Alberta Home Inspector Licensing/Regulation meeting in Edmonton on May 25, 2009.

[Nick Gromicko]

http://ab.nachi.org/albertanachi/event477.html

[Mike G. Howard, CMI]

Nick, will you be attending the May 25th meeting? It would certainly boost our credibility with our provincial government.

By the way, thank you for pre-paying our membership dues in the newly formed chapter.

[rpuckey]

Thanks Nick. Appreciate the pre-payment of membership dues to the Alberta chapter. This venue shall be a very important one for all in the business.

[Nick Gromicko]

I sent Vern my check of $2,160.00 today to cover 72 members of the chapter. I was thinking about attending but I thought I'd pass because:

1. I don't have the proposals. Alberta sending them out on the 15th. So I'm not sure there is anything in them I'd object strongly to anyway.

2. As a policy, I generally keep out of local government licensing. I'm not a carpetbagger. It is up to local, individual members to argue for or against licensing as they see fit. I have my opinions but don't abuse my position as the founder of the association to push one way or the other. InterNACHI is all about education, business success, marketing, benefits, deals, entertainment, information, etc. and mutually exclusive of licensing. We are strong in licensed jurisdictions because we provide the other 99% of the pie (a pie that inspectors need all of) that governments don't and never will provide.

3. I didn't want it to turn into the Nick Gromicko show if you know what I mean.

4. I didn't want it to look like some Yankee calls the shots in AB. Everyone (on the inside at least) knows (and can attest) that the chapters run autonomously.

[Mike G. Howard, CMI]

I totally understand your position Nick. I'm sure we'll have no trouble fighting our own battle. It would have been nice to have one of you "Damn Yankees" up here to hear what's going on. I look forward to meeting with you in the future.

[Nick Gromicko]

Today, I also snail mailed an invitation to all AB InterNACHI members. They should get it next week.

[wblakey]

Here's a quick summary of the BPCPA qualification requirements to be a home inspector in BC.

Educational requirements: 175 hours of academic training from post secondary institute or accredited training institute. (Distance education is acceptable if the the training organization can validate the number of hours through instructor documented attestation.)

Academic examination requirements: Must include direct oversight such as proctoring.

Supervised fieldwork: 50 supervised hours or 10 supervised home inspections. At least 2 inspections to be peer reviewed.

Continuing education: 20 hours per year.

Professional insurance: General liability - $1,000,000; E&O - $1,000,000. Policies must include coverage for water ingress.

It is likely that Alberta will be looking closely at the BC requirements, so good luck. It would be great if the INACHI educational modules could be accepted in some way or other.

[Mike G. Howard, CMI]

So who does the peer reviews and supervised inspections? Caphi members? I have no plans to roll over and pay them the 3000 + dollars they want to sign up with there little club. I hope that ALL members attend the May 25th meeting to have our voices heard.

[James H. Bushart]

It has many of the inclusions that American laws designed to control the number of new inspectors entering the market have.

E&O is not and never has been designed to protect the consumer. In fact, it will be the insurance company who will be paying out to defend the inspector and who will be refusing coverage when the inspector has stepped beyond his SOP. All this represents is an additional cost to discourage new and part time inspectors.

Likewise with mentoring. No inspector teaches his competitor how to do things as well as he does. It is a means for the guys who push the law (they are always above whatever minimum requirements are established) to make money from newbies needing a mentor to be licensed and gives them a chance to avoid a few crawlspaces while making some extra money.

With all of this screening, many incompetents are going to be covered and hidden from the public as "licensed".

Frankly, I think the best thing for Nick to do in this case is to state the obvious....the law will fail in its intended purpose of guaranteeing that those it licenses are all actually competent....and offer NACHI membership to only those licensed inspectors who can qualify and maintain NACHI standards.

Remember guys.....this license represents nothing more than the "minimum qualified" inspector. Less than what your licensing law provides for represents those who are unfit to inspect.

NACHI should be some number of steps above the minimum qualification if you expect it to be the "credential" that you are wanting it to be.

[Mike G. Howard, CMI]

Thanks James. May I quote your words at our May meeting? Sage wisdom.

[Vern Mitchinson]

You are right James. When HI's are licenced the number of new inspector’s increases exponentially two years after licencing comes into effect. (Ohio State study shows this)
However much we dislike it there are too many pressure groups, Realtors, mortgage brokers, that other association (name withheld as I refuse to give them free advertising) Insurance companies etc. They all are lobbing the government to get a piece of our pie. I got into this fray so that I could influence the government and not end up like BC and a number of states where other Associations got the recognition. I was not going to run the risk of being left out.

[Vern Mitchinson]

Originally Posted by wblakey

Professional insurance: General liability - $1,000,000; E&O - $1,000,000. Policies must include coverage for water ingress.

Insurance requirements are also on the table.
You must attend the meeting to get the info on that issue if the government is ready to release that info.

[James H. Bushart]

I understand, Vern, but in all of your dialogue please remind our HI brothers in your country that licensing does not represent skill and competence. Like code, it is to represent the "minimum standard" and when these other groups attempt to degrade themselves and their members by arguing that it is them...and not others....who represent the minimum that a home inspector should be --- don't argue.

Agree with them that they represent the minimum of what a home inspector should be....and that you are hopeful that, someday, they will be able to progress beyond that.

Thinking your competitor will train you to even be equal to him in skill is laughable. The most advanced testing in our business (certification from the International Code Council) is open book. E&O insurance protects errant inspectors, not their clients.

Let them know that, while a "license" assures that only the minimum basic standards have been met, a "certification" reflects that someone has awarded special recognition for the demonstration of skill. Let those who want to degrade the time, money and effort already expended on a "national certification" by making it nothing more than the minimum that a first day inspector is required to have in order to turn on his first flashlight....that they are fools.

[Nick Gromicko]

Here is the problem with mandatory E&O. FREA says that 95% of all consumer claims have no merit. In other words, most complaints are not valid (inspectors are generally doing a good job). Insurance companies are for-profit companies (with stockholders). Therefore they owe a fiduciary duty NOT to their clients (the inspectors) but rather their stockholders. So don't get mad at the insurance companies when they settle the claim (without your consent). Anyway, when they settle the claim, the inspector often feels that it harms his/her reputation by insinuating that the inspector did something wrong. It gets worse. The insurance company often then raises the inspector's premium or worse, drops them. It gets worse. The insurance company then shares the fact that they paid a claim with all the other insurance companies. It gets worse. The other insurance companies then refuse to write a new policy for the inspector. It gets worse. Without insurance, the inspector loses his/her license.

I will say that FREA fights for their clients. Nigel (one of the owners of FREA) is an attorney and a good one. I should also disclose that FREA is a sponsor of NACHI.TV, but that does not affect my praise of FREA which I have offered for years before they became a sponsor.

[wblakey]

I think if you take a confrontational approach that you will be left out of the process. Licensing is going to happen in Alberta, you can take that to the bank. The question is, is INACHI going to be a part of the process or not?