First Fundamentals Course Available In Washington State

[James H. Bushart]

Some people just don't get it.

No offense to you or your school, Steve, for you are a NACHI member and an honorable man....but....the fallacy of licensing is that one can create a criteria of any kind, put a person through it, and they come out "equally qualified and competent" with a license to inspect the house of an unsuspecting person.

It cannot happen. There are people who are going to pass your course who have no business being a home inspector, and you are going to know that....and pass them anyway because they managed to get the letter grade.

You will profit from your hard work as all hard workers are allowed to do....but always remember that it was a law mandating your course...not the quality of it....that fills it, and that handing every one of your graduates a license is something that you are doing to...not for....the consumers of our services in Washington.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Some people just don't get it.

.

Licensing is inevitable, no matter what James Quixote says.

The public mood at the moment is pro govt oversite, it has been in all the papers.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Licensing is inevitable, no matter what James Quitoe says.

Death and taxes are also inevitable.

Why wait?

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Death and taxes are also inevitable.

Why wait?

Not my call, Michael, above my pay grade.

[James H. Bushart]

They keep telling us that in Missouri, year after year, as we keep swabbing the interior of their their colons with their own legislation.

Then there are the heroes in Georgia who were able to get their Governor to veto the bill approved by their legislature....and the law in Florida that dies on the vine for lack of funding....and the list continues to grow.

Real estate salesmen will sit on the Kansas board because too few Kansans objected to it out of fear of losing their referral base. For that, they deserve their fate. Fortunately for them, real men came to their rescue and reshaped the bill that they almost had thrust into them. Still, not too many before have been successful in taking a law signed by the Governor and having it sent back to the legislature to be totally rewritten and changed, as we did. The few who fought have very much to be proud of.

Nick Gromicko has not given me permission to share what he had done behind the scenes, but he was a tremendous help in taking some of the sting out of the Kansas Bill.

For the weak....licensing is inevitable and the weak should bend over, grab their ankles and squeal like pigs. The rest of us will continue to fight and, hopefully, continue to win.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Jim,

No sense in beating a dead horse. You can make all the arguments you want whether licensing is good or bad, or schools are good or bad. Moot points in this case. The law is in various stages of going into effect.

This years legislative session is done. There will be no more laws passed, no more changes made. And in the long run it wouldn't matter. In all the hearings held, there was no outright opposition to licensing. Sure there were portions of the law that were argued and debated ad nauseum but nobody spoke fully against licensing.

Brick and mortar schools will be hard pressed to open up new facilities and with state budget cutbacks, it is highly unlikely any of the existing voc techs or community colleges that receive state funding, will start a new program with such a small potential for growth. It just won't pay for itself.

It just so happens that Bellingham Technical College had a program already in existence for Home Inspection. It just had to make some additions and changes to meet the new requirements. For those that took the ITA classes in this state, I suggest you contact ITA and see if they can offer a 1 time, 1 week course that will fill in the blanks for all the items missed. They may consider it, they may not. But to limit your activity about this, to b1tching and complaining on this message board, will do nothing.

No sense in making picayune arguments about the school or instructors or the law. I didn't see any of those b1tching on this forum at any of the hearings. I haven't seen any of them at the last 4 or 5 Board meetings. There is nothing that is going to happen now or in the future that will void, cancel, overrule, or supercede this law. Not gonna happen. Finis.

So those that don't want to drive to Bellingham for their training, good luck. You have until July 1, 2010 to keep performing home inspections. After that you will need to find a new profession.

Best to all.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

Jim,

No sense in beating a dead horse. You can make all the arguments you want whether licensing is good or bad, or schools are good or bad. Moot points in this case. The law is in various stages of going into effect.

This years legislative session is done. There will be no more laws passed, no more changes made. And in the long run it wouldn't matter. In all the hearings held, there was no outright opposition to licensing. Sure there were portions of the law that were argued and debated ad nauseum but nobody spoke fully against licensing.

Brick and mortar schools will be hard pressed to open up new facilities and with state budget cutbacks, it is highly unlikely any of the existing voc techs or community colleges that receive state funding, will start a new program with such a small potential for growth. It just won't pay for itself.

It just so happens that Bellingham Technical College had a program already in existence for Home Inspection. It just had to make some additions and changes to meet the new requirements. For those that took the ITA classes in this state, I suggest you contact ITA and see if they can offer a 1 time, 1 week course that will fill in the blanks for all the items missed. They may consider it, they may not. But to limit your activity about this, to b1tching and complaining on this message board, will do nothing.

No sense in making picayune arguments about the school or instructors or the law. I didn't see any of those b1tching on this forum at any of the hearings. I haven't seen any of them at the last 4 or 5 Board meetings. There is nothing that is going to happen now or in the future that will void, cancel, overrule, or supercede this law. Not gonna happen. Finis.

So those that don't want to drive to Bellingham for their training, good luck. You have until July 1, 2010 to keep performing home inspections. After that you will need to find a new profession.

Best to all.

Good points, Stephan. All that is inevitable about licensing is the lamenting of those who let it happen....and the futility of "after-the-fact" objection.

The winners, for the short term and until there are enough schools flooding your state with newbies, are those who intended for this law to reduce their competition.

[Steven L. Smith]

Stephen,

I think that, as a board, we were all astounded how few people did come to complain about anything. From reading some message boards, one expected to be tarred and feathered. Yet almost nobody came. I know that you did once, thanks for the involvement. I appreciate your comments.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jbushart

They keep telling us that in Missouri, year after year, as we keep swabbing the interior of their their colons with their own legislation.

Then there are the heroes in Georgia who were able to get their Governor to veto the bill approved by their legislature....and the law in Florida that dies on the vine for lack of funding....and the list continues to grow.

Real estate salesmen will sit on the Kansas board because too few Kansans objected to it out of fear of losing their referral base. For that, they deserve their fate. Fortunately for them, real men came to their rescue and reshaped the bill that they almost had thrust into them. Still, not too many before have been successful in taking a law signed by the Governor and having it sent back to the legislature to be totally rewritten and changed, as we did. The few who fought have very much to be proud of.

Nick Gromicko has not given me permission to share what he had done behind the scenes, but he was a tremendous help in taking some of the sting out of the Kansas Bill.

For the weak....licensing is inevitable and the weak should bend over, grab their ankles and squeal like pigs. The rest of us will continue to fight and, hopefully, continue to win.

If you say so James.

I can't imagine having Nick's "Help" is all that helpful either. I believe he was run out of AZ on a rail.

And stop talking about ankle grabbing so much, it makes it sound like you have some sort of weird unfinished business from your days in the Service.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Good points, Stephan. All that is inevitable about licensing is the lamenting of those who let it happen....and the futility of "after-the-fact" objection.

The winners, for the short term and until there are enough schools flooding your state with newbies, are those who intended for this law to reduce their competition.

INACH floods in more newbies than all the HI Schools combined.

[Robert J. Wind]

Nick

We should offer training in WA for HI that meets state law. Hell; I can even find homes for them to inspect to meet the 40 hours.

[Steven C. Meyer]

Originally Posted by kpierce

All I can say is it's a bunch of BS and if the design, like James implies, is to push the newbies out of the field, then it's probably going to work out beautifully because I'll probably just focus on my other, much more profitable business than paying for this sh!t + gas and lodging. Bravo!



When there becomes a demand for a product, there are those business people who will fullfill it, most generaly at a profit to themselves. In business school, it's called free enterprise, see a need, fill that need, and bingo, a new business has been born!

Also, here's a question. Since creating a class is so difficult and unlikely to be implemented anywhere but BTC, what would've happened if Steve and others didn't take the initiative and make the necessary changes? The state would be left with no class.

Now you have brought up a great question!!!

IF, and that is a big IF, BTC. OWNES the course, as their own property as a cousre offering, there is no reason that they could not "share" that course content with other tech colleges.
After all, ALL the colleges are state supported, and what is offered at one college, can be offered at another. The colleges do exchange course content, etc. So, in theory, there is no reason that any other tech college would need to start from square one.

Being that this a "crertifaction" course, I will make the bet that the course and course content are privately owened, thus protected under copyright laws. Thus, BTC, is only the physical conduit by which this course is being offered.

BTW, If a commodity is mandated, and you are the only game in town to fulfill that mandate, you can charge just about anything you want. (In economic terms, it's called a mmonoply)

Of course, the economy of scale could at some point kick in, as it costs as much to offer a class for 1 and it does 100. So, in economic theory, as the classes become fuller, the price per student should drop. (the higher the demand of a product, if supply is not limited, leads to lower price).

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by ssmith

Stephen,

I think that, as a board, we were all astounded how few people did come to complain about anything. From reading some message boards, one expected to be tarred and feathered. Yet almost nobody came. I know that you did once, thanks for the involvement. I appreciate your comments.

I'm reminded by your statement of the newsreels from the '30s and '40s as you see one Nazi with a gun methodically shooting Jewish men in the back of the head as they line the open grave, waiting their turn.

[Steven C. Meyer]

Originally Posted by ssmith

Stephen,

I think that, as a board, we were all astounded how few people did come to complain about anything. From reading some message boards, one expected to be tarred and feathered. Yet almost nobody came. I know that you did once, thanks for the involvement. I appreciate your comments.

I would submit, that the messages on the boards, it is obvious you paid little attention to, and other than the satisfaction of tar and feathering, I doubt those voices would be heard and acted, so why wast the time.

I do not attend every city council meeting, how ever I do make my opinion know via letter and internet.

There was very lively "discussions" on many boards concerning this legislation, however, I note, the final legislation came out just as Mr. O'Handley and his minions desired. Therefore, decent was not considered, personal agendas was the highest priority.

Is there a sunset law on tar and feathering?????

[Steven L. Smith]

James,

I promise that we would not have done that to anyone who came to our meetings.