Expectations Vs. Reality

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Requested removal.

[Jay Schwartz]

Joe:

The Texas model scares the mess out of me. Here you have a universally mandated form, like the State of Florida mandates Termite Inspections.

The amount of inspectors increased. The businesses that exceeded these requirements were forced to compete with bare minimum inspection companies that are still working within the law.

If ASHI and FABI would stop proposing legislation in this State, then the trend would stop. I guarrantee if Crist becomes the next Gov., we will have a mandated insurance requirement. I would also guarantee that if the Home Builders or Realtors proposed a Bill, ASHI, FABI, NACHI would ban together to defeat it.

No licensing in this State due to the Sunshine law, however, regulation may be possible. Either way, we all lose something.

[Greg Bell]

Hi Jay

The coalition is being formed again to propose legislation in Florida. It is my understanding that NACHI will not have any input with this group. As Joe has stated above we need to draft a bill that can be used as an alternative to what the coalition is going to present.

Some of the things we would like to propose for the new bill now is no grandfather clause. Regulate inspectors based on education. If an existing inspector doesn't have the required education then he will have to get it. NO insurance requirement other than GL. What ever route we take we need a united front.

Just a few ideas we have on how to counter anything that FABI and ASHI come up with.

To be honest I don't think that FABI is going to be around much longer. They offer virtually nothing to the members and the powers that be are ok with that.

[Jay Schwartz]

Hey Greg:

I spoke with Joey Cabellero a couple of months ago regarding the coalition. We found some common ground. I am sure not having a GF clause would crush any Bill.

[James H. Bushart]

Once again, our eyes and attention turns to Florida...and our expectations remain high. Fight the good fight, guys.

[Greg Bell]

I will rephrase about the GF clause. We need one that is based on education and not number of years in the business or number of inspections.

[Jay Schwartz]

[quote=gbell]

We need one that is based on education and not number of years in the business or number of inspections.

Greg:

We are not talking about CMI are we? Number of years in the business, education, and number of inspections are all important components for GF.

[Greg Bell]

While you may consider them to be important they are not worthy of being in a GF clause. Just because someone has been in business for 3 years and performed 250 inspections doesn't mean that they were inspections performed correctly. Now if someone has had 60, 80 or 120 hours of training as a home inspector then we know they have at least had the basics.

[Greg Bell]

We will just have to see how it all shakes out. Personally I like the first HB315 minus the GF clause.

[Jay Schwartz]

Greg:

We can agree to disagree.

[Jay Schwartz]

HB315 had some good and some bad aspects. Finding the perfect bill is tough. I still stand behind the FAPHI model.

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

http://www.ashireporter.org/articles...les.aspx?id=27

"What happened in New Jersey can happen in any State."

#4 - New Players on the Field
The Realtors® have been in the game from the beginning, but there are new players who are now on the field. Some of these are organizations claiming to represent home inspectors. These groups, however, have different goals from ASHI.


The New Jersey experience included some of these new players, and, in the last biennium, a bill was introduced in California to allow home inspectors to perform repairs on properties they have inspected. The bill was defeated last session, but it has been introduced a second time. The bill passed unanimously in the California Assembly and now sits in a Senate committee. Bills like this are a direct assault on ASHI's Code of Ethics.




And be assured that the new players on the field are not here for a single season. Every ASHI chapter needs to be prepared to defeat legislative efforts to weaken highly rated laws that are based on ASHI's Standards and Code of Ethics. And the experience in California should illustrate that defeating these proposals once will not be enough. The ASHI membership must be as persistent as those who wish to dilute the standards.

_________________________________


NACHI demonstrated the Ability to effectuate Change in New Jersey.

Congratulations Phil Hinman.

[Greg Bell]

Hey Jay,

I will support what ever the majority of Florida NACHI Members choose. To be honest I would just as soon see no legislation after seeing the effects it has had in other areas.

My only problem with the other group you mentioned is if we are going to support something like that then why have anything at all. It is legislation with no requirements.

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Greg,

Legislation only serves to reduce the requirements to the Least Common Denominator and the establishment of a Measurable Minimal Requirement of Education thru Testing.

Legislation is about Dollars & Revenue. Fact.

If the Legislation is not self funding or promotes Budgetary Excess it will not Pass. Fact.

A Free Market System absent of Legislation is the way to go and best serves the Consumer.

ASHI's own Lobbyist now agrees with that position....

Promotion of Legislation where legislation is currently absent is counterproductive to the Interests of the Consumer as well as Business.

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

NO legislation has always been FAPHI's first choice. The position paper was a proposal in lieu of licensing. The primary goal of the position paper was to illustrate to people who admitted they do not know what we do, that licensing has never been the right choice and it is not the fix-all it is proported to be by the ones pushing it. It was a less painful alternative. This goes back to the same conundrum as before. Instead of fighting for zero legislation many in the business believe it is inevidable because we've been told so, so we may as well pick or make up one of our own. Like choosing between two ugly sisters to go out on a date when the obvious choice is neither.
It doesn't matter what any of us come up with there are going to be many inside the business that will be against it for one reason or the other. Remember, Florida is a Right to Work State. Without GFing, someone is going to be put out of work. Just like the raging debate over what, who, when, how and how much, what color and how deep regarding CMI that took place. Imagine the back and forth that will go on with licensing. There has been no public outcry for licensing HI. Where are all these disgruntled consumers? HI can not be double-minded on this issue. If it is not good for the HI, the consumer, the State than it should not be passed just so someone can say Florida has a new bill. All the negatives have to be cataloged and listed and people have to get involved, not rely on a handful of others to carry all the water.