New Washington Legislation Submitted

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

as a Member of the ESOP Committee if asked to rule on an Ethical Complaint concerning this issue, will you use your opinion about the law, or will you use the fact that the law, that very few like, is valid and has not been overturned in 16 years to make your decision?

Members of the ESOP Committee review the facts that are presented with each complaint and make recommendations based upon those facts. If something is unclear or ambiguous, we will correspond with the appropriate persons until we have concluded that we have acquired as many facts as possible. We then determine if the facts substantiate the claim that a part of the code has actually been violated and what should be done, if anything. Our chairman then takes our findings to Nick who decides what should be done (usually after he confers with other NACHI leadership). Our committee is not the final word.

As to this particular case, I will express (again) my own personal opinion formed after reading your law. The law as it is written does not address the licensing of home inspectors. It addresses the licensing of one called a "structural pest inspector" and does not specifically require home inspectors to be licensed. It strongly advises them to. It hints at the liability of great financial catastrophe should he not be insured, whether licensed or not. It does not clearly state....in fact....it evades and avoids coming right out and saying that....home inspectors need to be licensed SPIs.

I hope that any complaint that is filed will contain more specific language than what has been presented on the message board.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jschulte

Silly James, reading laws when fliers produced by some state employee are available. Don't you know that state employees are never wrong and can't be challenged?

LOL! Exactly. Especially when those state employees have a vested interest in the issue.

[hmiller]

Like I said you are entitled to your opinion and/ or interpretation of the law.
However, if SB 5788 passes as written, then the words "home inspector" and WDO inspection will be in the same sentence. Then some how I am sure that someone can still say well I don't need to be licensed as a home inspector, because I inspect residential properties. ...or whatever

excerpt from sb 5788;

(6) "Home inspection" means a visual analysis for the purposes of
2 providing a professional opinion of the condition of a building and its
3 carports and garages, any reasonably accessible installed components
4 and the operation of the building systems, including the controls
5 normally operated by the owner, for the following components of a
6 residential building of four units or less: Heating system, electrical
7 system, cooling system, plumbing system, structural components,
8 foundation, roof covering, exterior and interior components, and site
9 aspects as they affect the building. "Home inspection" also means an
10 inspection for wood destroying organisms.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Note the first words in thw WAC James, what is not conclusive about that?

We aren't Contractors, we're Home Inspectors, if the reason that a Contractor was at the home was to Issue a report on its condition and involved the sale or transfer of the structure,he would be doing an inspection, if he or a plumber, electrician, etc. were working on the home doing either upgrades or repairs and came across WDO/WDI problems then No they would not need a license.

IT's stupid but it's simple James, ANY REPORT, you and unlicensed inspector in Washington Act like we've made this up, like we're stupid or something and that we haven't offered nearly every argument that you can come up with over this law sometime during the last 15 years. What's reaaly sad is that most unlicensed inspectors like Wendy have never got off their *****es and called or contacted Dr. Soumi directly, you could do so yourself as an ESOP Committee member of the largetst HI Association you could contact him directly yourself asking for clarification. Most of us have spent hours arguing this matter with DR. Soumi himself we aren't making this up. Whether you agree with Wendy and other unlicensed inspectors on this issue doesn't matter, if they Issue a Home Inspection report that is in accordance with the NACHI SOP and they do not have an SPI License, then that report and the actions of the inspector are Illegal....ANY REPORT

You should have your Test Case by early next week, and then we'll see how much yu truly back 'self regulation"

Lewis. It states in the Title of the WAC what type of reports are being referred to. If it was just as you say, ANY report, well, then I guess my son's school report counts right?

No. It states: WAC 16-228-2045
Complete wood destroying organism inspection reports

Those are the "Any report" being referred to. Not Home Inspection reports. only COMPLETE wood destroying organism inspection reports.

NOT references to conducive conditions naturally encountered in the natural course of a home inspection. ONLY if those conditions are issued in the context of a seperate COMPLETE WDO Inspection Report.

Very clear. VERY simple. That is the LAW. Not a STATE EMPLOYEE PEST COMPANY OWNERS "opinion" of the meaning of the law.

Once again. Show where ANY of these hundreds of non-compliant inspectors are being charged with breaking the law.

Only one who performed a COMPLETE WDO INSPECTION without the proper ICN number. NOT a HOME INSPECTOR who referred to CONDUCIVE CONDITIONS.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Like I said you are entitled to your opinion and/ or interpretation of the law.
However, if SB 5788 passes as written, then the words "home inspector" and WDO inspection will be in the same sentence. Then some how I am sure that someone can still say well I don't need to be licensed as a home inspector, because I inspect residential properties. ...or whatever

excerpt from sb 5788;

(6) "Home inspection" means a visual analysis for the purposes of
2 providing a professional opinion of the condition of a building and its
3 carports and garages, any reasonably accessible installed components
4 and the operation of the building systems, including the controls
5 normally operated by the owner, for the following components of a
6 residential building of four units or less: Heating system, electrical
7 system, cooling system, plumbing system, structural components,
8 foundation, roof covering, exterior and interior components, and site
9 aspects as they affect the building. "Home inspection" also means an
10 inspection for wood destroying organisms.

NO. What will happen is that only one license will be necessary as stated in the Bill. That of a Licensed Home Inspector. The Bill specifically states that a home inspector should NOT have to carry TWO licenses.

[wforsyth]

Section 25:
It is the
4 legislature's intent that home inspectors do conduct pest inspections
5 as part of their overall responsibilities but that they not have to
6 obtain dual licenses in order to do so.
*******************

Do you notice that they say home inspectors do conduct pest inspections, but they do not say that home inspectors perform COMPLETE STRUCTURAL WOOD DESTROYING INSPECTION REPORTS?

There is a difference. Home inspectors will conduct pest inspections and will be licensed and trained to do so.

Structural Pest Inspectors will perform COMPLETE and SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL WOOD DESTROYING ORGANISM REPORTS and be licensed to do so.

Pest inspectors will then be pest inspectors, and home inspectors will be home inspectors, and never the twain shall meet.

All of you who have received your Structural Pest Inspection Licenses will not only be Structural Pest Inspectors, but you will also be Licensed Home Inspectors.

You will have TWO, count them, TWO licenses requiring seperate insurance coverage to perform each job. If you continue to keep up your SPI license, you will need to pay seperate E and O and General Liability for that business, and if you get your Home Inspection license, you will need to pay another E and O coverage geared specifically for Home Inspections which will include pest inspections. You will also be required to carry General for the Home inspection license.

You will not be able to count your E and O for both licenses because the language will specifically be for occurances in each profession.

So, I guess you'll have to choose which you want to be licensed as unless you want to spend a whole lot of money on insurance. Too bad all you who have been paying this whole time will have to sign up for new policies.

[lcapaul]

And yes. I do thin k the hundreds of home inspectors who don't challenge this are stupid. There is power in numbers, and if all rose up and got a spine, it wouldn't even be a debate anymore.

Are you stupid by admission then Windy? When have you challenged the WSDA, other than on this message board? When have you ever contacted Dr. Soumi or any WSDA Official directly to hear their interpretation of the Law? Are you afraid to call them liars to their face?

So that you don't appear to be one of the hundred's of stupid inspectors who have argued with WSDA directly but have not challenged them in court, I'll give you a chance, we wouldn't want you to one of us. The ESOP Committee will get the first chance to make a determination on this issue, you'll be the Test Case, but the bias that at least one of the committee members has expressed will likely make you a Test Case for the WSDA, advertising services you can't legally perform, or performing services illegally, they and the DOL can figure that out.

[hmiller]

Washington State Department of Agriculture
Dr. Dan Suomi at the WSDA

Pesticide Management Division
1111 Washington Street
PO Box 42589, Olympia WA. 98504-2589
( 360) 902-2044 (Voice Mail)
( 360) 951-6339 (Fax)
dsuomi@agr.wa.gov

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Are you stupid by admission then Windy? When have you challenged the WSDA, other than on this message board? When have you ever contacted Dr. Soumi or any WSDA Official directly to hear their interpretation of the Law? Are you afraid to call them liars to their face?

So that you don't appear to be one of the hundred's of stupid inspectors who have argued with WSDA directly but have not challenged them in court, I'll give you a chance, we wouldn't want you to one of us. The ESOP Committee will get the first chance to make a determination on this issue, you'll be the Test Case, but the bias that at least one of the committee members has expressed will likely make you a Test Case for the WSDA, advertising services you can't legally perform, or performing services illegally, they and the DOL can figure that out.

I wrote Senator Spanel, and I am challenging this by my stance in not taking the license at this time.

As to the rest of it, read my posts above. You're very, very wrong Lewis.

And I'm a professional Lewis. Why would I call another professional a liar to their face, or even behind their backs? You're the only one who does that.

You'll give me a chance? Oh, yes. I forgot Lewis. You're God.

[hmiller]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

The first hearing on this newly proposed legislation will be this Monday, at 10:00am in Senate Hearing Room #4 at the State Capitol.

Enough of the WDO / WDI.

.

.

Just trying to maintain focus on Senate Bill 5788.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Are you stupid by admission then Windy? When have you challenged the WSDA, other than on this message board? When have you ever contacted Dr. Soumi or any WSDA Official directly to hear their interpretation of the Law? Are you afraid to call them liars to their face?

I am not interested in their interpretation of the law. I'm interested in the interpretation of law as determined by a court of law, or the DOL.

If anyone thinks they can prove I've done anything wrong, they can feel free to spend the time and cash to take me to court. I will be more than happy and prepared to defend myself and do not even believe a judge would rule on it at this time and would suspend the case till after the new bill is either passed or rejected, and it went into effect. When a law is in flux, it is typical for a judge to wait until the time when the rule of law is clear rather than ill-defined.

But also, be prepared to pay not only your own court costs, but mine as well, because that is what I will be asking the judge for in the extreme likelihood that you lose your case.

[wforsyth]

We aren't Contractors, we're Home Inspectors, if the reason that a Contractor was at the home was to Issue a report on its condition and involved the sale or transfer of the structure,he would be doing an inspection, if he or a plumber, electrician, etc. were working on the home doing either upgrades or repairs and came across WDO/WDI problems then No they would not need a license.

No, only if he/she were there to issue a COMPLETE STRUCTURAL WOOD DESTROYING ORGANISM INSPECTION.

Similarly, if a home inspector is only at the home to peform a home inspection, they are not required to issue a COMPLETE WDO Inspection report. They are only required to do so if the intent is to perform a COMPLETE WDO INSPECTION AS PART OF A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION OR WHERE ONE MAY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE.

See how it all works out?

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Members of the ESOP Committee review the facts that are presented with each complaint and make recommendations based upon those facts. If something is unclear or ambiguous, we will correspond with the appropriate persons until we have concluded that we have acquired as many facts as possible. We then determine if the facts substantiate the claim that a part of the code has actually been violated and what should be done, if anything. Our chairman then takes our findings to Nick who decides what should be done (usually after he confers with other NACHI leadership). Our committee is not the final word.

As to this particular case, I will express (again) my own personal opinion formed after reading your law. The law as it is written does not address the licensing of home inspectors. It addresses the licensing of one called a "structural pest inspector" and does not specifically require home inspectors to be licensed. It strongly advises them to. It hints at the liability of great financial catastrophe should he not be insured, whether licensed or not. It does not clearly state....in fact....it evades and avoids coming right out and saying that....home inspectors need to be licensed SPIs.

I hope that any complaint that is filed will contain more specific language than what has been presented on the message board.

Once again James, you have missed the point. Anyone can perform a home inspection in Washington State, but they cannot perform that inspection to NACHI Standards because by LAW "ANY REPORT" that mentions conditions involving WDO has to be done by a licensed inspector.

That's fine with me, but don't let people like Wendy and other unlicensed NACHI Inspectors advertise that they follow the NACHI SOP, they cannot do that and not be in violation of the NACHI COE...following State Laws.
Let them Inspect, but not as NACHI members and not with the use of NACHI Inspector links, their use of the NACHI LOGO and their claims that they follow NACHI guidelines damages the image of every NACHI Inspector.

I market the fact that I have my SPI and that many other Inspector don't and recommend that all my potential clients make sure that whichever Inspector they hire is licensed. If I belonged to another Association I would be tempted to mention in passing to realtors and such how I was just playing around on the internet and discovered that only 4 out of 23 NACHI Inspectors were actually licensed in accordance with State Law, that would be damaging to ALL NACHI Members credibility and that of the Association itself.

The Law is valid and so is WSDA's interpretation, at least no one has been able to overturn either in many years, if the ESOP Committee wants to get into ruling on the validity of any State"s Laws then the committee should be made up of lawyers. I'll give the Committee its chance at demonstrating "self regualtion" of its own Association, although I believe that I will be wating my time.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

but the bias that at least one of the committee members has expressed

I hope that you are not referring to me.

I have read your law and have an opinion regarding your law.

I have not seen your complaint and have no bias, for or against it.

[hmiller]

Lewis
You are a glutton for punishment, aren't you?
The archives show you and Wendy arguing this since this time last year. I don't know why you put yourself through it. You know the saying, "you can lead a horse to water..........."