WA. Inspectors - Email update from DOL

[Peter Doane]

"Stakeholders and interested parties,
Please see the attached memo regarding the format and some suggested topics for the upcoming two public hearings on WA. Home Inspectors. If you have any questions, please forward them to me. My contact information is on the memo.
Thank you very much. I hope to see you at the hearings.
Bruce Chunn"
<<Home Inspector Public Hearing memo.PDF>>

[Dale Rowe]

•

Would regulation of Home Inspectors be beneficial to the industry?

• Would regulation of Home Inspectors be beneficial to the consumer?

• Are Home Inspectors consistent in the services provided to consumers?

• Is self-regulation of Home Inspectors working sufficiently to protect the consumer?

• What do you see as the least intrusive method to ensure quality performance by Home Inspectors?

• How does the Home Inspector industry, or membership associations within it, handle complaints

These are all appropriate questions we should address. When I've suggested in previous posts that we try to have a consistent message as a group (NACHI), I get feedback from others on the BB that we have no consistent message, we all think for ourselves, and it's a silly idea to think the group could have a common goal or idea.
I've been involved in grassroots political causes for 30 years, been very successful, and my take on this is y'all can shoot yourselves in the foot, end up with whatever the politicians decide to impose on us, or get past your personal egos and communicate. This is the last post I will make on this issue, unless there is some support for consensus.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by drowe1

This is the last post I will make on this issue, unless there is some support for consensus.

Dale, I absolutely agree that this is a good discussion topic. And this board is a good place for ideas to be tossed around. Also a great place for getting the updates like Peter posted.

If it was not for this board I probably would not have a clue that there had been any proposed legislation this last winter, and no clue that there was a sunrise review in process.

But having a consensus would mean that all Washington NACHI HI's would have to be in agreement that we all should be either Pro or Con licensing.

We know that will never happen, as demonstrated by the regular discussions (http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=15196) in the past on SPI licensing. Maybe you have read the posts, but we can not even come up with a consensus on something that is a law, is practiced by most HI's here, and we even now have confirmation from the State AG's office that we are required to be licensed as SPI's.

I wish you good luck in your quest for the ever elusive consensus.

I come from a contracting back ground where licensing is required, yet there are many that do not get a license, and there are always stories about how consumers are getting ripped off by unscrupulous contractors.

There are bad people in every profession, job, or vocation. And guess what licensing just makes us hard working honest people pay for the dirt bags that rip the public off.

In the end the public is not better off, because the good guys jump through the hoops and adhere to the laws, pay for the proper insurance, which makes it harder to compete with the fly by nights that have no license, insurance, etc.

I can't think of one time that anyone has asked to see my license for SPI http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/Licensing...h/default.aspx , yet it is a pretty important question. The same will happen with home inspector licenses. Any one can just say "Sure I am licensed, blah, blah, blah."

Besides I don't need a marketing plan devised by legislators.
I have enough business. 40 inspections in April, and 39 in May.

I would just love to hear how licensing will keep the people who are already not in compliance with the existing SPI laws, from not doing the same under any new HI legislation.

[Dale Rowe]

Harold
Thanks for your response. I agree that this message board is highly informative. I wouldn't have known about the pending legislation either if I hadn't read it here. I think NACHI is a better resource for all kinds of information than many of the members realize or acknowledge.
I also come from a contracting background. I had a fairly small construction company (10 employees), and the regulation and insurance costs eventually drove me to want to do something different. Performing home inspections was always a fun diversion from the tedium of running a business, so I decided to change my career focus.
I suspect that some sort of control of the HI business will happen in the near future. I wish there was a way to keep government out of it, but I don't think that will happen. The thought I had is if a group such as NACHI could come together in even a minor way, and offer alternatives that would address the issues that caused the legislature to bring government control of inspectors up again, we may be able to get through this without new laws and fees. If just a few people testify at public hearings with similar ideas or suggested alternatives to legislation, it can have a big effect on the decision-makers. I know the serious inspectors would have no problem taking or passing any test of their knowledge that may be required to allay the concerns about unqualified home inspectors. It's just the inefficiencies of government oversight I quarrel with.

[Nick Gromicko]

Home Inspector Public Hearing Stakeholders,

In order to ensure we hold the upcoming Home Inspector public hearings as efficiently as possible, we would like to provide some information to you about the format of the meeting and some suggested topics you may wish to address. If you have any questions about the hearings after reading this, please feel free to contact me, Bruce Chunn (contact information below).
We've had quite a lot of interest in the topic and we expect a large turnout at the hearings. If you can be present, that would be great. If you cannot make either hearing, please note that you can provide any statement you'd care to make in writing and sending it in. Written comments will be given equal importance in the compiling of the report DOL will complete. Please ensure you include your name and contact information on the written comments.
Both hearings will be conducted in essentially the same manner. We'll outline the basics:
1) There will be a sign-in sheet and the order of speakers will follow the sheet (#1 is first, etc).
2) The sign-in sheet will be available at the hearing location for one-hour prior to the scheduled start time at 1:00 PM.
3) At the start we will spend a few minutes giving a short talk about why the hearing is occurring, what prompted it, and what DOL's role is in the process.
4) The time allowed per speaker will be approximately the time allowed divided by the number of speakers.
5) We will have a single speaker at a time in front of the audience and will try to allow his/her comments to be presented without interruption.
6) We have a few suggested topics to consider that we think are pertinent to the process.
· Would regulation of Home Inspectors be beneficial to the industry?
· Would regulation of Home Inspectors be beneficial to the consumer?
· Are Home Inspectors consistent in the services provided to consumers?
· Is self-regulation of Home Inspectors working sufficiently to protect the consumer?
· What do you see as the least intrusive method to ensure quality performance by Home Inspectors?
· How does the Home Inspector industry, or membership associations within it, handle complaints?
To prepare for the hearings, please plan on presenting your view in a very short time frame (1-3 minutes). We'll try to allow each to get their point across, and ask that you be mindful so that others can get an opportunity. If you wish to provide extensive testimony, please submit written comments and use your speaking time to summarize key points.
We ask that everyone remember that these are public hearings and we'll certainly do our best to allow anything reasonable to be presented, although we do have time constraints.
We will make every attempt to follow the above plan, however, in the interest of hearing a broad perspective on the issue we reserve the right to modify the order, the time allowed and topic for testimony.

Thank you,

Bruce Chunn
Department of Licensing
1125 Washington St. SE
PO Box 9030
Olympia, WA 98507-9030
Mail Stop 48027
Phone (360) 902-0119
Email: bchunn@dol.wa.gov

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.nachi.org/wapublichearing2007.htm

[lcapaul]

Dale, I agree with most of what you said, except the part about NACHI, if you followed the legisltation so far, and viewed any of the meetings you would have noticed that none of the Inspectors who spoke for or against the legislation mentioned their associations, one group, who call themselves somelike the Washington State Home Inspection Legislative Advisory Group, did speak as a group, and even though the Senator asked that only one speak for the entire group, 3 managed to speak without mentioning their membership, an example of their integrity.

Gerry Domagala is their NACHI Rep and can be reached by looking him up on find an inspector, in Bellingham, they meet once a month in Shoreline.

The trouble with using the NACHI name is that there is no consensous, and that by using the name of a national orginazation you can bring on accusation of outside interference by NATIONAL Organizations.

Use NACHI to find members with your own views, what ever they are and then present your proposals to the committee.

Good Luck in your fight.

[wforsyth]

To prepare for the hearings, please plan on presenting your view in a very short time frame (1-3 minutes). We'll try to allow each to get their point across, and ask that you be mindful so that others can get an opportunity. If you wish to provide extensive testimony, please submit written comments and use your speaking time to summarize key points.
We ask that everyone remember that these are public hearings and we'll certainly do our best to allow anything reasonable to be presented, although we do have time constraints.
We will make every attempt to follow the above plan, however, in the interest of hearing a broad perspective on the issue we reserve the right to modify the order, the time allowed and topic for testimony.



Good point Nick. The last hearings involved nothing more than the Senators rushing and hushing and shushing, and not much of the points of the people talking at all.

[Dale Rowe]

Thanks Lewis.
I was mainly looking for ideas from NACHI members about alternatives to legislation we could provide at the hearing, because we have this BB that is apparently read and accessed extensively. I agree that referencing any organized group would likely be counter-productive. It's just useful to know what others are thinking prior to testifying at a hearing.

[lcapaul]

Things, as you can see, get out of control here pretty quickly Dale, espcially over the subject of licensing, my suggestion would be to review the many threads on the subject of Washington HI Licensing, and then contact those Washington Inspectors who have posted by PM or e-mail. If any Washington Inspectors have not entered the fray by now, they either aren't interested or don't want to get caught up in the crap.

To those Washington Inspectors who want to organize and come up with their own proposals to present to the Sunrise Committee, I suggest you contact Dale by PM or e-mail, it appears that he's volunteering.

[Harold E. Miller]

Originally Posted by drowe1

Thanks Lewis.
I was mainly looking for ideas from NACHI members about alternatives to legislation we could provide at the hearing, because we have this BB that is apparently read and accessed extensively. I agree that referencing any organized group would likely be counter-productive. It's just useful to know what others are thinking prior to testifying at a hearing.

Dale
If you haven't seen the Senate R&D hearing from February it is here; http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archi...7020240&TYPE=A
...and here was the hearing in the House of reps; http://www.tvw.org/MediaPlayer/Archi...7031193&TYPE=A

This may give you a clearer picture of what has been said at the hearings in the past. Given the short window of time to speak (no more than three minutes), it seems that it would be hard to get any message across effectively.

[Dale Rowe]

Thanks Harold

I'll review the URLs. I'm continually amazed how helpful y'all are, and how we are able to get useful information and thoughtful feedback.