MONTANA Legislation Update

[tclement]

James,
Why are you so complimentary of the work and the bill in New Hampshire, and we should walk away from it?
The Montana legislation SOP is a subset of NACHI, not a complete list but pretty comprehensive. The code of ehtics is the same and outlaws bribes to realtors and work on inspected houses. Requires CE. The only thing different than my NACHI membership is the NHIE. There may be a compromise to accept the NACHI certification test as an alternative.
This requires nothing more really than NACHI does.
Help me out on your thinking.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by tclement

James,
Why are you so complimentary of the work and the bill in New Hampshire, and we should walk away from it?

That is a good question, Thomas. I know that, at first glance, it seems contradictory of me to compliment the efforts of Frank Carrio in drafting a bill in NH while fighting bills everywhere else. Perhaps a little history would be in order.

In New Hampshire, a very beaurocratic state with over 300 legislators in their assembly, each one is looking to make a name for himself and every legislator is an opportunity for special interests.

In recent years, ASHI has been forcing their model for legislation and came close last year in getting their restrictive, real estate salesmen favored bill made law. Frank Carrio personally rallied the members of his chapter and they managed...at the eleventh hour...to defeat the measure. They killed the bill.

In the summer months of last year, an attempt was made to revive that bill. It was obvious that ASHI would come into the new legislative session with a renewed effort to push their agenda.

Now, mind you...there was no phony, pretend like "coalition" but an 80+ member chapter of NACHI members who participated in drafting and recruiting legislative support for a bill that would close the door on ASHI's efforts to control home inspections in New Hampshire as they presently do in neighboring states (Massachusetts, in particular). This chapter of NACHI members, working together with the leadership of their president (Frank), used the same system that ASHI had developed...to defeat them. Frank was asked by two legislators who had helped him defeat the ASHI bill to draft one. He, with help of his chapter, did as he was asked. the bill immediately picked up three sponsors in the legislature and appears to be on the track to become law...much to the consternation of the ASHI folks who started the whole thing.

Today, instead of leading another attack...ASHI is forced to put together a group of their members pretending to be a "coalition" representing all inspectors...to try to stop the New Hampshire NACHI chapter's momentum. Believe it or not, these people are pretending (this year) to espouse the position of "no bill". I love it. In the end, the NH inspectors will gain by either defeating ASHI with their alternative measure or...even if ASHI wins this fight...they win by taking the position that I favor...."no bill" at all.

In this isolated case...based upon the events that had transpired and the make-up of the legislature...these inspectors did what was best for them and their state.

If there is a similar history in Montana that you would like to share with us, it would be helpful.

[John Bowman]

Update received January 27th, 2007

To All Montana Home Inspectors and Our Friends ….


HB 393, dealing with the Registration and Regulation of Home Inspectors, had its first reading on Wednesday in the House Business and Labor committee.

Five persons testified at this hearing. The first was Teresa Henry, a legislator and the sponsor. Three of these folks were home inspectors. And one person was an employee of The Montana State Department of Labor and Industry

Teresa provided an overall picture of the bill and its major components. The three home inspectors provided background information about how the bill came into being and a presented information about the Ethics component, the Standards of Practice component, and, the issue of competency testing. The employee of The Montana State Department of Labor and Industry provided estimated costs to the state if this law were passed.

Numerous questions were put to these five persons. The committee adjourned without decision on the bill.

So here’s some more information …..

There was some confusion about the date this bill was to be read. A few words about that. I received a phone call at 2:30 PM Monday and was told that Thursday January 24 was the hearing date. I checked the state web site and confirmed this schedule. Then three hours later I sent an e-mail out to you all sharing this information.

No one on Monday seemed to pick up the error in this schedule. I did not either. My apologies. It should have been Thursday January 25. Or, Wednesday January 24. Early Tuesday morning, after the mistake was discovered at the committee level in Helena, it was posted on the state web site that the intended date was January 24. I was called and notified at mid morning. And sent out the correction by 11:00 AM. This was terribly short notice and caught all of us, including our sponsor, Teresa Henry, by surprise.

Now ….... let’s get to the important stuff! And maybe some clarification.

About E and O insurance. This was a difficult issue during the state wide meetings that were held in Bozeman last fall. At those meetings there was much discussion on how we would address insurance in the proposal. Because it was so challenging, and because at that point we believed that the Realtors would not support the bill if insurance was a requirement, our consensus decision was to place this issue on the agenda for the next legislative session two years from now.

Perhaps this was respectful of the fact that we had reached a consensus on many key issues. We had agreed on an Ethics proposal. We had agreed on a Standards of Practice. We had agreed on an “on going education” requirement. And we had agreed on a testing procedure that tied us all to one standard.

These main ingredients ment we could begin to cultivate higher levels of trust in our profession within the eyes of our clients and our Realtor friends.

But we had also decided to put several important issues on the back burner for now. We just didn’t have time to deal with everything within the time set aside for these meetings. There were four items purposefully set aside. E and O insurance went to the top of the list. “Grandfathering”, training, and “police-ing” followed.

(And there is an irony here. On three separate occasions over the past two years, we had been told by “significant” Realtors high up in The Montana Association of Realtors that E and O insurance would not, repeat not, have the support of the Realtor community. However this past week, after the hearing, we were told by a significant Realtor high up in the system that this was likely not so! That, in fact, most Realtors wanted to see E and O coverage within the home inspector community. Go figure ….. life marches on.)

Another issue hanging out was the cost of doing this thing. What was it going to cost me as an inspector to be in this “registration” system with the state each year. We had some rough numbers worked out with the Labor and Industry people but the best we could do was compare what we wanted with other professional groups who have already done this process.

At the hearing this past week, a presentation was made by a staff member from the Department of Labor and Industry. Because we have been so detailed in our Standards and Ethics proposal, it now appears that their work will be minimal. And this translates into dollars. For an individual inspector to sign up with the state it will likely be less than $50 per year.

And if a complaint is registered against an inspector by a client, the Department has a very tight paradigm within the proposed legislation, to pursue these concerns. And that cost is also included within the $50.

So …… what do we need from you all now?

The main piece here is to contact the members of the House Business and Labor Committee. They need to hear your concerns. If you like the Ethics, Standards, education, and testing pieces, tell them. And tell them what you don’t like. If insurance is an issue for you be sure and let them know. Then …..

Ask them to pass this bill forward through the committee so that it can be discussed on the House floor. We cannot, and the committee cannot, add addendums to the bill at this point. But that can be done on the floor of the House. We could add the insurance piece there if we all decide that that’s the way to proceed.

I have listed the committee members below. Simply cut and paste their addresses into the address box in your e-mail program.

SMENDENHALL@INEVA.COM <SMENDENHALL@INEVA.COM>mmilburn@mcn.net <mmilburn@mcn.net>; emarntzen@excite.com <emarntzen@excite.com>; slboggio@aol.com <slboggio@aol.com>; dutton4mt@hotmail.com <dutton4mt@hotmail.com>; kevin.fury@gmail.com <kevin.fury@gmail.com>; rheinert@lclink.com <rheinert@lclink.com>; lcjones@3rivers.net <lcjones@3rivers.net>; klock@mtintouch.net <klock@mtintouch.net>; michelereinhart@gmail.com <michelereinhart@gmail.com>; wstahl@nemontel.net <wstahl@nemontel.net>; wthomas@bresnan.net <wthomas@bresnan.net>; danvillaformontana@hotmail.com <danvillaformontana@hotmail.com>; windyboy_j@yahoo.com <windyboy_j@yahoo.com>; tkh@tkhenry.com <tkh@tkhenry.com>

And if you have questions please call me. There are a dozen guys working on this stuff and I can get you to someone who can help with your questions or help with the definitions necessary for you to understand this proposal. Franchise issues, testing, costs, education requirements, when this all goes into effect ….. we are here to facilitate communication amongst home inspectors.

But we can’t help you unless if you reach our and ask when you have concerns.

MAREI has never had a political agenda except those created by its membership. Our goal from the beginning has only been to facilitate good communication amongst home inspectors throughout Montana. That’s what it will take to make good decisions and a good law.


Regards,

Steve Jacoby
Montana Association of Real Estate Inspectors
406.582.4975

steve@pristineinspections.com

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

The one thing I would fear is the NHIE influence which as we all know goes back to ASHI influence no matter what they say. NAHI now has a physometrically validated test for state licensure and I'll bet NACHI can too. That helps keep any one groups influence to a minimum.

[Joe Farsetta]

NAHI now has a physometrically validated test for state licensure and I'll bet NACHI can too. That helps keep any one groups influence to a minimum.


I agree with this statement. If NHIE is at the core of every piece of ASHI legislation, and the only non-subjective reasoning behind the validity of this test is that it is supposedly psychometrically validated, then we should probably do the same.

[John Bowman]

NACHI adopts improved entrance exam

June 2nd, 2004
The National Association of Certified Home Inspectors has adopted a new and improved entrance examination. The new (5th) version is the result of the work of many industry experts combined with the enormous amount of data collected from previous versions over the years NACHI tracked the pass/fail rate of all 2,837,520 answers given to date. The stats page was reset on June 2nd, 2004. Among the many improvements made are:

• Removal of all humor (Note: humor did not affect scoring in previous versions).
• Removal of all "gimmies" (Note: gimmies did not affect scoring in previous versions).
• Removal of all references to NACHI (it now has no association bias).
• Removal of a default chosen answer. The exam now requires you to make a choice, even if a guess, before moving on to the next question (Note: default answers did not affect scoring in previous versions).
• Addition of questions referencing recent changes in the industry (such as arc-fault circuit interrupters).
• Addition of more questions dealing with occupant safety (part of our risk reduction efforts).
• Lowering of weight given to questions dealing with subjects outside our Standards of Practice (such as mold)
• Better weighting of questions based on importance (other exams count every question and every answer equally).
• Addition of extra security and recovery improvements for proctored versions (used by Community Colleges and inspection schools).
• Clearer display of question by question live-time pass/fail rates (as you take the exam).
• Increased depth of categorization (which creates a truer personal-weakness pie chart upon completion).
• Increase in statistical difficulty (much tougher to pass, despite being open book).

Like past versions, version 5.0 will be audited for psycometric validity. NACHI thanks all who continue to make our entrance exam an integral part of our membership requirements.
For more detailed answers to questions about our new entrance exam visit: http://www.nachi.org/aboutexam.htm.
Take the exam now.

[Bruce E. Kirby]

Originally Posted by jbushart

That's what they thought in Arizona, too. Using legislation as a marketing tool has not worked anywhere.

When that $99 inspector with his 72 hours of experience is standing next to you, with the exact same license (which the consumer equates as certification from the state as to his competence and ability), his cheaper fee will get him the business.

With all things being equal (choosing between three different licensed inspectors) the lower fee gets the booking, and why shouldn't it?

Licensing solves nothing.

Raise your prices - have confidence - be the best Inspector. Poor/cheap inspectors make us look good! Remember "You Get What You Pay For" http://bjccinspections.com/BJCC_Insp...at_You_Pay_For