Pa Hb 1805

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

To Joe H's point,
how has the current legislation failed, and
how will the new legislation protect the consumer? What
datum exists currently that proved the need for legislation, or which proves that current requirements cannot be tweeked, rather than replaced?

Interesting Questions.

There are no answers or justifications made to date that I am aware of.

[Mark R. Long]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta
"To Joe H's point,
how has the current legislation failed, and
how will the new legislation protect the consumer? What
datum exists currently that proved the need for legislation, or which proves that current requirements cannot be tweeked, rather than replaced?"

Originally Posted by jhagarty

Interesting Questions.

There are no answers or justifications made to date that I am aware of.

I'm not so sure that the current regulation, Act 114, has actually failed, except for the fact that it created a regulation without any body responsible for oversight. (Which led to PHIC appointing themselves overseers)

And the new legislation won't protect the consumers from the bad inspectors anymore that a driver's license will prevent people from being killed in and by cars, or a doctor's license will prevent people from occasional bad medical practice. As with all licensing, it creates a minimum baseline with the hope that it will keep the most people out of harm's way as reasonably as possible.

Was this or is this new legislation necessary? I'm not really sure, but I think that's irrelevant at this stage of the game. You may call me nuts, or you may call me a defeatist, but I think that it's going to pass in some form reasonably close to it's current form.

People have been working on this legislation for some time and it has momentum. As I mentioned in my first post #20, and as you know Joe, it was first introduced last October as SB 1364, then in March as SB 359 and now it has gone to the house as HB 1805. Along the way it has undergone some subtle changes, so it has not just been moved along without anyone thinking about it and working with it.

Whether or not there is any datum that exists to prove the need for this new legislation, is somewhat beside the point. Someone and/or some group thought that it was necessary and some one and/or group with influence was able to get it written up and moving through the PA legislature.

This is a paragraph from a letter Senator Greenleaf wrote to me last spring in response to concerns I raised regarding SB 359. (Hopefully, since we were discussing a public matter the Senator didn't have any expectation of confidentiality).

"As prime sponsor of Senate Bill 359, I believe that licensing home inspectors would improve the profession. I have worked closely with the Pennsylvania Home Inspectors Coalition (PHIC) and PHIC members recommended the language in the grandfather clause. However, any provision of the bill is open to discussion and may be amended during the legislative process. While PHIC members have been actively involved in this legislation, comments are welcome as well from home inspectors who do not belong to PHIC. In fact, the best way to ensure enactment of SB 359 is for all of the members of the profession to work together in support of the legislation." .....etc.

Whatever other NACHI members opinion of PHIC may be, they do continue to have influence and have managed to influence this legislation. Whether we like it or not, I believe we're behind the 8 ball here. I believe we were already behind the 8 ball when SB 1364 was introduced nearly a year ago.

Again, this legislation has numerous sponsors and supportors, I believe it has momentum and I believe it's going to pass. If you remember Joe, even Nick was cheering this on last year, http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/hooray-pennsylvania-another-state-passing-legislation-outlaw-scumbag-national-association-home-inspectors-9239/ , albeit for somewhat bizarre reasons.

It is my opinion that to fight the legislation as a whole, and just say it is bad and shouldn't pass, will be a futile waste of energy. It is my opinion that we would be better served focusing on some key points (read # 20), try to shape and mold it, and try to make it somewhat more palatable to everyone concerned.

Just my two cents.

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Any word of what went on today regarding this?

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Thanks for the personal telephone call with an update on this Joe. You are a real stand up guy!

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

I was unable to attend the meeting due to emergency surgery.

NACHI was represented by (2) Members of the Harrisburg PA Chapter of NACHI.

The information that I received back was that the meeting was generally to obtain information and feedback. The Bill is in the preliminary stages.

The one question that seems to remain unanswered (and not clear in HB 1805) is if the House Bill is intended to replace Act 114 or the Bill is to be a part of and incorporated into the current Legislation.

Stay tuned....

[jmichalski]

Hope everything is ok with the surgery, Joe.

[Scott Gilligan, CMI]

Any word if this Bill is going in for an overhaul or if they are going to scrap it?

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21297

[John Cahill]

Poorly written law

"The applicant is not addicted to the habitual use of alcohol, narcotics or other habit-forming drugs."

That means you can drink, chew and smoke on the job as long as your not addicted. State has burden of proof in defining addiction. Law makers