Say "NO" to Grandfathering

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

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.

The simple fact that ones business began before another or 'X' date should have no bearing on the competence of the business in question. The only thing that should matter is if the business can meet the criteria the government sets as the base minimum acceptable standard, those who can should be licensed, those who can't must do whatever is required just like any other business who is seeking a license.

The message here is if you have been keeping up with the standards of our profession all along chances are little will be required from you, if not expect to do whatever it takes to be deemed acceptable.

Remember, in regards to licensing in almost all circumstances it is your fellow home inspector who is petitioning the government on your behalf, there are very few cases where consumers are demanding home inspectors be licensed. By removing grandfather clauses from pending bills insures that those who are bringing these bills have no unfair advantage over their competition. My guess is once the legislators have been exposed to this logic and they understand that it truly levels the playing field they will adopt it wholeheartedly as it is what appears to be the fairest to their voting constituents.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Neither do I.

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

.

I think that is the whole point of the thread....to defeat the bill.

Removing grandfathering is a strategy that would make many established home inspectors oppose the bill. It would work effectively to reduce the support for the bill.

Can you imagine if such a bill passed? No grandfathered inspectors? The opposition from the HI community would be immense.

Just like the strategy of eliminating realtor referrals to inspectors. It is a concept that would have the greatest resistance from HI's in legislation.

James has some pretty good strategies, I have learned....but I have also learned that the discussion really has nothing to do with the the concepts as if they were to be instituted in legislation....they are just roadblocks to legislation in the first place.
...That is the whole point of thread.. ...Licensing solves nothing

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by hmiller

Licensing solves nothing

I agree.

And licensing proposals that are supposed to be good for the industry and good for the consumer should not exclude anyone. This exclusion, when it exists, is evidence that the bill is flawed.

What if I wrote a bill that said "Presently employed inspectors will be required to pass a written test and score a 90% in order to be licensed and future applicants need to show proof of employment for more than 5 years in a building related trade." Who would think of even proposing something as proposterous as a more restrictive requirement for existing inspectors than future inspectors? But the reverse is okay? We think not. If a law is a good law, it can be evenly applied. If not, the law is not a good law.

We will lobby each legislature in each state in which a bill has been proposed to eliminate any proposed "grandfathering" clause. It is the right thing to do.

[dbush]

The problem I have with not having a grandfathering clause, is the legislations that have an education (not continuing education) requirement to become licensed; ie. 120 hour Home Inspection School. I completed a school, but is was not 120 hours, and I don't have any intentions of stopping and going back to school for basic home inspections.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dbush

The problem I have with not having a grandfathering clause, is the legislations that have an education (not continuing education) requirement to become licensed; ie. 120 hour Home Inspection School. I completed a school, but is was not 120 hours, and I don't have any intentions of stopping and going back to school for basic home inspections.

Licensing requirements will not be something just for "the other guy".

If licensing is a good idea and the basic minimum standards one must meet to become licensed are deemed to be necessary, it is ridiculous to think that a license should be issued to anyone who does not meet these standards.

If the governor of a state determines that a law is necessary to ensure that home inspectors have a minimum of 120 hours of HI formal education to protect the citizens of his state...then that should be the law for all inspectors. Why would a governor choose to protect only some of his citizens, and not others? This is the question that will be asked to each legislator in the US considering a "grandfathering" clause.

If the law is good and the standards are, indeed, necessary....then they should apply to everyone. If the law is not good and/or the standards are not necessary, they should apply to no one.

Pretty basic.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by hmiller

I think that is the whole point of the thread....to defeat the bill.

That may in fact be the ultimate outcome but the real point is if the state deems that licensing is necessary, the standards and requirements that establish who can become licensed should be applied to everyone fairly without exception.

Janet Swandby an ASHI lobbyist has written Real-Life Lessons About Home Inspectiion Legislation which is her personal thoughts and observations on how licensing legislature has effected our profession, and not in a positive way. Basically she explains the realities of the laws that finally went into effect did not live up to either the spirit of the legislation or expectations of those who worked so hard to get their bills passed. Her final conclusion is that HI licensing has been an abject failure and our profession has suffered because of it and still no one seems to listen.

Each and every year across our country we see poorly worded bills being introduced by mostly incompetent home inspectors whose only purpose it seems is for one class of inspector to gain an unfair advantage over another class of inspector. Most have no language that protects the consumer, the one proposed here in Florida has no Standards of Practice. The one thing they do all have in common though is language that provides a free ride for themselves known as a grandfather clause which exempts them and their cronies from having to meet the standards they wish to inflict on their competition. Were it not for the protection that grandfathering provides to its promoters it is doubtful that licensing bills would be as popular as they are today.

Grandfathering should be eliminated by legislators because it allows one small group of voters an unfair advantage over another large group of voters, a concept that will not be lost of those who depend on total votes for their livelihood. Furthermore, America holds dear the principal of fairness and through the editorial pages of our press it should not take very long to show the public just how unfair grandfathering is.


Comments & help welcome, email me if you wish to become part of this national project.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jwortham1

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.

I agree, do away with grandfathering, do not count preivious inspection, do not count previous education, do not count previous certifications, everybondy start from ground zero, take the same test at the same time, meet the same insurance requirements, the same CE requirements, etc

Then what Bushart and others say will actually be true, Licensing WILL make all Inspectors Equal, of course then Mentoring could not be required as there would be no qualified Inspectors to do the Mentoring, everone would be equal. Bushart seems to think thats a good thing now I guess.

How would any law be written that required a certain level of experience, i.e. a number of Inspections performed, without some kind of grandfrathering?

In effect what no grandfathering would do, would be to limit the requirements to become a home inspector to Testing and education wouldn't it?

In Washington the reason that "grandfathered" inspectors would be allowed to delay taking the test until they renewed their license was to spread the number of people taking the test thoughout a longer time table.

Wouldn't counting any previous experience, education, or certifications be grandfathering?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Wouldn't counting any previous experience, education, or certifications be grandfathering?

Yep, and it has no place in a licensing bill.

If a license is to determine a minimum basic standard, then all bearing such license should meet that/those standard(s). If it is not a standard that should apply to all, it has no place in a licensing bill.

It reveals the folly of a licensing bill when its proponents create conditions for future licensees that they, themselves, do not or otherwise refuse to meet....and hide behind a "grandfathering" clause. We believe that legislators will see through that, readily, and act accordingly.

In fact, we believe that we have ample evidence that will show any legislature that a "grandfathering clause" renders any licensing bill as little more than a home inspection marketing plan at the expense of the tax payer.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Yep, and it has no place in a licensing bill.

If a license is to determine a minimum basic standard, then all bearing such license should meet that/those standard(s). If it is not a standard that should apply to all, it has no place in a licensing bill.

It reveals the folly of a licensing bill when its proponents create conditions for future licensees that they, themselves, do not or otherwise refuse to meet....and hide behind a "grandfathering" clause. We believe that legislators will see through that, readily, and act accordingly.

In fact, we believe that we have ample evidence that will show any legislature that a "grandfathering clause" renders any licensing bill as little more than a home inspection marketing plan at the expense of the tax payer.

I could accept no grandfathering, it doesn't matter to me.

But if there were no grandfathering you would say that the licensing is being pushed by newbie Inspectors who want to become "Imediately Equal" to all experienced Inspectors.

Your arguemnet about grandfathering is much like your arguemtn about the conflict of interest in Realtors Referring Inspectors to clients, one of the few things I agree with you about, but the you use the argument that licensing would be terrible for those inspectors who rely on Realtor referrals as the New Law would require Realtors to provide a list of all licensed Inspectors to their clients, which I believe they should have to, but without a law you will not get either the Realtors or Inspectors to go along with that.

I have no problem with doing away with Grandfathering, when the Law takes effect the best inspectors are still going to be the best inspectors, the most experienced, not always the best, are still going to be the most experienced, you should be able to see from my arguments over the Washington SPI that I believe all Inspectors should meet the same requirements, so I have no real argument about doing away with Grandfathering. other than I know you will switch your argument from the good old boys trying to protect themselves and eliminate competition, to the newbies trying to make themselves "equal" to the good old boys.

I hate it when I agree with you, but on the conflict of interest with referrals I do, so on that I will ask you a nonargumentative question, what do you think of the IHINA and is it worth supporting by joining?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

what do you think of the IHINA and is it worth supporting by joining?

Dennis Robitaille, the president of IHINA, has been helpful in our fight in Missouri to keep real estate salesmen from controlling our industry, and I am indebted to him for that.

When the fat lady finally sings the death march to HB 978, he will have been a key player in bringing that to fruition, along with several others whose contributions have been extremely valuable.

I personally embrace the ideals and principles of IHINA. I did so before even knowing that there was an IHINA.

Now...to anwer your question....

Dennis is a proponent of licensing bills. He is actively assisting ASHI in Massachusetts as they lay siege to New Hampshire, by way of manipulating public opinion through the media, to bring life to the bill that ASHI has been pushing in that state. I do not support that effort or Dennis's role in it. In fact, I oppose it and hope that Frank C. and his chapter will soon begin to counter it ... although I know that ASHI has more money than they do to spend on that project.

I do not believe that one must join an association, such as IHINA, to do the right thing when it comes to distancing our profession from real estate salesmen.

I believe that...as mortgage defaults increase and more pressure/turnover falls upon the salesmen to close these deals...it will become more and more obvious to home inspectors how much actual benefit there is to call themselves, proudly and loudly, "deal killers".

While I see no harm in joining or supporting IHINA, I personally can find no benefit derived from it.

[lcapaul]

While I see no harm in joining or supporting IHINA, I personally can find no benefit derived from it. --

I was thinking about joining for a couple of reasons, when you search for Home Inspectors in North Idaho, his site is always in the first 7 or 8, and if the dues I paid helped push for fighting the Realtor Referral Issue, expecially the paid "Referral" list, we don't have that here.

I get asked by Realors every now and than abut my website and brochures that tell potential Clients to hire an Inspector who workks for the Buyer not the Realtor or the Seller, I ask them how many HI Brochures they give their buyers or if they refer an Inspector by name, if they say they give buyers all the brochures available and let the buyer choose their own, then I tell them that my marketing doesn't concern them, I also ask my clients how many brochures they are given and how they chose me. I do get referrals directly from Realtors but I don't market to them and many of those are for out of State buyers where the Realtor is their Agent and acts for them in many more ways than in a normal local sale.

I don't know how it is in Missouri, but in Washington and Idaho when you list or buy a house, some where in the fine print of the listing or purchase agreements there is a little clause that says the the client acknowledges that the Realtor is acting on behalf of both the buyer and the seller, I always scratch that out and initial it, if they don't like it then they don't list my house or I buy through another agent. Have you ever been looking at homes to purchase and had the Realtor tell you that the seller "Had to Sell" because of a Divorce, Tranfer, etc. and that you could probably buy the house for much less, or listed a House for sale where the agent told you that it was worth tens of thousands more than you knew it was worth, scumbags, there are some good ones though.

[dbush]

Jim, I don't have time or desire to argue with you over this point; but my biggest problem with no grandfathering is that inspectors who have 5, 10 or more years of experience may not use experience in lieu of, for instance, the 120 hour education requirement that is often required. You're saying, that in your opinion, someone with over 5 years experience, should have to pay thousands of dollars to go to a school to meet 120 hours of training? I don't know of any profession that does not take experience into consideration.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by dbush

You're saying, that in your opinion, someone with over 5 years experience, should have to pay thousands of dollars to go to a school to meet 120 hours of training?

No. I oppose legisltating the industry, so I would not support that.

If, however, there were a bill pending that would force that expense on inspectors in order to be licensed...all inspectors expecting to be licensed should be expected to pay that expense.

If it is a ridiculous expense, it does not belong in a bill. If it is a legitimate expense, it should be carried by all who expect to be licensed, without exception. Period.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

The equality that licensing brings should be extended to all aspects of the law including all associated benefits and burdens, it is the only fair thing legislators can do when imposing unpopular unwanted laws on their voting constituents.

That is why when flying today everyone is burdened equally by the security regulations imposed to help keep our airways safe even though we know the demographics of a terrorist to a tee. It is not uncommon to see 80-year old ladies in wheelchairs randomly pulled out of line for expanded security checks.

Those who don't believe that they should be subjected to the same standards as their competition need to know that if burden of licensing is really necessary, then it should be carried equally by everyone without exception.

I have little doubt that if this program were shared with a group of consumers that they would have no problem understanding the concept and would agree that it is the fairest way to implement the licensing standards.

[Mathew Hawley]

Sounds like the making of a great press release.