@Russell - a few comments on your post because I think we’re speaking different thoughts:
First, because things can get poorly interpreted or misquoted, I want to be clear that I never mentioned NACHI, referred to NACHI or implied I am seeking an “authorization.”
Secondly, the very problems you cite regarding no dissemination of information from Tallahassee, no clarity about the purpose or role of a lobbyist and the protection of the industry seem to me to be exactly my case-in-point. We need to strive to part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Also, your perspective on what hasn’t worked, I think, is quite valuable. You’ve offered that you want more communication about the goings on in Tallahassee. You seem to state that you want a lobbyist who has a mission, works on it and is paid based on performance. Additionally, I sense a perception that you believe the folks in our industry lack an interest in protecting their livelihoods. I generally tend to assume noble intent; I think inspectors do care, want to care and want somewhere toward which they can direct their passion about their field.
And, yes, I would like to further discuss what the industry wants and needs - and I thank you for offering that.
@joe B - I’m not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the inspector organizations in the state worked in contradiction to their members’ desires? How does a trade organization maintain membership if it pursues public policy or legislation that is contrary to what it’s members want? I’m not being critical of your statement. I’m simply trying to understand the issue. It seems to me that if I’m paying an organization to represent me and they don’t, well - not much value in sending them a check any longer.
Often, those types of situations are nothing more than bad officers, bad communication of organization purpose, etc., these are organizational issues - not issues of necessity or desire.