Free mailing labels and postage for anyone wanting to write Kansas legislators.

http://www.nachi.org/kansasletters2008.htm

Thank you, Nick.

We can use the help of any and all members who care about the profession and its future.

Without going into each detail, those who are familiar with it know the Kansas HI Law (and its preferential implementation by the ASHI members whose loyalty in pushing it was rewarded with seats on the licensing board) to be the very worst in the country — extremely bad for the consumer, bad for the home inspector, and bad for the industry.

Due to certain provisions of the law that are not enforcable, the Kansas Attorney General is sending it back to the legislature to be amended.

This is where you can help.

Kansas is in the process, due to projected budget shortfalls (following the recent crash) of closing two of its prisons as well as cutting many needed social services fromt their budget.

Let these legislators know that the amendments will cost additional tax dollars and that these dollars are being spent for legislation that is only unnecessary…but harmful. Even the realtors who originally supported it are now refusing to recommend home inspections to their clients due to the law and how it requires even darker and harder reports from inspectors to protect themselves from the liability the law has shifted from the realtors and placed on the inspector.

This is an opportunity to participate in something meaningful and something that can truly benefit consumers and inspectors. Someday, it may be your state calling upon the association for help and support and we will all be there for you, as well.

Thanks, again, to Nick and…thanks, in advance, to all the good members of NACHI who will help correct a terrible wrong that has burdened our members in Kansas.

I totally agree. As foretold by several people, this law would be morphed. We have a committee chair that is not even following the basic committee rules. We all need to write the letters ASAP. This current law is so bad that it will be nearly completely re-written and not come close to what was originally passed. It needs to be tossed into the trash bin along with the ASHI Chairman.

Paul

For people to write letters they will need the Representatives / Senators name, etc. Do we have something posted to do that with.

I can send them everything they need. Contact me at fastreply@nachi.org

Can somebody tell me again why NACHI is not suing Molly’s owner? We got the proof that he made false claims that his dog passed the NACHI entrance exams, don’t we? He is still trying to do damage to NACHI, through his and the realtor’s home inspection licensure. It is time to send him a Christmas present. :twisted:

Oh, Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

And, of course, the JCCC thing with the “state approved education course” offered buy a certain ASHI supporter before the education requirements are even approved is just more proof of the wrong doings by this new “Kansas Home Inspection Board”. Count me in for the letters. I just need a list. Heck, just print the response from James and send it to all of the legislatures. If someone, like Dan or Nick can add to his comment, let’s all send the same letter to all of the represenitives, to be sure they all get the same message, with our return addresses on the envelopes. E-mails may not work, since they have other people read them, and most the time they do not get forwarded, or read at all.

Proof of the largest real estate company in Kansas City no longer recommending home inspections should be a wake up call for the commerce committee who wrote this bill. My personal recommendation to the 2009 legislative session would be to put off the date of implimentation of the bill until July 2011, when all counties will be included, and not just a handful, and to give ALL home inspectors in Kansas time to work on something together that is reasonable, or, if there is no justification between the national home inspection agencies and the RE’s, just cancel the bill totally. It only hurts the whole RE industry in Kansas.

The two top Republicans in the Kansas Legislature say Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius must immediately order cuts in state spending to make up for falling revenue.

Please send letters so that these people who are desperately looking for needless spending to cut can find the HI law…now growing in cost…and throw it out. Be a part of history and help to overturn the first HI law ever signed by a governor.

Show the carpetbaggers and special interests who have been telling you that such laws are “inevitable” that it just isn’t so.

Act now…and remember that posting your dissatisfaction on this message board is not enough. Let your Congressman and Governor know, as well.

How many letters to your editor have you written today?

Fellow Inspectors,

Many of you have seen Nick Gromickos’ offer to provide free mailing labels and postage to make it easier to send letters to Kansas Legislators ([FONT=Verdana]http://www.nachi.org/kansasletters2008.htm](http://www.nachi.org/kansasletters2008.htm)). He has listed 11 points of discussion as to why this letter writing campaign is needed. The problem with his 11 points is that they are either completely fabricated of misleading. Nick became upset due to the Boards policy to restrict committee positions to Kansas inspectors only, which has prompted his letter writing response. The following is the Boards response to Nicks 11 points.

1.[size=3] “The licensing board, without authorization stated in the law, is forming an Standards of Practice (SOP) committee to dictate how Kansas inspectors will inspect.”
Response: There is no requirement or law indicating that any State agency or Board cannot establish a committee for any legal purpose. The intent of the original language in the bill was to allow the Board to approve the SOP’s from all three national associations reducing the workload for the Board and allowing inspectors to use the SOP they were currently using. During our first two Board meetings we were advised by inspectors attending the meetings that this policy would be confusing to consumers and difficult to administer and enforce. The Board has also received similar advice from other states that have already gone through this process. After a lengthy discussion and with input from the spectator inspectors attending the meetings, the Board decided to establish a committee to develop a SOP for Kansas. I contacted Nick to ask for his recommendation of a Kansas Inspector who he thought would be good for this project and his response was less than flattering regarding his opinion of Kansans in general and Kansas Inspectors in particular. Nick felt that he was the only one competent enough to sit on this committee. The committee is made up of one member from interNACHI, one from NAHI and one from ASHI. All three inspectors have established long term inspection businesses and are all from the Kansas City area to make it easier to meet and work through the process. They were instructed to comb through all three national associations SOP and take the best from each. They were also instructed to review other states SOP’s and use this material to create a SOP which would be the best for Kansas Inspectors. The finished product will then be reviewed by the Board and then posted for public comment. I’m sorry that Nick has such a low opinion of Kansans’ and Kansas Inspectors, but I will have to respectfully disagree with his opinion.

  1.  “There are no provisions in the law or funding available to train on a new SOP or to monitor compliance.”
    

Response: All of you reading this post have reviewed your own SOP at least once and most likely several times. Many of you have probably even reviewed the SOP’s from the other associations as well. These documents, as you know, are by nature short and easy to comprehend. The SOP we are proposing will be in line with the language currently used in these existing documents and should require no additional training. Every inspector should review the SOP he or she is following from time to time to refresh and to insure compliance. I’m not sure what extra training will be needed beyond this. As far as monitoring compliance in concerned, the same provisions are in the bill for monitoring a new SOP as was in the bill to monitor any other SOP. Nick is right about no funding to train inspectors. The legislation is not now, or was it ever intended to take the place of private education providers. Why should another inspectors registration fees be used to train me or vice versa.

  1.   “Developing a new SOP would require taking into account legal, real estate, insurance, liability, technical, industry trend, and consumer issues and would take many years to complete properly.”  
    
  2.   “The licensing board does not have the necessary expertise to accomplish a rewrite of the inspection industry's SOP.” 
    
  3.   “A request by InterNACHI, the largest inspection association in the world, for a seat on the SOP committee, was denied by the board's chairman, a member of ASHI, without a board discussion or vote.” 
    

Response: Numbers 3 and 4 are a list of the areas of expertise that Nick feels we lack to develop an SOP. Since the language for the SOP will be taken principally from other established SOPs including interNACHI, these are non issues. The Board has access to many individuals in all of the listed fields should questions arise. In point 5, however, Nick is partially correct. His request to have a seat on the committee was denied by the Board Chair acting on the behalf of the Board. Contrary to Nicks comment that he was denied a position without Board discussion or vote is simply not true. This item was discussed at the first and second Board meetings and the Board is unanimous in its opinion that Kansas Inspectors sit on any committees. The committees are established by the Board to operate at the pleasure and direction of the Board only. I agree that his input would be invaluable in the process, and I personally told him on the telephone that he was already on our meeting contact list and anytime the committee met he would be notified and he was more than welcome to attend.

6 “A request by InterNACHI, the largest school system in the inspection industry, for a seat on the Education committee, was denied by the board’s chairman, a member of ASHI, without a board discussion or vote.”
7 “The chairman of the licensing board unilaterally and without public discussion or board vote, has established educational policies that prohibit online education. Prohibiting online education harms both inspectors and consumers. It is interesting to note that InterNACHI already has online inspection courses approved in many other states.”
Response: As with number 5, Nick is partially correct. Nick was denied a position on the committee, but not without Board discussion. It is also important to note that I have worked with Nick and Lisa on the education side of the Kansas legislation for several months and they have been very helpful. I have told Nick several times that it is the Boards opinion that continuing education through electronic means is the future of continuing education and since interNACHI is on the forefront of this technology we would continue to seek their council on these issues. Our opinion on this issue has not changed contrary to the comments in Point 7. I’m not even sure where this remark comes from. The last discussions I had with Nick on the telephone were regarding the Boards positive attitude towards internet training for continuing education. The only other discussions that were had over the education topic was in regards to the pre-registration education which is regulated by the Kansas Board of Regents. The inspection Board has no authority or control of laws and requirements of the Regents. We can only provide requirements for curriculum. Again, however Nick is right on one point, there was no discussion or Board vote prohibiting online education, as it pertains to continuing education, which is the only thing we have control over as it does not fall under the Regents authority.

  1. “The chairman of the licensing board is a member of ASHI, a known no-entrance-requirement diploma mill that has a 35 second online application that asks for nothing more than money to join. Members of known diploma mills should not sit on the licensing board for consumer protection reasons.”

  2. “All members of any known diploma mills should be removed from the licensing board and prohibited from serving on all committees.”
    Response: Nick mentions several times that I am a member of ASHI, a “diploma mill” requiring only a 35 second online application and a check to be a member. I can’t speak for how long it takes someone to complete the application, but I can tell you that it takes quite an effort to become a “certified” Inspector” with ASHI. I think most of you know what it takes to be a “Certified Inspector” with interNACHI. The requirements to be on the Kansas Home Inspection Registration Board are to have been engaged for at least 5 years in the home inspection business and have completed at least 1,000 fee-paid home inspections so I’m not sure what point Nick is trying to make in numbers 8 and 11. I am currently in my 20th year in this business and the other two inspectors on the Board have similar lengthy experience. All three national associations have their pros and cons, if they all provided everything for everyone why would there be a need for three?

    9.  “The recent economic downturn has fewer tax dollars coming into the state to fund this unnecessary legislation.  The licensing board should be abolished and home inspectors need simply to register with the state.”
    

Response: The topic of how this bill will effect tax dollars has come up many times on various web sites by individuals who know very little about the legislation. I was surprised, however when Nick listed it because he knows better. This bill has zero fiscal impact on the state. No state funding is involved as it is totally fee funded. It’s that simple, no tax dollars are being used to fund this bill.

    10.  “The law is putting home inspectors out of work during a time when the government should be helping create jobs.”

Response: I have also read this comment several times on various web sites and always found it amusing. The bill took effect as of the publication date of 7-1-08, however the provisions of the bill take effect in two phases, phase one is 7-1-09 and phase two is 7-1-11. Neither of these dates have arrived yet, so I’m puzzled as to how the bill has caused the national down turn in the real estate market. Inspectors I have talked to nationwide and comments posted on all inspection association web sites indicate a very slow industry nationally, partly due to the seasonal slowdown and partly due to national events. The bill makes an easy target, but that would be like blaming Obama for the financial crises when he hasn’t stepped into the White house yet. Many of these posts have come from inspectors in the Kansas City area, which has been hit particularly hard by the real estate down turn. The problem in this market has to do with the large amount of inspectors being kicked out by the several local inspector schools and the mass amount of miss information spread to realtors by a hand full of inspectors telling them how picky inspectors are going to have to be on every home due to the elevated liability provided in the bill, which is simply not true at all. This only proves we can sometimes by our own worst enemy.

I’m sure this response will evoke many interesting responses, but was posted here to inform any potential letter writers of the facts. All of the legislators will already know the facts surrounding these topics as they deal with them nearly every day. If you feel the need to write, I would encourage you to take advantage of Nick’s offer for mailing labels and postage, it is your right and duty to express your opinion to your representatives, but providing factual information will make your point better than making it up as you go. If you would like to contact any member of the Board to verify information listed in this response I have provided their contact information below.
Jeff Barnes, Chair 316-393-0735
resinspect@aol.com[/size]
Ed Robinson, Vice Chair 316-262-2671
edrobinson@morrislaing.com
Pat Regan, Secretary 913-631-2900
pregan@cbregan.com
Ron Naab Ralph Pimentel
620-276-6438 785-232-2701
ronnaab@cox.net ralphnbc@cox.net
[/FONT]

Nick is pond scum. We admit that.

His reasons for wanting to see your law trashed is personal and has to do strictly with his own financial interests. We admit that, too.

It does nothing to change the fact that your law is flawed, presents an unnecessary financial burden on the state as well as the inspector, and does nothing to serve the Kansas consumer…thereby worthy of reconsideration and repeal.

For all of the wrong reasons and strictly because you interfered with his own greed motivated objectives…Nick is still supporting a worthy effort.

None of Nick’s “points” found there way into any of my communications with your legislature.

Great work Jim, please keep us informed on how the state reacts to a useless licensing bill when facing unlimited budget deficits as we here in Florida also have a useless anti-consumer licensing law that is scheduled to be enforced here in 2010.

Our state could be so broke by then it might have trouble paying its light bill let alone pissing away tax revenues on nonessential licensing legislation. This economic decline should really put the kibosh on the licensing-Nazis & exam-peddlers for the foreseeable future.

mbarnes2 writes

The 11 points are not mine. If you read your own first sentence in your post you will note that you linked to http://www.nachi.org/kansasletters2008.htm which describes the 11 talking points as “member-suggested.”

Jim Bushart authored several of the 11 talking points and emailed them to me to include in that link. I’ve offered to include other talking points that any other member suggests. Members may send them to me at fastreply@nachi.org or post them here for inclusion. They can be pro or anti licensing.

Joe Burkeson writes:

Agreed.

I am proud to say that although it is clearly within InterNACHI’s ability to offer a licensing exam… it does not, nor has ever.

There is only one “licensing exam-peddler” in the U.S. and it is personally funded in part by Jim Bushart.

BTW, Barnes (et al)…

Your law does not provide for a written SOP and provides no funding for it to be monitored and enforced.

Thus…any “standards” your committee proposes is out of order and no citizen of your state can be held accountable to them, since the law did not provide you with the authority to write them.

You have erred when you have interpreted that…if your law does not prohibit it, you have the authority to do it. The law must provide you with the authority to impose an SOP for, without that authority, your SOP cannot be mandated.

Talk to your AG on that one, too. He’ll fill you in…as he has others.

P.S.

If Nick knew as much about SOPs as he wanted you to believe, he would have told you that himself…instead of trashing the Kansas home inspector and pushing to have himself placed on your committee.

Jim, I’m on your side on this one dumb ****.

But perhaps not for the same reasons. I don’t want Kansas writing their own SOP because it would wipe out our exclusive InterNACHI member E&O and GL insurance discounts which are based on InterNACHI’s existing SOP that has served us well for many years.

Isn’t that the future though, 50 licensed states & 50 separate SoP’s? Under those conditions you may need to think about state specific NACHI organizations, no?

State associations have a tough go of it because they simply don’t have enough critical mass to demand discounts or provide membership benefits. They simply aren’t robust enough to command annual dues.

In a post InterNACHI world, it is tough for state associations to survive. InterNACHI simply does too much www.nachi.org/whats_new.htm, too fast.

I have always wondered why are home inspection laws needed. Who benefits from these laws? Who stands to benefit financially? How can the Kansas Home Inspector Board enforce their own rules and SOP? Five people cannot do this throughout the whole state. Mr. Barnes is only making $200 per inspection in Wichita, and with business the way it is, cannot be making much, if any, money. How can these board members do this for free? How are they going to benefit? With only a few dozen home inspectors left in business in Kansas, where is the money going to come from? These laws were brought about by special interest groups expecting to make money by offering education courses, marketing tools, and selling inspection equipment. They do not benefit the consumer. There are already laws on the books in Kansas protecting them. If the Kansas legislatures direct money to the home inspection board, and cut funding of schools and children, then the legislatures should be booted from their positions. The board cannot be run on it’s own. There are simply not enough funds to do that.

The law does not provide the Board with the authority to write or implement a statewide standard of practice…nor did the budget committee that reviewed it allocate funding for the time that would be billed the state by those who would be overseeing its implementation and compliance.

In other words…the seat that you sought did not even exist.

When the AG threw the Kansas law back to the legislators because it was illegal to mandate membership in any of the national associations…it crippled the committee and left it with no standards to oversee.

Reading the law, oversight of the existing law (and not self composed mandates) is all that the committee is allowed to do.

So…fear not. Should NACHI have a member in the State of Kansas when and if a law is ever implemented…he will be allowed, if he chooses, to use your SOP.

The bottom line is this ---- nothing composed by this committee that is not provided for in the law can be enforced. Since that part of the law that would have had Kansas inspectors complying with a national SOP has been found to be illegal…there is no part of the law left that addresses an SOP. Accordingly, an SOP written without a law supporting its existence can be ignored. No one has the authority to enforce it.