A thread for serious discussion of Washington Senate bill 5778

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

You charge for your mentoring didn't you say Brian? Here you could not. You never explained just how it worked there, and how an inspector out in the middle of now where could be mentored without any more expense or lost time than and inspector in Phoenix. Who's liable for any injury to the mentored inspector, wouldn't clients feel that their inspection was more a training exercise that "their" inspection, who qualifies the Mentor?...Lot's of questions.

Charge for menotring, yes.

Inspectors in the middle of no where face additional hurdles to starting a successful HI business no matter if it is in Greer, AZ or Walla Walla, WA; that's how life works.

Liability is always an issue and each situation has to be looked at carefully.

You always ask the client if they mind that you are training a new HI.

I personaly found my formal HI training including two years of ITA's convention CEU's lame for the most part.
Good Luck in WA fellow HI's

[Steven L. Smith]

It seems to be updated, but pretty much all the same.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by ssmith

It seems to be updated, but pretty much all the same.

Here's an Interesting change:

Original:

(2) On July 1, 2008, any person who has been actively engaged in
2 the business of conducting home inspections for at least two years and
3 who has conducted at least one hundred home inspections may apply to
4 the board for initial licensure without meeting the examination or
5 instruction requirements of this chapter.

Senate Bill Reprot 02/09/07
Grandfather Clause: On July 1, 2008, any person who has been actively engaged in
conducting home inspections for at least two years may apply for a license without first
meeting the exam or instruction requirements. The person must pass the written exam before his or her license can be renewed.

Where did the 100 Inspections GO?????

[wforsyth]

Gone. And it also states that an inspector from another state must be licensed in that state to be licensed here. Looks like alot of changes going into it last minute before they put it in front of the public.

Does anyone know if it looks like they can rule on it tomorrow?

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

Here's an Interesting change:

Original:

(2) On July 1, 2008, any person who has been actively engaged in
2 the business of conducting home inspections for at least two years and
3 who has conducted at least one hundred home inspections may apply to
4 the board for initial licensure without meeting the examination or
5 instruction requirements of this chapter.

Senate Bill Reprot 02/09/07
Grandfather Clause: On July 1, 2008, any person who has been actively engaged in
conducting home inspections for at least two years may apply for a license without first
meeting the exam or instruction requirements. The person must pass the written exam before his or her license can be renewed.

Where did the 100 Inspections GO?????

Don't confuse the actual wording of the legislation with the report prepared as background for the legislators. The report is just an outline, not the actual wording of the bill.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

Gone. And it also states that an inspector from another state must be licensed in that state to be licensed here. Looks like alot of changes going into it last minute before they put it in front of the public.

Does anyone know if it looks like they can rule on it tomorrow?

This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members
in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a
statement of legislative intent.
Senate Bill Report - 1 - SB 5788

It's a summary Wendy, don't count on the 100 being gone, and the only requirement for someone out of State is to meet the requirements of Washington, to have been " actively" in the business of Home Inspection for 2 years

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

Don't confuse the actual wording of the legislation with the report prepared as background for the legislators. The report is just an outline, not the actual wording of the bill.

You beat me to it by 6 minutes Steve.

Did you get the picture of the Narrows I sent?

[wforsyth]

Getting a little aggressive for the thread aren't we Lewis?

Anyway. I'll be there tomorrow. So I'll have a pretty darn good take on the whole thing tomorrow afternoon.

I'll wave to ya.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by lcapaul

You beat me to it by 6 minutes Steve.

Did you get the picture of the Narrows I sent?

Those were great pictures Lewis. I am over the bridge a couple times a week and some of those days can be real ugly, especially when the wind is blowing. I could never do what those bridge workers do. Gives me the willies just thinking about it.

[lcapaul]

Originally Posted by sstanczyk

Those were great pictures Lewis. I am over the bridge a couple times a week and some of those days can be real ugly, especially when the wind is blowing. I could never do what those bridge workers do. Gives me the willies just thinking about it.

The ones without the fog make me dizzy, my wife's uncle emailed me those this morning, I don't know where he found them. I used to live south of Gig Harbor I drove that bridge everyday to Ft Lewis, and my wife drove it getting to work, I remember several times when we had to drive clear down to Olympia and around to get back home, with that wind through the Narrows that bridge is quite an engineering feat.

Send me an Email about the meeting tomorrow if you think of it

[lcapaul]

Off Thread but its late and these are pretty cool, good to wake up to

[lcapaul]

I had to resize this one, this must be sunrise its looking east, that had to be a scary climb getting to the top in the dark, although I think I'd have a better chance of climbing up there if I couldn't see, enyoy the Sunrise,

[wforsyth]

Those are actually beyond stunning Lewis. Thank you for sharing them.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by wforsyth

.

Does anyone know if it looks like they can rule on it tomorrow?

Here is the legislative process for a bill from Wa States website;

1. A bill may be introduced in either the Senate or House of Representatives by a member.
2. It is referred to a committee for a hearing. The committee studies the bill and may hold public hearings on it. It can then pass, reject or take no action on the bill.
3. The committee report on the passed bill is read in open session of the House or Senate, and the bill is then referred to the Rules Committee.
4. The Rules Committee can either place the bill on the second reading of the calendar for debate before the entire body, or take no action.
5. At the second reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being placed on the third reading calendar for final passage.
6. After passing one house, the bill goes through the same procedure in the other house.
7. If amendments are made, the other house must approve the changes.
8. When the bill is accepted in both houses, it is signed by the respective leaders and sent to the governor.
9. The governor signs the bill into law or may veto all or part of it. If the governor fails to act on the bill, it may become law without a signature.

SB 5788 Was inititiated by Spanel (step #1)
It is currently in committee for hearing (step #2)
Now it has to pass through steps 3 through 9 to become a law.

[Harold E. Miller]

http://www.tvw.org/mediaplayer/LiveW...020126&ccode=C

Link for today's Live Audio Webcast of the 5788 hearing. This will be archived on TVW's site to hear later.