PIC of State Rep and sponsor of new NACHI H.I. Bill in NH.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Greg,

Outstanding. And as such shows bias against a nationally recognized exam. That one requirement put every NACHI member who is not part of another proctored exam association out of business.
.

I am encouraged by your change of heart and desire to make this a matter of concern and reason for involvement by NACHI National. Keep going....

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Apparantly Bushart supports that.

My support goes to those wishing to refrain from handing control of their profession over to "Big Brother", period. Supporting any legislation, to me, is like going through my dirty clothes to find my cleanest dirty shirt...

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I am encouraged by your change of heart and desire to make this a matter of concern and reason for involvement by NACHI National. Keep going....

Change of heart?????? Please explain....

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Change of heart?????? Please explain....

In an earlier post on another thread, you stated that the one and only concern of NACHI was that a bill not be biased toward any particular association. You went on to explain that, while NACHI "frowns upon" language that would put an inspector out of business, that such things were an inevitability of any legislation...and that issues that would keep inspectors in business, such as "grandfathering" etc...was a matter for the inspectors in that state to address on their own. Not NACHI.

Your recent criticism of this bill, and how it concerns you that it might put NACHI members out of business, appears to me to be a change in that original position statement and I am encouraged by it.

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

In an earlier post on another thread, you stated that the one and only concern of NACHI was that a bill not be biased toward any particular association. You went on to explain that, while NACHI "frowns upon" language that would put an inspector out of business, that such things were an inevitability of any legislation...and that issues that would keep inspectors in business, such as "grandfathering" etc...was a matter for the inspectors in that state to address on their own. Not NACHI.

Your recent criticism of this bill, and how it concerns you that it might put NACHI members out of business, appears to me to be a change in that original position statement and I am encouraged by it.

So your interpretation of my statement is what is in question here. Putting some inspectors out of business (hopefully temporarily) is a fact when it comes to licensing. For example, the inspector that just hung his shingle out last month, has a very good chance of not meeting "grandfathering". Especially when "grandfathering" is based on bias towards an association or independent business offering exams. I feel (my opinion) sorry for the individual business man that just bought a $30,000 dollar franchise six months ago. This bill as written puts him out of business, because it requires 12 months in business before you can get a license. If you don't have the 12 months, now you must apprentice (insert ramping/mentoring fees -here), to qualify to operate your $30,000.00 franchise you just purchased.

And what in the hell is up with the E&O requirement for an apprentice. This bill is going to force anyone wanting to get into the trade to spend thousands of dollars for a simple license. The only intent of the bill is to restrict the trade.

Did you also notice that you must be a NH resident to get a license. Shoots reciprocity out the window.

This bill will also open up to the cut-throat inspections. A necessity to accomplish the minimum number of inspections needed to qualify for licensure. It in fact dispels the 100 inspection requirement by forcing everyone to operate a business for 12 months as an apprentice regardless of how many inspections you have performed. It reeks of bias towards new inspectors entering the business.

No doubt that the submission of this thread was meant as a joke. Look at the effective date. Jan 1st, 2007....It wouldn't even had been heard on the floor yet.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

So your interpretation of my statement is what is in question here. Putting some inspectors out of business (hopefully temporarily) is a fact when it comes to licensing.

I will not argue against this, because I personally feel that it is the intent of those pushing such legislation.

I will argue that NACHI National, as a matter of policy, should use all of its weight and influence to vigorously oppose any legislation that would put one of its dues paying members out of business. I was hoping that your expressed concern reflected a move in that direction. Apparently, I was mistaken.

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I will not argue against this, because I personally feel that it is the intent of those pushing such legislation.

I will argue that NACHI National, as a matter of policy, should use all of its weight and influence to vigorously oppose any legislation that would put one of its dues paying members out of business. I was hoping that your expressed concern reflected a move in that direction. Apparently, I was mistaken.

Are you still part of the Legislation committee. Has that committee devised or written up a draft NACHI policy? I remember sending both you and the Chairman some basic information for implementation. Whatever happened to that?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Are you still part of the Legislation committee. Has that committee devised or written up a draft NACHI policy? I remember sending both you and the Chairman some basic information for implementation. Whatever happened to that?

As far as I can tell, the Legislative Committee has ceased to exist. The last action I was involved in was my report to you regarding all states and their individual requirements that Aimee was to transcribe. That was last Fall. I see that it is not listed as an option for joining on the "volunteer page" of the profile section, either.

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I will not argue against this, because I personally feel that it is the intent of those pushing such legislation.

I will argue that NACHI National, as a matter of policy, should use all of its weight and influence to vigorously oppose any legislation that would put one of its dues paying members out of business. I was hoping that your expressed concern reflected a move in that direction. Apparently, I was mistaken.

Are you speaking about "working", "full", or "all" members. Each has it's own uniqueness.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Are you speaking about "working", "full", or "all" members. Each has it's own uniqueness.

I am a bit taken back by this question, John.

Why would NACHI National be any less concerned with protecting the livelihood of an active member who has 99 inspections than one with 102?

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I am a bit taken back by this question, John.

Why would NACHI National be any less concerned with protecting the livelihood of an active member who has 99 inspections than one with 102?

I guess I don't understand your original question. You may have to expand. Maybe you need to expand on it. Does NACHI care about its members? Why of course...Look at the membership benefits, education, legal advice and everything else that is offered to all members regardless of their affiliation status. All aimed at assisting you in operation/success of your individual business's.

I see you have alluded to 99 and 102. What are your thoughts on 1 or 2 compared to 99 or 102. Do you see the difference? I'm disappointed in your response. Your much better than that.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

I guess I don't understand your original question. You may have to expand. Maybe you need to expand on it. Does NACHI care about its members? Why of course...Look at the membership benefits, education, legal advice and everything else that is offered to all members regardless of their affiliation status. All aimed at assisting you in operation/success of your individual business's.

I see you have alluded to 99 and 102. What are your thoughts on 1 or 2 compared to 99 or 102. Do you see the difference? I'm disappointed in your response. Your much better than that.

As you said, NACHI makes no distinction between its members in any other benefit or service that it offers. Accordingly, NACHI should afford the same consideration in opposing legislation that would put any of them out of business, IMO.

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

As you said, NACHI makes no distinction between its members in any other benefit or service that it offers. Accordingly, NACHI should afford the same consideration in opposing legislation that would put any of them out of business, IMO.

Your opinion is noted. However, I don't remember NACHI National ever Opposing or Supporting any Legislation. Perhaps you can point me to one.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbowman

Your opinion is noted. However, I don't remember NACHI National ever Opposing or Supporting any Legislation. Perhaps you can point me to one.

Just "one"? Okay.

[John Bowman]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Just "one"? Okay.

No good. Try again. Your sample shows NACHI addressing part not the whole legislation.

NACHI National was definitely neither opposing or supporting legislation in your sample.