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

[jmichalski]

I see that.

But there are no additional state requirements for licensed inspectors except E&O. So, ensuring adequate CE (as defined by the State), current status of membership, intitial testing, retesting, etc, as well as verification of the 100 inspections under supervision falls to the organization.

If the organization requirement is removed, verification of these items will have to be done by the state - hence a new function for the DOL, or the Board - either will require staff, equipment and a line item in the budget.

[Mark R. Long]

Originally Posted by jmichalski

If the organization requirement is removed, verification of these items will have to be done by the state - hence a new function for the DOL, or the Board - either will require staff, equipment and a line item in the budget.

But Joe, doesn't that come with the territory with State Licensing? Isn't the whole idea that the state will be overseeing and/or regulating a profession or industry or whatever?

When you get a state driver's license, isn't it the state that is regulating your activity and enforcing the driving laws?

When I had a Maryland Home Improvement License, it was the state that created the requirements and policed the industry. It wasn't left up to the National Home Builders Association. It seems to me that trade associations should be for education, advancement of an industry and perhaps lobbying for an industry or profession. I don't think that a trade association should be in a position to police it's members to assure compliance with state laws.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlong

When you get a state driver's license, isn't it the state that is regulating your activity and enforcing the driving laws?

I never once have been stopped by AAA for speeding. Nor would NACHI interfere with a member's business decision to interpret his state law differently than others. It's a local law enforcable only by those imposing it.

This is why many have found licensing to be such a disappointing venture and this is why Joe Farsetta observed that by removing this requirement, PHIC no longer has an incentive to push the bill. They (through the proposed board) want to have that control and the ability to interpret and impose their law.

Remove that power and they will join you in lobbying against it. Guaranteed.

[Mark R. Long]

This is not a response to any particular comments, but here is how simple the Maryland Requiements are for licensing Home Inspectors, assuming they ever finally fund and implement them.

http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_...e?gbo&16-3A-03

"Effective July 1, 2002, an applicant for a home inspector license shall:


(1) have completed a minimum of 48 hours of an off-site training course approved by a national home inspection organization or the Commission;

(2) have a high school diploma or its equivalent;

(3) have general liability insurance in an amount not less than $50,000;

(4) submit to the Commission an application on the form that the Commission provides; and
(5) pay to the Commission an application fee of $50."

I think they are changing the off-site training to on-site (whatever that means), but this seems pretty uncomplicated to me. Of course, there is also a 14 member Commission to oversee things, as well as paid staff to administer.

I think that if we can 1. Eliminate the association membership requirement; 2. Have a well rounded governing board/commission (like Maryland's) such as I posted a few posts back; and 3. Make the requirements as simple as Maryland's, we have ourselves a good licensing law! Yea, And did I tell you that I just saw a pig fly over my house.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by mlong

But Joe, doesn't that come with the territory with State Licensing? Isn't the whole idea that the state will be overseeing and/or regulating a profession or industry or whatever?

When you get a state driver's license, isn't it the state that is regulating your activity and enforcing the driving laws?

When I had a Maryland Home Improvement License, it was the state that created the requirements and policed the industry. It wasn't left up to the National Home Builders Association. It seems to me that trade associations should be for education, advancement of an industry and perhaps lobbying for an industry or profession. I don't think that a trade association should be in a position to police it's members to assure compliance with state laws.

"Should be" is not always the reality. PHIC's proposal creates a zero sum budget impact and allows the state control/authority over licensing of HIs. I am concerned that replacing this portion of the proposal with an argument of "if the state wants licensing, the state should pay for it" will be dismissed out of hand.

After all, if I am to introduce a Bill that proposes some state regulation/control of an industry and I don't need taxpayer money to do it, why on earth would I want to alter that structure to create a new layer of bureaucracy and have to find taxpayer funds to support it?

This Board and its proposed authorities and powers are unlike anything I can think of, so analogies may not be appropriate. We can always present ideas, and if you feel strongly about it, we will certainly suggest it, but I would say that we want to come up with a clear alternative, and bullet points as to why the Association requirement should be dropped.

[jmichalski]

Originally Posted by mlong

This is not a response to any particular comments, but here is how simple the Maryland Requiements are for licensing Home Inspectors, assuming they ever finally fund and implement them.

http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_...e?gbo&16-3A-03

"Effective July 1, 2002, an applicant for a home inspector license shall:


(1) have completed a minimum of 48 hours of an off-site training course approved by a national home inspection organization or the Commission;

(2) have a high school diploma or its equivalent;

(3) have general liability insurance in an amount not less than $50,000;

(4) submit to the Commission an application on the form that the Commission provides; and
(5) pay to the Commission an application fee of $50."

I think they are changing the off-site training to on-site (whatever that means), but this seems pretty uncomplicated to me. Of course, there is also a 14 member Commission to oversee things, as well as paid staff to administer.

I think that if we can 1. Eliminate the association membership requirement; 2. Have a well rounded governing board/commission (like Maryland's) such as I posted a few posts back; and 3. Make the requirements as simple as Maryland's, we have ourselves a good licensing law! Yea, And did I tell you that I just saw a pig fly over my house.

In a perfect world, that would be a good comparision. However, I think the PA dynamic is fairly unique, and I expect more vocal and agressive opposition to each idea we propose.