TREC SOP Commentary - Oct '09

[Michael R. Boyett]

Commentaries on the Standards of Practice, drafted by the Standards of Practice Subcommittee of the Texas Real Estate Inspector Committee, have been posted on the TREC website as of 11/25/09. There is an email link for you to send them comments, observations or just share your thoughts about these commentaries.

Input from everyone - Texas inspectors, brokers & agents, lenders, the public - is earnestly sought and welcome. Proposed commentaries to other sections will be coming later.

The link is: http://www.trec.state.tx.us/inspecto...ntary_2009.asp

[Nick Gromicko]

You can comment or make suggestions here: http://www.trec.state.tx.us/inspecto...ntary_2009.asp

[Michael R. Boyett]

Isn't that the same link I posted?

[John Cahill]

Mike,

Was Item 4 on the agenda left out? It said

Discussion and possible action to recommend to the Inspectors Advisory Committee that the Inspectors Advisory Committee request funding from the Texas Real Estate Commission for an independent, unbiased attorney to advise the Inspectors Advisory Committee so that the Inspectors Advisory Committee can properly represent the interests of the consumers of the State of Texas in inspection related matters

This seems to read as if the IC is challenging staff lawyers opinions. IF that is the reason it is a really stupid mistake and the item should be tabled.

Staff is in a predicament. They defeated the SoP my committee presented with 1) it lacks specificity 2) You cannot have a Commentary because it is not adopted as Rule. GC testified to the Commissioners on this. My SoP was tossed and Fred appointed. He wrote a very large and confusing document that he now wants to clarify with a Commentary. IF GC allows that then it makes it look like staff was manipulating the Commissioners to get my SoP dumped using an improper Commentary argument. Appearances aside the fact is ALL requirements and limitations need to be IN THE SoP if you are going to have a SoP like the monster we have. The current proposed Commentary changes the written word of the published rule significantly. That is wrong. You cannot write Rules like that. It's a "I said this then and this is what I meant by it now" stratagy. Its illegal and I am sure a judge will agree.

Short of dumping the albatross, the best for inspectors to do is support GC and require ALL revisions, requirements and limitations to be clearly stated ONLY in the SoP. If it grows to 100 pages so be it. It is what Foster / Willcox / DeHay and the Commissioners demanded. A SoP with "specificity, safety and code".


The IC boys need to quit their whining and get to work "telling us how it works" in the body of the SoP.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by jcahill

Was Item 4 on the agenda left out? It said

Discussion and possible action to recommend to the Inspectors Advisory Committee that the Inspectors Advisory Committee request funding from the Texas Real Estate Commission for an independent, unbiased attorney to advise the Inspectors Advisory Committee so that the Inspectors Advisory Committee can properly represent the interests of the consumers of the State of Texas in inspection related matters

This seems to read as if the IC is challenging staff lawyers opinions. IF that is the reason it is a really stupid mistake and the item should be tabled.

John...left out of where? That agenda item is still showing on the TREC website as well as the Texas Register so I believe it will be discussed and, I suspect, immediately shot down by TREC staff.

I have received the log-in credentials and plan to 'attend' the teleconference. I see where you will not be able to attend so I'll update everyone late Tuesday.

Personally, I am hoping the work will cease on the Commentary. I would hate to see it rolled into the SOP.

[John Cahill]

Well DUH. I thought the meeting was today (Monday) and read your minutes from October. My comments still apply to tomorrows meeting however. I think I can make that (Tuesday Dec 1).

The SoP are very inconsistent. They quote code wording on some items and are very vague in others. My concern is that Fred interprets the requirements different than myself. IF a complaint occurs and staff consults with Fred they could come up with a totally different interpretation. I have no problems detailing the SoP to be exactly what Foster and Willcox demanded. Specific.

The current SoP is very bad. You either dump them or fix them. In that they will never get dumped then fix them.

A new question.

Texas Administrative Code titled each SoP section as "Guidelines for Structural (etc)". Now the Tex Admin code state "requirements". The word guideline was dumped for requirement. I have asked Fred who changed that word. I do not recall the IC discussing that and I think staff did it under a cleanup argument.

Deleting guideline for requirement makes the SoP read totally different.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Not sure when the wording changed from "Guidelines" to "Requirements". I don't remember ever hearing any discussion nor proposal on that change. TREC only shows 'recent' changes to TAC and nothing shows up there on this topic. I do not see where the Texas Register nor TAC provides a history of changes either.

[John Cahill]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Not sure when the wording changed from "Guidelines" to "Requirements". I don't remember ever hearing any discussion nor proposal on that change. TREC only shows 'recent' changes to TAC and nothing shows up there on this topic. I do not see where the Texas Register nor TAC provides a history of changes either.

It changed with the new SoP. Blame me. I am the one that mentioned "Guideline" in front of staff.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Yes, you're right...I found it on the Register, the section titles did change when the new SOP was adopted in 11/08. Here's a screen grab of the Texas Register showing the repeal of one section (a guideline) and then an adoption of a revised section (a minimum requirement):

[John Cahill]

Mr. Meisel confirmed it also. I emailed Foster and asked if they were aware. Not sure he will reply. I suspect it was a staff change. They have the authority to do it. It does change overall intent. I am not too concerned. I could make a lot of money going against inspectors using this. I wish I could loose my conscience.

Home inspection in Texas has never been worse. I advised my son in law to follow a different path. I would not recommend it to anyone.

[John Cahill]

On the lighter side. I must be one stupid inspector not to see a change that was made a year ago.

[Dominic J. Maricic]

Mike, Any official update on the OP-I form being included as an addendum yet?

[Michael R. Boyett]

No, I have heard nothing else since attempting to connect you and the IAC chairman together via telephone. Did that ever occur?

[Dominic J. Maricic]

No, he never got back a hold of me. Sounds like they don't want to officially take care of the question!

[Michael R. Boyett]

I'll send you a separate e-mail with his contact information. I'd say call him.