2009 PA Senate Bill 149 Home Inspection Licensure

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Looks like PA Senate is trying to pass another version of the home inspection licensure bill. I haven't read through it in it's entirety, but I see a couple of flaws in it already. Please read through it and let me know what major concerns you might have.

Thank you,

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...type=B&bn=0149

[William Thacker]

One of my biggest concerns is how are they going to fund this new government body and how much is a license going to cost.

Do I read that right...no e&o just general liability or does that seem like a typo?

Under consumer remedies, does that refer only to someone who is performing repairs on a home they inspected?

Is there a 2009 house version yet?

Thanks for the reading material Scott.

Bill

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Yet again, they are trying to push training in a board approved training program in order to become licensed. There is no mention in the Bill about how established inspectors with previous experience licensure options other than taking remedial training. I sure hope there is another stake holders meeting this time around because I am sure there are going to be some thoughts about how this Bill fails to allow established inspectors to maintain theor businesses without going through a course of study that hasn't even been established yet.

Hey Nick...How about an offer for the PA memebers to write their Congressmen explaining their disapproval for this Bill?

[Nick Gromicko]

Association membership again.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Association membership again.

Your friends at PHIC are bound and determined to have you provide proof of NACHI's fulfillment of the established criteria to the State, since you refused to provide it to them, it appears.

Once this happens...the license will replace PHIC in its role of verifying compliance, won't it?

[Nick Gromicko]

Yes, but we are opposed to mandatory InterNACHI membership regardless. We are a private trade association protected by the 1st Amendment, not an unpaid licensing department.

[Nick Gromicko]

The government is just trying to get InterNACHI to do its work for them.

[Gary L. Farnsworth, CMI]

Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Washington State, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Montana, who's next? Someone, or some enity has to be pushing these laws for their own benefit, and profit.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The government is just trying to get InterNACHI to do its work for them.

Might be a good strategy to leave it in and wait for the Governor to sign it. Worked in Kansas.

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Association membership requirements have been removed...You have to read the underlined sections starting on page 36. These are the proposed revisions...not the first pages of the Bill.

[Gary L. Farnsworth, CMI]

Wish we had something like that here. Kansas laws will be the strictest in the US, and will have the fewest inspectors. Go figure.

[Nick Gromicko]

Thanks Scott. I blew my top before I read the whole thing.

[Mark w. Fischer]

From reading it it seems that the 85,000 they are requesting will not be approved. It passed Senator Greenleaf's Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee but was then differed to the Appropriations committee. (Greenleaf is also a member of that.) I am not entirely sure how much pull he has on the appropriations committee but I know Senator Smucker (also on that committee) and they are dying to cut things out of the budget, I highly doubt that they will add to it. For those that don't know the PA budget projection puts us roughly 3 billion in debt, we can't borrow (like federal gov does) we have to be in the "black" so to speak. So that being said, the 85,000 allotted will probably not pass if I had to guess. To continue my ramble, the Republicans hold majority on the Committee (appropriations) and greenleaf is a Republican, however; they hold a slim majority in the senate right now and I doubt they want increased spending on their shoulders. Just my speculation and it would kind of screw me since I don't have 100 inspections yet. P.S how would they verify this? theoretically coulnd't inspectors just forge inspection reports? I don't know the oversight thus far seems kind of shotty.