First Canadian inspector licensing meeting in Edmonton, AB on Jan 21, 2008.

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.nachi.org/albertalm2007.htm

[rwand1]

Thanks Nick, no one should miss this meeting.

I hope Alberta does the right thing and grandfathers existing inspectors into its licencing endeavours. I also hope that licencing will have a governance board that is not entirely made up of home inspectors but also has lay people on the board to ensure everything is out in the open and not solely open only to home inspectors.

Regards,

[Nick Gromicko]

Brock Ketchum, the Board Chair is a good man.

[rwand1]

Yes I met with him in Toronto at the great Nachi conference. He is sincere and they couldn't have put a better man on the job.

Regards,

[George A. H. Luck]

If licensing comes about in Alberta and presumably elsewhere later, doesn't this put an end to the smoke screen that the National is truly national?

[Nick Gromicko]

Hey, wait till you see the free door prizes I have to give out at this meeting, gonna top the Toronto Convention.

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by gluck

If licensing comes about in Alberta and presumably elsewhere later, doesn't this put an end to the smoke screen that the National is truly national?

Hardly.

Both the Alberta and the British Columbia licensing models are going to be based on the National Occupational Standards and the National Certification Program. Bank on it.

Bill Mullen

PS: Keep your eye on Manitoba as well.

[Nick Gromicko]

There are good ideas everywhere that all licensing boards can draw from in developing their own form of licensing regulation (should that come about). If it is a sensible idea that would make the licensing procedure better for the consumer (no standardized reporting forms which limit consumer access to innovation) and more fair to individual inspectors (no association bias or forced pier review which leads to limiting consumer choice), who cares who thought of it originally? Canadian Provinces have it easy as they have access to the states as guinea pigs and can see all the various stupid things different states tried as they enacted home inspector regulation (some of which have been devastating to consumers and in several cases have lead to consumers being killed). I've offered my assistance to all Provinces as I've been monitoring licensing for 20 years now and can show how many regulations that look great on paper are pretty close to mass murder once enacted.

Anyway, we've added 2 more presenters, one broker and one insurance rep: http://www.nachi.org/albertalm2007.htm It will be a very good meeting.

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by gromicko

There are good ideas everywhere that all licensing boards can draw from in developing their own form of licensing regulation (should that come about). If it is a sensible idea that would make the licensing procedure better for the consumer (no standardized reporting forms) and more fair to individual inspectors (no association bias or forced pier review), who cares who thought of it originally?

Anyway, we've added 2 more presenters, one broker and one insurance rep: http://www.nachi.org/albertalm2007.htm

That's right, Nick.

I have met with government people from BC. Manitoba and Alberta and the common theme is that the Feds helped pay for a uniform, fair standard that crosses provincial borders, so why re-invent the wheel?
That doesn't mean that CAHPI or the NCA will have any control over licensing, nor should they.
I doubt they will drop the peer review, however. We've received very good comments from them about it, but then again, who can predict what will happen with governments?

Bill Mullen

[Nick Gromicko]

Peer review works. We use it at NACHI with our 4 mock inspection entrance requirement. I just tonight suggested a form of it at post #19 on this thread: http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthrea...t=21963&page=2

Where it has problems is when it is used as a requirement to license home inspectors (rather than educate them) and where the peers are members of your association's competing association OR WORSE where the peers are your direct competitors. Such peer review in those cases harms consumers.

The best type of peer review is by disinterested parties who belong to no association or even better, aren't or are no longer inspectors themselves and are compensated financially for their review work they do for the government and have absolutely no financial interest, no association social pressure and no conflict of interest that could possibly cause them to go light on poor inspectors and heavy handed on good inspectors. That really harms consumers. And don't think it doesn't happen, I've seen it. Any regulation proposal that would force a member of one association to have his work reviewed by a member of another association who is a direct competitor of the applicant... is Stupid with a capital "S."

[Nick Gromicko]

Can anyone tell me the purpose of licensing?

If you say "to increase standards or raise the bar" or something like that I'm going to laugh.

The purpose of licensing is to provide a mechanism for the government to get a bum off the street and legally prohibit him/her from offering inspection services to the public.

Just like a drivers license doesn't stop speeding or drunk driving, a home inspetor's license doesn't stop the number one killer of consumers (no it isn't incompetence).... inspector complacency on the job.

MADD says most drunk drivers have valid drivers licenses, so what's the point? The point is to provide the government a method by which to pull those bums off the road, or in the case of lazy inspectors... off the roof.

[rwand1]

Licencing = integrity at the oversite level.

If the licencing is formed from the National, that is great.

What is not needed is oversite of home inspectors overseeing themselves. There are just too many conflicts, special interests and other issues which have clouded the issue for too long. These long held attitudes are ingrained and will not be relinquished easily.

Licencing will be like opening the window and let a fresh breeze blow through the house, taking with it the stale stagnant air of self authority.

The best of both worlds provided all inspectors determine their future, and what is best for them. We don't need nor want licencing that is done without input from all corners of the profession.

[George A. H. Luck]

Give your head a shake Bill (if that rattling sound doesn't bother you of course)
If Alberta enacts licensing why would any Albertan pay thousads of dollars to your organization just for the right to an anal exam? (Here is a hint for you- answer ; NONE) So if inspectors are not joining your happy little old boys club in one or several provinces it is no longer "national".

Simple concept. I am sure you can get it.
</IMG>

[Michael Larson]

Raymond, We will have to agree to disagree regarding licensing. The so called benifits just don't seem to materialize.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

[rwand1]

Michael

No one asked you to agree, you don't know the politicts or the egos up here so your comments are moot, the fact is the same issues state side do not relate to what is and has gone on up here. Unfortunately people up here who oversee inspectors elected by inspectors have not and will not be accountable to the members. No one has offered logical well thougth ways to make it work, what other conceivable options are there?