WA State Legislative update

[Harold E. Miller]

I wanted pass along information from a recent e-mail update I received from Larry Stamp on WA HI legislation.

Larry Stamp
I don’t know about you, but the recent silence about this bill has been deafening. Anyway, here’s a short article from the newspaper today which I think is of interest in understanding what is happening:

“The House and Senate are back in session this morning….. and both chambers have slews of bills to consider for concurrence. That’s when a bill has passed both chambers in different forms and the first chamber is given an option to consider adopting the other chamber’s version. …. refusals to concur will give the two chambers an opportunity to set up conference committees that will negotiate a final bill for passage.”

So it looks like the silence will be broken soon. There will be more to come when I know.

I have also enclosed the latest version just in case any of you haven’t seen it.

Larry


Larry Stamp AD BS RREI
Cameo Home Inspection Services
Your 'Northwest Home' Inspection Specialist

[wforsyth]

I thought it was in Sunrise or something?

[wforsyth]

ESSB 5788 - H COMM AMD
By Committee on Commerce & Labor
ADOPTED AND ENGROSSED 04/06/2007
1 Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the
2 following:
3 "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The department of licensing shall
4 conduct a study of the home inspector profession and make
5 recommendations to the legislature as to whether the home inspector
6 profession should be regulated for the purpose of protecting the public
7 interest under the criteria set forth in RCW 18.118.010.
8 (2) In conducting the study, the department shall consider the
9 factors, to the extent appropriate, in RCW 18.118.030.
10 (3) The department must hold public hearings as part of its study.
11 The department must file notice of the hearings with the code reviser
12 for publication in the Washington State Register. The notice must
13 state that information is sought regarding possible regulation of the
14 home inspector profession; and when, where, and how public members may
15 present information about the home inspector profession and possible
16 regulation. The department must request names of interested
17 individuals and organizations from legislators and other identified
18 interested parties and send these individuals and organizations copies
19 of the notice filed with the code reviser.
20 (4) The department shall submit a report detailing its findings and
21 recommendations under this section to the appropriate legislative
22 committees by December 1, 2007."
23 Correct the title.
--- END ---
Official Print - 1 5788-S.E AMH ENGR H3484.E
*********************************************

This is the form it has now been passed in. This is the only form of the bill that is now in play.

[wforsyth]

18.118.020 << 18.118.030 >> 18.118.040


RCW 18.118.030

Applicants for regulation — Information.


After July 26, 1987, if appropriate, applicant groups shall explain each of the following factors to the extent requested by the legislative committees of reference:

(1) A definition of the problem and why regulation is necessary:

(a) The nature of the potential harm to the public if the business profession is not regulated, and the extent to which there is a threat to public health and safety;

(b) The extent to which consumers need and will benefit from a method of regulation identifying competent practitioners, indicating typical employers, if any, of practitioners in the profession; and

(c) The extent of autonomy a practitioner has, as indicated by:

(i) The extent to which the profession calls for independent judgment and the extent of skill or experience required in making the independent judgment; and

(ii) The extent to which practitioners are supervised;

(2) The efforts made to address the problem:

(a) Voluntary efforts, if any, by members of the profession to:

(i) Establish a code of ethics; or

(ii) Help resolve disputes between practitioners and consumers; and

(b) Recourse to and the extent of use of applicable law and whether it could be strengthened to control the problem;

(3) The alternatives considered:

(a) Regulation of business employers or practitioners rather than employee practitioners;

(b) Regulation of the program or service rather than the individual practitioners;

(c) Registration of all practitioners;

(d) Certification of all practitioners;

(e) Other alternatives;

(f) Why the use of the alternatives specified in this subsection would not be adequate to protect the public interest; and

(g) Why licensing would serve to protect the public interest;

(4) The benefit to the public if regulation is granted:

(a) The extent to which the incidence of specific problems present in the unregulated profession can reasonably be expected to be reduced by regulation;

(b) Whether the public can identify qualified practitioners;

(c) The extent to which the public can be confident that qualified practitioners are competent:

(i) Whether the proposed regulatory entity would be a board composed of members of the profession and public members, or a state agency, or both, and, if appropriate, their respective responsibilities in administering the system of registration, certification, or licensure, including the composition of the board and the number of public members, if any; the powers and duties of the board or state agency regarding examinations and for cause revocation, suspension, and nonrenewal of registrations, certificates, or licenses; the promulgation of rules and canons of ethics; the conduct of inspections; the receipt of complaints and disciplinary action taken against practitioners; and how fees would be levied and collected to cover the expenses of administering and operating the regulatory system;

(ii) If there is a grandfather clause, whether such practitioners will be required to meet the prerequisite qualifications established by the regulatory entity at a later date;

(iii) The nature of the standards proposed for registration, certification, or licensure as compared with the standards of other jurisdictions;

(iv) Whether the regulatory entity would be authorized to enter into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions; and

(v) The nature and duration of any training including, but not limited to, whether the training includes a substantial amount of supervised field experience; whether training programs exist in this state; if there will be an experience requirement; whether the experience must be acquired under a registered, certificated, or licensed practitioner; whether there are alternative routes of entry or methods of meeting the prerequisite qualifications; whether all applicants will be required to pass an examination; and, if an examination is required, by whom it will be developed and how the costs of development will be met;

(d) Assurance of the public that practitioners have maintained their competence:

(i) Whether the registration, certification, or licensure will carry an expiration date; and

(ii) Whether renewal will be based only upon payment of a fee, or whether renewal will involve reexamination, peer review, or other enforcement;

(5) The extent to which regulation might harm the public:

(a) The extent to which regulation will restrict entry into the profession:

(i) Whether the proposed standards are more restrictive than necessary to insure safe and effective performance; and

(ii) Whether the proposed legislation requires registered, certificated, or licensed practitioners in other jurisdictions who migrate to this state to qualify in the same manner as state applicants for registration, certification, and licensure when the other jurisdiction has substantially equivalent requirements for registration, certification, or licensure as those in this state; and

(b) Whether there are similar professions to that of the applicant group which should be included in, or portions of the applicant group which should be excluded from, the proposed legislation;

(6) The maintenance of standards:

(a) Whether effective quality assurance standards exist in the profession, such as legal requirements associated with specific programs that define or enforce standards, or a code of ethics; and

(b) How the proposed legislation will assure quality:

(i) The extent to which a code of ethics, if any, will be adopted; and

(ii) The grounds for suspension or revocation of registration, certification, or licensure;

(7) A description of the group proposed for regulation, including a list of associations, organizations, and other groups representing the practitioners in this state, an estimate of the number of practitioners in each group, and whether the groups represent different levels of practice; and

( The expected costs of regulation:

(a) The impact registration, certification, or licensure will have on the costs of the services to the public; and

(b) The cost to the state and to the general public of implementing the proposed legislation.
[1987 c 514 § 6.]

[Harold E. Miller]

Latest news from Larry;


Hello,

As we had hoped, the Senate passed the bill amended by the House and the bill will go to sunrise review by the Department of Licensing. Good job by all of you who made your voices heard. Had you not, you would likely be getting a much different message right now.

The real work will begin with the DOL study, at which time all of us must make our voices heard again. I will try to identify a contact at DOL for those of you who want to be involved in the process so that you can get on the DOL list of interested parties and stakeholders.

I have also attached the role call from the Senate, just in case you wondered if your Senator was present and how he or she voted.

Again…. Good Job!!

Larry


Larry Stamp AD BS RREI
Cameo Home Inspection Services
Your 'Northwest Home' Inspection Specialist

[Harold E. Miller]

ESSB 5788

Home inspectors

Senate vote on Final Passage as Amended by the House

4/17/2007

Yeas: 41 Nays: 7 Absent: 0 Excused: 1

Voting Yea:

Senators Benton, Berkey, Brandland, Brown, Carrell, Delvin, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Hargrove, Haugen, Hobbs, Honeyford, Jacobsen, Kastama, Kauffman, Keiser, Kilmer, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Marr, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Murray, Oemig, Parlette, Pflug, Prentice, Pridemore, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rockefeller, Sheldon, Shin, Spanel, Swecker, Tom, Weinstein, and Zarelli

Voting Nay: Senators Clements, Hatfield, Hewitt, Holmquist, Morton, Schoesler, and Stevens
Absent:
Excused: Senator Poulsen

[wforsyth]

Yep, pretty awesome eh?! There is still work that lies ahead. However, it is a far more hopeful picture that lies before us.

[jbushart]

Now, it's time to attack that screwy SPI crap. Perhaps NACHI can get behind some of you wanting to challenge it, now that your congress has clearly determined that it is not ready to regulate HIs.

[Joseph T. Burkeson]

So, its over in Washington for now, no licensing?

[jbushart]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

So, its over in Washington for now, no licensing?

Yep. Chalk up one more for the good guys.

[Joseph T. Burkeson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Yep. Chalk up one more for the good guys.

Hey, I just caught one of the pro licensing inspectors heading home from the statehouse, he was not happy.

[wforsyth]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Now, it's time to attack that screwy SPI crap. Perhaps NACHI can get behind some of you wanting to challenge it, now that your congress has clearly determined that it is not ready to regulate HIs.

Yes, good timing since the laws, even the ones they tried to apply to me, only apply to the regulation of structural pest inspectors. Since I'm a home inspector they should only be able to regulate those who advertise that they are structural pest inspectors and fine those who do so without the license. Clearly that is the only person that the law defines.

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Hey, I just caught one of the pro licensing inspectors heading home from the statehouse, he was not happy.

Well isn't that special.............

[Joseph T. Burkeson]

Washington legislators having distanced themselves from the home inspection conundrum for at least another year found time to turn their attention to other pressing issues.

Wash. Gov. Signs Domestic Partner Bill

By RACHEL LA CORTE
The Associated Press


OLYMPIA, Wash. - Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law Saturday a measure to create domestic partnerships, giving gay and lesbian couples some of the same rights that come with marriage.

The law creates a domestic partnership registry and provides enhanced rights for same-sex couples, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will.

"It offers the hope that one day, all lesbian and gay families will be treated truly equal under the law," said state Sen. Ed Murray, who is one of five openly gay lawmakers in the Legislature.

To be registered, couples have to share a home, not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else and be at least 18.

Unmarried, heterosexual senior couples will also be eligible to register if one partner is at least 62. Lawmakers said that provision, similar to one in California law, was included to help seniors who are at risk of losing pension rights and Social Security benefits if they remarry.

Gregoire received a standing ovation from about 200 people in the ornate reception room at the state Capitol.


"This is a very proud moment for me as governor, to make sure the rights of all of our citizens are equal," Gregoire said.

People in the crowd cried as Gregoire relayed stories of couples who testified before lawmakers this year about how they have been denied hospital access to dying partners, or were not allowed to plan their funerals.

"It is time we put an end to these stories," she said. "This simply allows our seniors and our same sex partners to rely on each other and to care for each other when they are faced with life and death situations. These are the rights of all Washingtonians."

The new law will take effect in July. It comes nearly a year after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage in a 5-4 decision, ruling that state lawmakers were justified in passing the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts marriage to unions between a man and woman.

Couples can register in person with the secretary of state's office in Olympia, or by mail.


April 21, 2007 3:39 PM

[Mathew Hawley]

Congrats WA on your victory!! We can regulate our own industry without Gov involvment.