New Kansas Standards of Practice released by Jeff Barnes.

[Nick Gromicko]

On 7/8/09 3:00 PM, RESINSPECT@aol.com wrote:
> Nick, I have just sent out the Standards of Practice draft to those on the notification list and you should have receive a copy. I have included a copy with this e-mail as well. This process will take several meetings to produce the final working SOP and you are welcome to attended any and all of them. The first meeting on the 17th will start with a discussion on the requirements for the pre registration education. We wont have much to do with this as all we will be doing is listing the core education requirements and establishing the application process the rest comes from the Kansas Board of Regents. We were able to get their fingers out of the continuing education area and it still stands that all classes approved by interNACHI, NAHI or ASHI will be approved by the Board. Let me know if you have any questions.
> Jeff


CLICK HERE for Kansas SOP July 8, 2009 (pdf).

[Gary Farnsworth]

Thanks. I am not on the "notification list". I hope you decifer this and recommend corrections. I see several already. Some say we need to inspect, then the same area/item is under the not required sections. I am sure it will need lots of fine tuning. Most of this sounds like attorneys wrote it. Lots of fancy words and phrases that are not defined. This needs lots of work. IMO.

Actually, I was hoping for more detail into what is inspected and what is not; ie what appliances, what roof components, etc. There is no way that an average inspector would have written this. This is a direct example and writing from special interest groups and their attorneys. Sure, the board can make a list of what is needed, then the attorneys take it from there. NACHI SOP's are simple, and to the point. Agents can misinterpret the Kansas SOP's easily. Perhaps, that is what they want.

These new Kansas SOP's are an embarrasment to me and the real estate industry in Kansas. Just read all of the conflicting can, and cannot lists. With the new HVCC laws now in play affecting appraisers and lenders, the whole industry as we know it is doomed. RE's, inspectors, and lenders are staying out, and letting it happen. Goodbye.

[Nick Gromicko]

It's a disaster. Top of page 4, iv implies that inspectors have to identify what SOP they are using. Is there more than one that can be identified?

Top of page 4, iii is unconstitutional. Read the unanimous Supreme Court decision NAACP vs. Alabama 1958.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Look in your emails. I was given a copy of the SoP the 3 inspectors from NACHI, ASHI, and NAHI spent 3 months writing.

Then look at what the 2 ASHI inspectors in Wichita and the attorney from Wichita did to those original standards (you already have this 2nd set - they're what you're displaying). Then give us feedback on what you think.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Here are the 2 sets of proposed SoP's for Kansas.

One set was developed over 3 months by a committee of NACHI, ASHI and NAHI members.

The 2nd set was developed by 2 ASHI inspectors in Wichita (Jeff Barnes the Chair of the Home Inspection Board; Kerry Parham (immediate past ASHI Chapter President) and the attorney on the Home Inspection Board (Ed Robinson).

Look the 2 sets over and throw out your feedback.

[James H. Bushart]

I cannot decide which is harder to understand.

How a group of Kansas home inspectors allowed their governor to appoint a trial attorney and real estate salesman to their licensing board......or how they can be surprised when the trial lawyer uses their SOP to drum up business for himself and others in his profession.

If I were appointed to the Missouri Bar Association, I would require new lawyers moving to the state and applying for admission to the bar to show proof of their home inspection. Wouldn't you?.

[Gary Farnsworth]

Little has been said about a little four letter word in Kansas: corruption. You hear it in other cities, national governments, and now states. People seem to think that this is normal, because it is so prevelant. It is driven by greedy special interest groups, attorneys, and many others who use there "strong handedness" to make money, and pay lawmakers to instigate and pass laws that favor the groups. This way of life is trickling to us normal Americans. It is affecting real estate transactions, and costing home buyers thousands in extra fees from lenders, etc. The home inspection industry just wants a piece of the action. However, some home inspectors are voicing opinions, and fighting back this virus. Kansas is a right to work state. I have a right to operate my business. The State of Kansas needs to investigate this virus to their fullest extent. The attorney general of Kansas, Steve Six, has recently filed criminal investigations against several mortgage companies who operate in Kansas. It will be just a matter of time before the State investigates home inspection special interest groups. Not soon enough for me. License home inspectors, then you should license home builders, repairmen, contractors, agents, insurace providers, any company or person who is involved in real estate transactions. If we are licensed, you better do it to all others also. If the government moves in to the real estate industry, they need to do it to all involved, or corruption will still run rampant.

I understand that many people watch this message board. Perhaps I am a little on the frank side. My business in July is half this year than last. As I voice my opinions, I expect that I am losing business for "various reasons". I am fighting for the future home buyers of Kansas. The days of an honest home inspection will end January 1, 2010. Fact.

[James H. Bushart]

I recall that, when they realized the error of their ways and how...by placing an immediate $10,000 burden on the home inspector for missing mold behind the drywall....the largest realtor in KC stopped recommending home inspections in anticipation of hard reports.

After your law passed, Reece-Nichols published in their brochure to their clients that....if they have an electrical question about the house they are considering, they should consult an electrician. If they have a plumbing question.....consult a plumber. So on and so on.

They realized that making you immediately liable for the first $10,000 for anything that goes wrong with the house forced you to warn clients the water stains on the ceiling might possibly indicate the presence of mold and that they should consult a mold specialist....and so forth.

In other words, in shifting the blame from themselves to the inspector, they now have to fear the reports.

Proponents of licensing laws should be very careful what they wish for.

[Gary Farnsworth]

Just think of the forms that will have to be signed by a buyer; a waiver for radon, termite, mold, plumbing, electrical, structure, HVAC, roof, etc. Agents will have to deal with these "contractors" if their buyer wants these services. It takes time to hire these people, many trips to the home to be purchased, all to perfrom these checks for the home buyer. They will not do these "checks" for nothing. They should start charging a minimum of $100 for each; that would total into the thousands for "home evaluations". I believe that most real estate agents are blind to this situation that is at hand. New laws create new headaches for all business people.

Since home sales are non-existant, and agents are exempt from inspection licensing, most offices will have agents that will do the evaluations, all for free, just so the buyer will do business with the agents. (I verified this with an article in the Kansas City Business Journal). The State of Kansas needs to step in, eleminate Section B of HB 2260 that exempts home builders, insurance agents, appraisers, RE agents, and stop a huge conflict of interest. This will cause corruption in the size the State will not be able to handle.

The honest home inspection industry in Kansas is at stake, and will be eleminated soon. The board is blind to this, and does not care about home inspectors; just their special interest groups and attorneys. I am fighting for my business and home buyers of Kansas.

[Nick Gromicko]

On 7/17/09 9:26 PM, RESINSPECT@aol.com wrote:
> The Board met today to work on the Kansas Standards of Practice. The second published draft is attached for your review and comment. The next scheduled Board meeting to work on the document is August 10th at 9:00 at the office of Ed Robinson, which is located at Morris, Laing, Evans, Broch & Kennedy 300 N. Mead, Ste 200 Wichita, KS. It is important to note that this SOP is a not a private document as is the SOP from any of the national inspection associations. It is part of the Rules and Regulations for the statute an as such has strict requirements regarding language and format. Because of this, the Kansas SOP will not follow the format you may be accustom to and will be lacking language which is already present in the statute. It will also have a very limited amount of redundant language, for example, the definition for "Home Inspection Report" includes the language requiring:
>
>
> i) A clear identification and description of those systems, structures or components which were inspected;
>
> ii) A clear identification and description of those systems, structures or components designated to be inspected under the standards of practice approved by the board and which were not inspected, and the reason why they were not inspected;
>
> iii) A clear identification and description of any material defects found to be in need of repair, including any recommendations for further evaluation;
>
>
> Because of this the language to "describe" and "report" as found in other SOP's at each component category will not be listed in this standard. Likewise the word "observe" is found in other SOP's will not be listed as the requirement to "inspect" is part of the definition for "Home Inspection". I hope this clears up some of the questions regarding the formatting change. Please pass this SOP on to other interested parties as we are seeking constructive topic specific comments for adjustments to the document. Broad brushed generalizations are not helpful to the Board as they provide no useful information to grow from.
> Thank you for your help.
> Jeff Barnes, Chair
>

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Top of page 4, iii is unconstitutional. Read the unanimous Supreme Court decision NAACP vs. Alabama 1958.

Nick, I see a big difference between the two.

In the court case, the State had asked for full membership lists of the NAACP and the court ruled that was illegal.

In the proposed language, they are asking the inspector to show which organization they are a member of while they are inspecting. How is this any different than the State of PA that requires membership in a National Organization. The inspector just has to show membership, nothing more. None of the national organizations are being asked for their membership roles.

[Nick Gromicko]

Here is the latest SOP: http://www.nachi.org/documents/kansa...ly-17-2009.pdf

Stephen writes:

The inspector just has to show membership, nothing more. None of the national organizations are being asked for their membership roles.

That is even worse... or from the individual's perspective, just as bad. The U.S. Constitution is all about guaranteeing the rights of people (inspectors in this case), not things (InterNACHI). The reason a state can't demand a membership list from a private association is to protect the freedom of association of each of the individual members. Asking even one person to reveal what private associations he/she belongs to infringes on that one person's freedom of association. The Supreme Court ruled that immunity from state scrutiny of a member's affiliation with private groups is necessary for the member to pursue his/her lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so. Notice that the Supreme Court acted to protect the rights of the individual member.

This ruling is why a U.S. Circuit Judge explained to the mini-minneapolis association that InterNACHI never has to confirm who is and who is not a member. It is why InterNACHI permits invisible membership. It is why InterNACHI opposes state mandatory membership in InterNACHI (although the governments of PA and AL still require membership).

Its not so much that InterNACHI is protected under the first Amendment, its that each and every member's rights are.

Now granted, membership in InterNACHI is fairly benign, so in this case, Jeff Barnes demanding to know what inspector associations you belong to seems fairly harmless. But what about membership in the NRA, or the Organization for a Free Tibet, or Acorn, or the U.S. Taxpayers Union, or the the National Association to make Sarah Palin the Queen of the Galaxy, or the Committee to have Jeff Barnes removed from the Kansas Home Inspector Licensing Board? You see where I'm going with this? The founding fathers of our country did too.

Jeff Barnes demanding to know what inspector association you belong to is only a step away from him demanding to know all the associations you belong to. He needs to take that $#!t to some communist country. It is unconstitutional here in our country.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Here is the latest SOP: http://www.nachi.org/documents/kansa...ly-17-2009.pdf
That is even worse... or from the individual's perspective, just as bad. The U.S. Constitution is all about guaranteeing the rights of people (inspectors in this case), not things (InterNACHI). The reason a state can't demand a membership list from a private association is to protect the freedom of association of each of the individual members. Asking even one person to reveal what private associations he/she belongs to infringes on that one person's freedom of association. The Supreme Court ruled that immunity from state scrutiny of a member's affiliation with private groups is necessary for the member to pursue his/her lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so. Notice that the Supreme Court acted to protect the rights of the individual member.

This ruling is why a U.S. Circuit Judge explained to the mini-minneapolis association that InterNACHI never has to confirm who is and who is not a member. It is why InterNACHI permits invisible membership. It is why InterNACHI opposes state mandatory membership in InterNACHI (although the governments of PA and AL still require membership).

Its not so much that InterNACHI is protected under the first Amendment, its that each and every member's rights are.

Now granted, membership in InterNACHI is fairly benign, so in this case, Jeff Barnes demanding to know what inspector associations you belong to seems fairly harmless. But what about membership in the NRA, or the Organization for a Free Tibet, or Acorn, or the U.S. Taxpayers Union, or the the National Association to make Sarah Palin the Queen of the Galaxy, or the Committee to have Jeff Barnes removed from the Kansas Home Inspector Licensing Board? You see where I'm going with this? The founding fathers of our country did too.

Jeff Barnes demanding to know what inspector association you belong to is only a step away from him demanding to know all the associations you belong to. He needs to take that $#!t to some communist country. It is unconstitutional here in our country.

Have you alerted the Attorney General of this as you did his other illegal contributions to the original bill, Nick?

[Gary Farnsworth]

Mr. Barnes is not an attorney, so he must be listening to his attorney for SOP advice. He is acting on behalf of his attorney and special interest groups, not in the interests of home inspectors. He, as well as the other committee and board members, and even the board attorneys need to tread lightly in Kansas; Kansas is a right to work state. They have specfic laws governing small businesses. They better not confuse the two, or lawsuits will erupt. Perhaps, that is what attorneys want anyway, so they can make money and set precidents. Mr. Barnes and his groups want full absolute control of the home inspection industry. They may have a fight on their hands. I cannot understand why or why not other Kansas home inspectors do not stand up. Perhaps they are blind as to what is coming.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Nick, unfortunately licensing has been enacted in this instance. If membership in a national organization is one of the licensing requirements, how does showing proof of that membership violate your rights? You must be a certain age to obtain a drivers license or a CWP. Are you saying it is a violation of your rights to show proof of that age? What is the difference?

This is a requirement for obtaining a state license, a privilege, not a right. To state that this is only a step away "from him demanding to know all the associations you belong to" is a stretch to say the least. Membership in a national home inspector organization is endemic to the home inspection field. Membership in the NRA or some other organization that is not related to the home inspection field would not be a requirement that would see the light of day in any type of legislation or rules. If some were to attempt such rule making, THAT would indeed be reason for a lawsuit.