Say "NO" to Grandfathering

[James H. Bushart]

Having spent a couple of years watching legislation develop in the various states, I have made some interesting observations.

In New Jersey, an inspector did a poor enough job (according to one state senator) that cost a home owner $100,000 in damages --- leading to (at that time) one of the toughest home inspector bills in the country. Interestingly enough, the inspector who did the bad inspection was "grandfathered" under the new bill and among the first to be licensed.

In Massachusetts, an inspector cited by the legislature as an example as to why licensing was necessary was not only "grandfathered", but ended up sitting on the Massachusetts licensing board.

Inspectors in every state where licensing is being considered seem to determine a good bill from a bad bill...by whether or not they will be "grandfathered". They oppose legislation that affects them...but will support it when it affects their competition.

This is why several members of NACHI and ASHI are getting together to form a National Coalition that will oppose every "grandfathering" clause in every bill proposing home inspection legislation in every state.

Why should the bad guys (like New Jersey and Massachusetts) be off the hook? If it is a good bill...a good bill should be applied equally, across the board. If it is a bad bill, it should be opposed by all home inspectors...period.

Thoughts?

[kmcmahon]

Grandfathering = Bad
Reciprocity from another licensed state = Good.

[Donald T. Belmont]

So your opinion is the state should be able to look at your business and decide that you failed to do something in the past so you can't have a license now.

So who do I get my money back from?

No that isn't a flippant question. I have about 15K (in direct business investment) invested to date. Not counting 1000's of hours. In a low population market where 100 inspections a year would be high volume. Under the most recently scuttled bill I would have to suspend my business (read stop earning a living and supporting my family), take months of time and thousands of dollars to undergo an ill-defined training program. If the program was available at all, at any price. If it wasn't I was told by the sponser of the bill I would just have to wait. She turned away when I asked how I was to pay my bills in that time. I heard later she considered the question frivilous.

Not to mention that I am a legally registered and operating Corporation for the purpose of doing home inspections in my state. The state would have been in the awkward position of taking my corparate registration fees with one hand and denying me the ability to do the work of the corporation with the other. I asked the Sec of State office and they had no plans to refund my money.

I suppose you could say that's tough . (You wouldn't be alone as one State Senator did exactly that) But I believe I have the right to reap the benefits of my investment in money and time that has been legally made.

I am for raising the standards of the industry. But "ex post facto" rules are only designed to get your competition out of the way. If you really want to raise the standards of the industry and benefit consumers as well then the only sensible and fair approach is to have decent continuing ed requirements as well as a board ready to discipline an inspector if they deserve it. The continuing ed increases skills while the board weeds out the incompetent. Such forward looking requirements are fair and equitable for everyone.

[Michael Larson]

Because licensing laws are often promoted as a means to "protect the consumer" by "raising the bar" the subject of "grandfathering" is an appropriate one to address.

If the proponents of HI licensing laws are truly concerned with consumer protection then "grandfathering" should NOT be permitted as it flys in the face of the very argument they are putting forth.

If on the other hand "grandfathering" is part of legislation to protect the interests of current HIs then the proponents should be honest and say so.

IMHO you really can't have both ways.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

I am for raising the standards of the industry.

Then you must accept, sir, all that it brings.

I oppose licensing. Period. I have no confidence that the same people who brought to me Viet Nam, the public education system, and FDA approved balogna have any business trying to tell me how to do my job.

But those who do...those who favor licensing and push for legislation that will take the decisions away from the home inspector and his client and rest them with the state...these people should be required to meet the same standards that they wish to impose. Do you not agree?

The answer to preserving your investment is not to seek to be "grandfathered" but to vigorously oppose and defeat the injustice by stopping the bill from becoming law.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

If the proponents of HI licensing laws are truly concerned with consumer protection then "grandfathering" should NOT be permitted as it flys in the face of the very argument they are putting forth.

Exactly. If the licensing bill is a necessary thing, then "grandfathering" is obnoxiously wrong.

For instance: "Effective January 1, 2008, the law will require that convicted pedophiles will no longer be licensed as child day care attendants. Those convicted pedophiles who are already employed, however, will be allowed to continue to care for children under the "grandfathering" clause."

If the law is right, then grandfathering is wrong. Plain and simple.

[jwortham1]

So your opinion is the state should be able to look at your business and decide that you failed to do something in the past so you can't have a license now.

I usually disagree with Mr. Bushhart just on general principle. But in this case, as much as it pains me to admit it, he may be right.

Opposing grandfathering is not about having the state deny anyone a license. It is however, saying that just because you were doing something for X number of years, you are not exempt from the meeting the same prerequisites as a new inspector fresh off the street.

[bkelly1]

Have you looked at Tennessee's grandfathering james?

[Joseph T. Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jwortham1

It is however, saying that just because you were doing something for X number of years, you are not exempt from the meeting the same prerequisites as a new inspector fresh off the street.

After all licensing is the great equalizer, once licensing law are in place we are all equal in the eyes of the state and the buying public.

Licensing solves nothing, grandfathering clauses prove it.

[Mathew Hawley]

James,

I agree with you totaly. There should be No grandfathering, everyone should have to meet the standards. Not only will that provide better consumer protection "Or at least prove they know the basics" it's also the the only fair way to do it.

I just cant figure out why anyone in an un-licensed state would push for licensing. Im for raising the bar, but we can control our own industry without government involvement.

Non licensed states should set up a consumer recovery fund and be required to attend a certain amount of continueing education. Licensing solves nothing. There will be good and bad inspectors licensed or not. That is how it is in every industry, people do make mistakes. A recovery fund would help protect the consumer.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Love it - great comments. I never have really favoured grandfathering. The comments are right on the mark. It too often assumes that one is qualified enough and can perform their job adequately enough to be exempted from verification or the red tape to prove themself. Who inspects the inspector? If in doubt a free pass becomes the reality of creating doubt and exhibits potential lack of credibility. Market that however you would like!

[jwortham1]

After all licensing is the great equalizer, once licensing law are in place we are all equal in the eyes of the state and the buying public.

So I keep hearing. Over and over, ad naseum. And yet, I never see any proof.

Within 5 miles of me I know of one inspector who will inspect any house for $179.00 and another who doesn't turn the key over in the truck for under $600.00. I fall somewhere in the middle.

Can't wait for the $179 guy to charge $600 so I can too. After all, once everyone is licensed they are all equal in the eyes of the buying public right?

[Donald T. Belmont]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Because licensing laws are often promoted as a means to "protect the consumer" by "raising the bar" the subject of "grandfathering" is an appropriate one to address.

If the proponents of HI licensing laws are truly concerned with consumer protection then "grandfathering" should NOT be permitted as it flys in the face of the very argument they are putting forth.

If on the other hand "grandfathering" is part of legislation to protect the interests of current HIs then the proponents should be honest and say so.

IMHO you really can't have both ways.

Hi Michael,

I'm afraid I don't agree with you.

When the word is "grandfathering" it's like calling the estate tax the "death tax". It carries the connotation of some staggering old fart who can't get out of his own way. Instead consider that what you're really talking about is a way for legally operating businesses to continue to operate.

What I think is appropriate is that these legally operating businesses should have forward-looking requirements imposed upon them. Such as taking a national certification examination or other things that they can do moving forward to stay in business. What I absolutely oppose is imposing some "ex post facto" requirement. (For those not up when they are legalese that is a requirement that would have been done some time in the past to qualify for your license now in the future). I might also add that it is a requirement that is not generally viewed favorably by the courts. Unless there is an overwhelming public need it doesn't seem particularly fair to tell someone they had the will done something in the past (like performing a certain number of inspections) to qualify for a license in the future.

If you want something that is truly in the interests of the consumer you impose forward-looking requirements on the home inspectors, decent continuing education requirements so that all licensed home inspectors must improve their knowledge and finally you constitute a board that will actively work to discipline home inspectors who fail to meet the published standards or to perform their inspections in accordance with the state-mandated standards of practice.

That approach means you don't have to hand a license to anyone. You could require all home inspectors to pass a particular test or group of tests as part of proving that they have the minimum knowledge necessary for a license.

I have absolutely no problem in saying clearly that I will oppose any legislation that causes any legally operating Home Inspection business to be put out of business because of a backward looking licensing standard. Legislation like that has only one purpose (I call it the ASHI purpose) which is to "thin the herd" of competition.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

I have absolutely no problem in saying clearly that I will oppose any legislation that causes any legally operating Home Inspection business to be put out of business because of a backward looking licensing standard.

Neither do I.

My position, though, is that the entire bill should be defeated.

To "grandfather" a particular group of inspectors is an unacceptable alternative to a bill so designed. Any restrictive measures that would keep others out of the profession should also eliminate those in the profession, if the reason is to "raise the bar".

That is to say that if an inspector without "A" is not worthy of becoming licensed under a new bill, then it must also stand that an existing inspector without "A" should shut his doors and stop inflicting himself upon the public, as well. To say otherwise is equivalent to saying that "A" is unnecessary.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by dbelmont

.....What I think is appropriate is that these legally operating businesses should have forward-looking requirements imposed upon them. Such as taking a national certification examination or other things that they can do moving forward to stay in business.

How is this grandfathering in any sense?
You have inadvertantly pointed out exactly the problem with new laws, it picks the winners and loosers.

Originally Posted by dbelmont

What I absolutely oppose is imposing some "ex post facto" requirement. ..... Unless there is an overwhelming public need it doesn't seem particularly fair to tell someone they had the will done something in the past (like performing a certain number of inspections) to qualify for a license in the future.

I very confused. Please explain.

Originally Posted by dbelmont

If you want something that is truly in the interests of the consumer you impose forward-looking requirements on the home inspectors, decent continuing education requirements so that all licensed home inspectors must improve their knowledge and finally you constitute a board that will actively work to discipline home inspectors who fail to meet the published standards or to perform their inspections in accordance with the state-mandated standards of practice.

How about no regulation at all?

Originally Posted by dbelmont

That approach means you don't have to hand a license to anyone. You could require all home inspectors to pass a particular test or group of tests as part of proving that they have the minimum knowledge necessary for a license.

Again, how is this grandfathering?

Originally Posted by dbelmont

I have absolutely no problem in saying clearly that I will oppose any legislation that causes any legally operating Home Inspection business to be put out of business because of a backward looking licensing standard.

Sir, you appear inconsistent.

Originally Posted by dbelmont

Legislation like that has only one purpose (I call it the ASHI purpose) which is to "thin the herd" of competition.AS does ALL HI regulation.

AS does ALL HI regulation!