New Washington Legislation Submitted

[James H. Bushart]

In states where mentoring is required, it is abused. Particularly in the cases where people of neighboring states wanting to come across the lines to inspect (and compete) are concerned.

It seems that in areas like Massachusetts, it just takes a lot to get that inspector to "okay" those last four or five inspections. He seems to find fault with each one and, for your own good, is just not ready to cut you loose to inspect on your own....and stop paying him a fee.

It is unusual to find this in a bill drafted entirely by the politician. PHIC has been pushing for this, hard, in Pennsylvania.

[Harold E. Miller]

Referred to the Senate Labor, Commerce, Research and Development Committee on January 31, 2007.

1. It is referred to a committee for a hearing. The committee studies the bill and may hold public hearings on it. It can then pass, reject or take no action on the bill.

Has anyone heard if there will be a public hearing on this bill? I have reviewed the comittees agenda, and can not find any hearings scheduled.

[Harold E. Miller]

1. A bill may be introduced in either the Senate or House of Representatives by a member.
2. It is referred to a committee for a hearing. The committee studies the bill and may hold public hearings on it. It can then pass, reject or take no action on the bill.
3. The committee report on the passed bill is read in open session of the House or Senate, and the bill is then referred to the Rules Committee.
4. The Rules Committee can either place the bill on the second reading of the calendar for debate before the entire body, or take no action.
5. At the second reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being placed on the third reading calendar for final passage.
6. After passing one house, the bill goes through the same procedure in the other house.
7. If amendments are made, the other house must approve the changes.
8. When the bill is accepted in both houses, it is signed by the respective leaders and sent to the governor.
9. The governor signs the bill into law or may veto all or part of it. If the governor fails to act on the bill, it may become law without a signature

It has few hurdles before it can become a law....
Last years bill 6229 died at step #2...
Will SB 5788 make it trhough the gauntlet....stay tuned

[Steven L. Smith]

"Realtors already have their own Board"

True...as do appraisers. That composition of the board and the 20 mentored inspections, that are not workable in my view, are two reasons I do not support the bill as it is written, which I stated previously. That said, I still think it much improved compared to the previous attempts. I also agree that there are many points that require clarification and definitions. Whether this bill will pass or not, I have no idea, but I think this will come up every year until they get something. So, as Gerry Domagala said, who has insight into all this as a result of his being on the industry committee, let's try to get something hammered out that we can live with.
--

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by ssmith

"Realtors already have their own Board"

True...as do appraisers. That composition of the board and the 20 mentored inspections, that are not workable in my view, are two reasons I do not support the bill as it is written, which I stated previously. That said, I still think it much improved compared to the previous attempts. I also agree that there are many points that require clarification and definitions. Whether this bill will pass or not, I have no idea, but I think this will come up every year until they get something. So, as Gerry Domagala said, who has insight into all this as a result of his being on the industry committee, let's try to get something hammered out that we can live with.
--

Gerry Domagala said, who has insight into all this as a result of his being on the industry committee, let's try to get something hammered out that we can live with.

The "Industry Committee" contacted Spanel and Kolle-Wells immediately after the KIRO report, some of them may not have been pushing for State Regulation but several of the "Committee" have a history of doing so. Funny how the "Committee" Members and the 3 Senators who are sponsoring the Bill are all from the same region of Washington, just as they were for last years SB6229.

This Bill is more "acceptable", maybe, than the "Committee's proposal, of which we still have seen very little, but I have no doubt that some Committee members have had their fingers in the Senators Bill. maybe Spanel and Kohel-Wells actually listened to many of us who complained that the "Committee's" Proposal appeared to be very "self beneficial", especially when it came to mentoring and number of required inspections.

[dhelm]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

I actually think this is a fairly balanced bill, and I tend to support it almost entirely as written.

She's also sponsoring a bill to license contractors. I wonder if that will gain support? http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...Bills/5045.pdf

Just as a matter of clarification. Contractors are already required to be licensed in Washington. This new bill adds a test to the requirement. Previously, all you had to do to be a contractor was provide the state with financial responsibility documents and pay the $45.00 fee. No knowledge of construction was required.

[dhelm]

I beleive the two worst provisions in this bill are the "mentoring requirements" and the "two realtors on the board". The board of real estate does not have home inspectors on the board, why should the board of home inspectors have realtors on the board? The answer is probably that the Washington realtors association is a very powerful lobby.

[Steven L. Smith]

"Committee's proposal, of which we still have seen very little"

There is a thread in here, a couple weeks back, where I posted the entire committee proposal. You should be able to find that. Most of the proposal is not in the legislation, however a few modifications were made to the bill based on that, far as I can tell.

[James H. Bushart]

It is proven that it takes less effort and inside clout to kill a bill, totally, than it does to get the wording of someone else's bill changed to reflect your own desires or agenda.

Washington inspectors who oppose this bill should work to kill it. Let it's authors come to you with offers of compromise if they want it to stay alive.

[gdomagala]

Wendy,

Senator Spanel was very clear that she feels home inspectors should continue to do WDO inspections.

Since you could not legally perform a home inspection in Washington state without doing a complete WDO inspection and comply with any of the associations standards of practice. I think it would make a lot of sense to look at ICN's to determine the number of inspections performed.

[gdomagala]

Lewis Capaul implied that I lied when I said that the committee and I were not involved in proposing either last year's or this year's legislation.

He obviously doesn't know anything about the history of SB 6229 and the forming of the coalition.

The coalition was formed in opposition to legislature, based on the South Dakota law, that was circulated by me. Shortly after that happened, Senate Bill 6229 was introduced at the request of Dave Waterman, a Bellingham inspector. When the coalition read 6229 they un-invited waterman and invited me to participate in their group.

As I said in the past, if you don't like things about the new bill contact your local legislator.

If you are not registered to vote in the state of Washington you might as well sit back and watch what happens because you won't find many legislators who will care what you think.

[Steven L. Smith]

Thanks Gerry. Good clarification and right to the point.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by gdomagala

Wendy,

Senator Spanel was very clear that she feels home inspectors should continue to do WDO inspections.

Since you could not legally perform a home inspection in Washington state without doing a complete WDO inspection and comply with any of the associations standards of practice. I think it would make a lot of sense to look at ICN's to determine the number of inspections performed.

Oh, I agree. But since there is no language in the bill stating what composes a home inspection, most likely due to issues brought up earlier in this thread such as people coming in from out of state who don't do WDO's, it doesn't seem likely that they will use ICN's as part of the criteria for grandfathering. Indeed I would posit that if it isn't in the language then it wouldn't be legally binding. That would be something easily challenged in a courtroom, and whether many inspectors like it or not, the courtroom is where much of this is decided.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by gdomagala

If you are not registered to vote in the state of Washington you might as well sit back and watch what happens because you won't find many legislators who will care what you think.

Very good point.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by ssmith

"Committee's proposal, of which we still have seen very little"

There is a thread in here, a couple weeks back, where I posted the entire committee proposal. You should be able to find that. Most of the proposal is not in the legislation, however a few modifications were made to the bill based on that, far as I can tell.

Where's the SOP, the COE, the only thing posted was the "Bullet Points" of the Advisory Board's recommendations, not the complete proposal.