Inspector Advisory Council update.

[Nick Gromicko, CMI]

Inspector Notification

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan, TREC# 7593]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Inspector Notification

So at this time the IAC has not published the meeting minutes from 10 days ago and we are being asked to comment on meeting outcomes that have not yet been officially published?

[John Cahill, TREC 855]

TREC has not posted the meeting recording. Everyone I talked to heard different things being said. One IAC member was loudly hurrying the process. He was so forceful it suppressed public comment. I listened to the meeting but had a periodic bad connection. The meeting kinda sounded like mayhem. Oldmixon mentioned statute opportunities to define liability; that is a total trap. We already can limit liability with current statute and the TREC lawyers are wrong regarding their interpretation. Reject Oldmixons idea for statutory clarification. We already have that right.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan, TREC# 7593]

Originally Posted by jcahill

TREC has not posted the meeting recording. Everyone I talked to heard different things being said. One IAC member was loudly hurrying the process. He was so forceful it suppressed public comment. I listened to the meeting but had a periodic bad connection. The meeting kinda sounded like mayhem. Oldmixon mentioned statute opportunities to define liability; that is a total trap. We already can limit liability with current statute and the TREC lawyers are wrong regarding their interpretation. Reject Oldmixons idea for statutory clarification. We already have that right.

That is exactly why I was asking if an official post of meeting minutes has been made for what the IAC decided to do.

[Michael R. Boyett]

Here is the IAC Working Group recommendation that is to be discussed tomorrow morning, 04/09/18.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan, TREC# 7593]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Here is the IAC Working Group recommendation that is to be discussed tomorrow morning, 04/09/18.

Attachment 201032

Thank you Michael! So they toned down their intended actions. Other than the addition of the GL requirement there really is nothing to send in comments for that have not already been covered.

[John Cahill, TREC 855]

I sent an open records request for the March 26 meeting. TREC posted the audio recording a few days after my request. There are no written minutes because it was a working group. The audio is fairly easy to hear. Meeting Details

The 4-9 meeting discussed insurance a lot and they kinda put it on the July burner. I think they did that because Sunset was listening in on the meeting. TREC is suggesting statutory changes to clarify the law. Be very cautious of statutory promises.

They are also proceeding with the definition of "client". It is, in my opinion, an effort to restrain trade and Nicks legitimate "free listing inspection" idea. It is a gross overreach by a regulatory agency. I protested this to TREC General Counsel as a restraint of trade argument and she was offended by my suggestion. I will oppose this in the Commissioners May meeting. The FTC shut down TREC in 2005 for trying to prevent discount brokerage. They will do it again after listening to the inspector committee meeting tape. It is a blatant attack on InterNACHI and the FTC won't like it. The FTC letter is at this link.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan, TREC# 7593]

Originally Posted by jcahill

I sent an open records request for the March 26 meeting. TREC posted the audio recording a few days after my request. There are no written minutes because it was a working group. The audio is fairly easy to hear. Meeting Details

The 4-9 meeting discussed insurance a lot and they kinda put it on the July burner. I think they did that because Sunset was listening in on the meeting. TREC is suggesting statutory changes to clarify the law. Be very cautious of statutory promises.

They are also proceeding with the definition of "client". It is, in my opinion, an effort to restrain trade and Nicks legitimate "free listing inspection" idea. It is a gross overreach by a regulatory agency. I protested this to TREC General Counsel as a restraint of trade argument and she was offended by my suggestion. I will oppose this in the Commissioners May meeting. The FTC shut down TREC in 2005 for trying to prevent discount brokerage. They will do it again after listening to the inspector committee meeting tape. It is a blatant attack on InterNACHI and the FTC won't like it. The FTC letter is at this link.

Hello John,

I do not recall any discussions about defining "client". What is TREC trying to do with that?

[Michael R. Boyett]

Originally Posted by escanlan

I do not recall any discussions about defining "client". What is TREC trying to do with that?

Here is the Proposed Definition revision. I didn't hear the discussion at the 4/9 IAC meeting so I can't put it in context. Maybe John can.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan, TREC# 7593]

Originally Posted by mboyett

Here is the Proposed Definition revision. I didn't hear the discussion at the 4/9 IAC meeting so I can't put it in context. Maybe John can.

Attachment 201193

Mike,

Thanks and I do recall that now. That is the definition TREC has always based their opinions on as far back as I can remember. It is the same definition they provided me over a decade ago when looking into "Walk & Talk" type inspections.

John,

I do not see how this definition can "restrain trade"? Can you elaborate?

[John Cahill, TREC 855]

Ill get back to tonight. If someone has time find the word “possible” or “prospective” in statute or rule.

[John Cahill, TREC 855]

The statute says if you do an inspection for a seller or buyer you have to have a TREC license.

TREC is saying that no matter who you work for either the seller or buyer is the client. There is a big difference between the two. If you work for a relocation company TREC argues you are working for the seller.

In my opinion: The IAC meeting tapes specifically state the objective of the definition is in regards to concerns over Porch and InterNACHI. The formal definition is being created to stop Porch and InterNACHI? Listen to the tape for yourself.

Video at 1.21.30

This oringinated with complaint by an inspector regarding InterNACHI listing program. Look at pages 31 through 36 at handouts link.

I had a lawyer tell me "client" is defined by contract law and may or may not necessarily mean the person who paid you (there are variables apparently). TRECs definition seems like an intent to regulate contract law in Texas. Will wait and see what happens at May 7 Commisioner meeting.