick, and others. I help wherever I am asked to.

[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."

When I was a member of the Legislative Committee (I am not certain as to whether or not this committee still exists), I was informed that this was NACHI's position regarding any proposed state licensing/registering law.

[James H. Bushart]

Knowing that there are members on both sides of every component of every proposed law, NACHI National (to support its total membership) must stick to general principles - not specifics. These (as I have posted) are those general principles - or at least "were".

[John Bowman]

Jim,

I'm not going to speak on behalf of Blaine, but I do not believe that he was posting that as an official response or policy. That was his personal opinion and stance.

The problem with this bb is that it does not give us the opportunity to remove the titles, etc. when we post either personal stances or official stances.

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Post the whole thing for us Jim. If I remember correctly the one I posted began with the words....NACHI does not have a position.... Am I missing something now.

Hi to all,

I am with John on this, NACHI's issue is that it does not currently have a policy and never has had. Many members have made statements about what they do or do not find acceptable, but that is all.

In fact I may be wrong but I thought that we had a legislative committee studying this very issue, if not we sure as heck need one and fast.

Statements like (and no offence intended to anyone who I am paraphrasing from memory) " we will not support any member being put of of business" are crass when we have acively supported legislation in multiple states that has effectively done just that.

Every City, County or State that has enacted legislation has mandated that new inspectors will be required to meet certain standards, and that those who wish to recieve grandfathered licenses must be able to prove both some form of compitence in the profession and also a previous history of performing the job.

To attempt to deny the above is like the Captain of the Titannic, thinking his ship couldn't be sunk.

What NACHI needs at this time is to frame a model of legislation that can (unlike others) be tailored to communities like Rural NH where most inspectors don't have the opportunity to do 100's of inspections per year.

That model needs to address (whether we like it or not)

• Educational standards
• Testing criteria
• Grandfathering provisions
• Continuing education
• Insurance issues

Sorry if this offends anyone, but suggesting that NACHI (or any other organisation) is bound to support those who have no training, no experience, and have little more than a hanging shingle, a wesite, and a step ladder is not realistic.

What is realistic is helping newer members meet attainable goals, to enable them to be quality inspectors in their home markets.

I will be very interested to see drafts of the bills being drawn by both Frank C and Harry Gale to see how they address these issues in NH.

Regards

Gerry

[gbeaumont]

Originally Posted by jbushart

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."

When I was a member of the Legislative Committee (I am not certain as to whether or not this committee still exists), I was informed that this was NACHI's position regarding any proposed state licensing/registering law.

James I generaly agree with Blaine statement as you have quoted, but it is missing a huge ammount of criteria in all areas.

Like yourself I am not aware of the current status of the legislation committee, I would hope that issues like the one facing our members could be addressed by the committee and come up with guidelines for states that wish to legislate our profession, that our members are able to support.

Regards

Gerry

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Jim,

I'm not going to speak on behalf of Blaine, but I do not believe that he was posting that as an official response or policy. That was his personal opinion and stance.

John,

As I mentioned in a previous post, this was given to the committee at that time as a NACHI position and was used as a guideline. It has been repeated in several other threads on this board.

If it is no longer NACHI's position, it is unfortunate, indeed.

I think you can expect this controversy to transcend the boundaries of New Hampshire if it is now NACHI's policy to involve itself by taking sides in local issues.

Again, both sides of a heated issue will often find their NACHI membership to be the only thing commonly held. You guys need to be staying away from factions, in my opinion, and supporting a general position.

If that position is no longer represented by what NACHI's president said it was in 2005, so be it. Tell us what the new position is...and stand by it, regardless of factions. Otherwise, we (as an association) can look forward to polarization and worse on a much wider scale...

[Blaine Wiley]

James, let me see if I can clarify here.

The position that we don't support legislation that has association bias, unreasonable requirements to enter the business, or that puts any current inspector out of business. It is really pretty simple.

The "put no one out of business" part is met in NH by the 3 year grandfathering to meet the requirements. I can't imagine any state would enact licensing, and then say that those in business will never have to meet the new requirements. Three years is a reasonable time for anyone to meet a licensing requirement.

Farsetta is correct when he writes that on size doesn't fit all, and each state needs to have the input. What works in NH or NY may or may not work in FL or MO. Therefore, we have no written national policy, but a baseline to work from.

The statement is basic, and as Gerry has said is not all encompassing, and is not meant to be.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gbeaumont

What NACHI needs at this time is to frame a model of legislation that can (unlike others) be tailored to communities like Rural NH where most inspectors don't have the opportunity to do 100's of inspections per year.

Gerry,

I agree with Joe that there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" legislative model. I do think that your point is valid and can be better served by a published position statement on what type of legislation NACHI will or will not support.

No member should ever be surprised to learn that his Executive Director, President, Founder or etcetera has just made a keynote speech at a meeting that, in effect, puts him on the street. Members should know where the association stands on these issues, generally, at all times.

Jim

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bwiley

The position that we don't support legislation that has association bias, unreasonable requirements to enter the business, or that puts any current inspector out of business. It is really pretty simple.

The "put no one out of business" part is met in NH by the 3 year grandfathering to meet the requirements.

I agree, Blaine. In a previous post, John stated that the association is not concerned with issues such as "grandfathering". Your position seems to state that we are.

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.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Gerry,

No member should ever be surprised to learn that his Executive Director, President, Founder or etcetera has just made a keynote speech at a meeting that, in effect, puts him on the street.

Where the heck did that come from?