Senator Greenleaf is meeting with me in Horsham on Jan 11th. Help.

[Nick Gromicko]

If you want to join me at this meeting which will be held at a local restaurant the morning of the 11th, post here. I am also looking for any changes you want made to the proposed legislation before the session starts 5 days later.

[jmichalski]

Perhaps that's why I didn't get a return call on the scheduling of my meeting with him.

I would like to attend.

I am most concerned that:

1) the granfathering provision as it is currently written will still require most of the inspectors currently in the business to go back, do 120 hours of "approved" training, plus 40 hours of in-field practicum before they can continue their careers. Inspectors currently in the profession should be grandfathered in (or at least within some reasonable measure of experience or longevity) without having to pay thousands for training.

2) The Board has some very braod authority with no checks on its power - such as the authority to suspend any inspectors license for 90 days without a hearing.

3) If PHIC dominates the Board, and continues to refuse to acknowledge NACHI as PA complient, all NACHI-only inspectors will be forced into other associations by the bill.

[Nick Gromicko]

PHIC? Judge already ruled on that... where have you been? There is no PHIC in the proposed law and never was and never will be. Stop making up stuff that isn't there. This bill is the most anti-scumbag NAHI bill ever written and we're going to drive those agent-bribing, repair-offering scumbags right out of my home state.

[Joe Farsetta]

Nick,

This bill is the scariest I have seen. It gives sweeping authority to the Licensing Board, with little or no recourse. If the board is made up of those who currently support PHIC (whether a Judge likes it or not) they will kill NACHI. The law allows them to decide if an association qualifies today or tomorrow. PHICs philosophy has been to do it until they are legally stopped. They have never stopped in their desire to have NACHI swept aside. Never.

The bill has a long way to go. The first thing is to limit the role and authority of the licensing board. The second is to require that the board is made up of representatives of major national HI associations, with a STATE-defined criteria, that is irrevocable.

The Board needs to be ADVISORY only, with no special authority, powers, or privileges, AT ALL.

Watch these guys protest when their power becomes limited. These two modifications will likely create the biggest stink with PHIC guys.

[Scott F. Coslett]

Nick.

I am planning to attend your meeting with Senator Greenleaf.

My concerns are as follows:

1.) I believe the board should include representitives from the HI associations operating in the State.

[jmichalski]

Nick,

I mention PHIC because in discussions with Senator Greenleaf's legislative staff it was made clear that he had some assistence in drafting the bill from "interested home inspectors".

Given the way the bill is drafted, it is not illogical at all to infer that PHIC has had come influence. If PHIC is allowed majority control of the Board, there will be significant issues arising. It does not hurt to address the issue.

Regarding the propsed change to allow all HI orgs in the state to have particiaption on the Board, the problem I forsee is that they could allow just one NACHI member, while allowing 4 PHIC/ASHI members. Control will likely always rest with that body unless other language is also adopted.

Joe F's thought to make the Board an advisory body is a good one.

I have composed another letter to Senator Greenleaf outling my concerns as an indpendant home inspector in PA, not as a NACHI member.

I understand that avoiding organizational infighting is probably a good idea at this meeting - however, some discussion of the topic must had. In addition, my concern over the unlimited power of the Board and the grandfathering provision remain my top two concerns, and I would like to have them specifically addressed as well.

[Scott F. Coslett]

Nick,

For some reason, my entire reply was not posted.....I'll try again.


I am planning to attend your meeting with Senator Greenleaf.

My concerns are as follows:

1.) I believe the board should include representatives from the HI associations operating in the State. This should prevent one person or agenda from dominating the board or trying to move the board in a particular direction.

2.) Licensing requirements are confusing at best. Requirements must be clarified. My understanding of the licensing requirements are an individual will need to:

(1) Furnish evidence of:

(i) Be 18 yrs of age.
____________________________________
(ii) (A) High school grad, have GED, or
(B) 5 yrs experience
____________________________________
(iii) Meet other criteria established by the board

Most NACHI members will have no problem with (i) and (ii), but what is the definition of (iii)???

(2) Complete an application

What will be on this application?

or

(3) (summarized) Complete: 120 hr. course of study that includes 40 hrs of in-field training.

Does the 120 hr. course include the 40 hrs of infield training, or is the 40 hrs of training in addition to the 120 hr. course??

It seems to me that a current home inspector would have to satisfy (1) and
and (2), but as noted above, how is (iii) (under section(1)) interpreted? Section (3) appears to be for a person wanting to enter the HI field.

Is this the correct interpretation?

A defined, detailed mechanism to handle (grandfather) current certified inspectors must be included. To do otherwise will only create chaos in the HI industry in the state. Everyone that reads the licensing requirements as written, can have a different interpretation of these requirements as they apply to a current inspector......


More comments to come after I apply my trade this afternoon.

[Joe Farsetta]

Joe M.,

I would be happy to offer any assistance I can (and which would be wanted, of course) in your quest. Look at NY's verbiage pertaining to the HI Board. Adapt it if it works for you. And, yes, I too believe NACHI may be in for a very bumby ride if this is allowed to move forward the way it is presently drafted.

[James H. Bushart]

It's good for Nick to have this meeting arranged, but is there anyone in PA organizing folks into an opposition? This would be a great opportunity to hold a "second" meeting and let the Senator know, if nothing else than by attendance, that those presenting this bill are not representing a majority.

[jmichalski]

James, many conversations betwen interested inspectors in PA have occurred over email. I have a fairly comprehensive list of objections accrued through them and was in the process of attempting to schedule a meeting with Senator Greenwood (awaiting a call from his scheduler for a suggested date) when nick posted this.

The meeting would/will not involve large numbers of attendees as (apparantly) many PA HIs either are unaware of the issue (a blast email to them would be helpful) or do not care.

It will be issue oriented as we do not have sufficient resources, and I do not have enough time to organize an effective grass roots approach.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

It will be issue oriented as we do not have sufficient resources, and I do not have enough time to organize an effective grass roots approach.

Then, perhaps, someone else does.

The audience with the senator is already set. I believe that the more opposition he physically sees will only enhance whatever alternative measures he may hear.

[jmichalski]

I think that hearing from different constituencies presenting different concerns does not hurt. The inspectors who have been part of the discussion seem to have a general agreement about the proposed bill and a working outline of our concerns.

I intend to present them to the Senator independantly of the meeting Nick has arranged.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Joe M.,

I would be happy to offer any assistance I can (and which would be wanted, of course) in your quest. Look at NY's verbiage pertaining to the HI Board. Adapt it if it works for you. And, yes, I too believe NACHI may be in for a very bumby ride if this is allowed to move forward the way it is presently drafted.

Thanks for the offer of help, Joe. I am going to study the NY and NJ laws as I think they will be useful tools to see the possible directions this could go.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

I think that hearing from different constituencies presenting different concerns does not hurt.

Chaos is a good strategy...that is, flooding the legislature with a myriad of opinions and opposition to their bill from a variety of sources....in defeating any kind of legislation from passing. It worked very effectively in Florida, last year.

Presenting a unified front to back an alternative bill, as is presently happening in New Hampshire, is another means. If there are PA inspectors out there who would like to organize an effective campaign to counter the one that has already been launched by PHIC/ASHI, there is time to pull something together and present it - in the form of an organized coalition - at this meeting arranged by Nick with the Senator. I hope someone will step up to the plate and take advantage of this opportunity.

[jmichalski]

The problem, James, is that this meeting is being led by someone who has expressed personal support for the bill repeatedly. I do not know what to expect from Nick at the meeting, but I have learned from past experience not to rely on his word=.

If the meeting successfully presents all objections without watering down our serious opposition to the proposed bill, then great! If not, alternative strategies are in place.

Chaos is also not the plan (at least not mine). As I mentioned, many inspectors have privately stepped up and collaborated to outline our objections and will present them to the Senator.