From Wayne

jshishilla · January 22, 2013, 4:17pm

All -

I have scheduled a sit down meeting with Nick Iarossi at the end of next week. He represents DMI, regarding 1802 and item 1(a) described below. He also has some ideas that he is going to share with me that they believe we might be in agreement with.

Second issue related to RULES and SOP. I would like to propose to the group that we attempt a rifle shot in the legislature and have the Rules/SOP adopted via the legislature. That is, we reference the pending Rule and upon passage of the bill, the Rules would be enacted. They did this last year for building codes and some other unrelated professions that had Rules hanging around waiting to go through the process. There is a bill being put together that I could lobby to have the language included in a larger package. My plan would be to use similar language used to adopt other rules by legislation. PS – we might address the testing requirement in the statute.

As third issue that we could also roll in to number 2 is the definition of inspection and what triggers the licensing requirement – while I think this one could be more difficult, I think it is worth pursuing and the first try would be for me to roll it in to the same bill.

We do need to make a decision very quickly since committee’s have commenced and of course for me to get language and to work the chairs and some of the interest groups.

Last, I need the group to agree to continue my current contract for another year – no changes, just agree to execute for one year – 2013.

I look forward to your input.

Comments and thoughts?

rhensel · January 22, 2013, 4:34pm

John, I trust your leadership on this and will back your play

mmeeker · January 22, 2013, 4:38pm

I am against anything that has DMI supporting it.

If you do not know why I feel that way don’t even bother asking.

mwagner · January 22, 2013, 4:45pm

What is this?

evandeven · January 22, 2013, 6:33pm

I would agree with that. If DMI is supporting it, there must be something in it for them.

gbell · January 22, 2013, 8:51pm

I am not sure what the changes would be, but welcome any input.

I agree with 2 and 3.

What is the new language for the definition of a home inspection? I think it would be nice to have it include any house involved in a real estate transaction.

jshishilla · January 22, 2013, 11:59pm

Sorry I missed the quoted text

This was sent to me so I figured I would forward it. Do we want to make some plans for the year?

I would like to see our leaders on the council work on the following:

Removing the unfair trade practice that currently exists is F.S. 627.711 (wind mitigation inspections) by either of the following methods:
A. Prohibit contractors and engineers from using unlicensed employees to perform wind mitigation inspections:
B. Allow ALL other licensees (also small business owners) to utilize unlicensed employees to perform wind mitigation inspections for their respective companies
Either scenario is fine with me as both options will eliminate the unfair trade advantage that the contractor and engineer are currently enjoying over the other licensees.

Require ALL underwriters in the insurance industry that review inspections by licensees to have the same wind mitigation training and competency testing as the licensee that does the inspection. I think the reason for this is apparent.

Finalize the standards of practice. I would suggest dropping the current work in progress in favor of recognizing the current SOP of NACHI, FABI, and ASHI. As long as the licensee is using on of those standards and conveys that to the client- it should be legally recognized and acceptable.

Work and language in the home inspector statute that closes the giant loop hole that currently exits as to what constitutes a “home inspection”. Currently, the law allows a “so called” inspector to omit one item or system in the home and do some sort of an inspection. By doing so, the “so called” inspector is not bound by the home inspector licensing law as he/she has not done a “home inspection” as defined in the statute. Consequently, they are not regulated or in violation of “unlicensed activity”.

Similar to item 4 above, require ancillary or single item or system inspections to fall under the home inspector licensing law.

I am NOT in favor of establishing a “Home Inspector Licensing Board”. I have many reasons for this and would be happy to debate this issue in detail in an open forum for all to see and participate.

Finally, work on reversing the CILB decision regarding contractors performing inspections without a home inspector license and without being bound the the home inspector licensing law’s ethics provisions. Obviously a lofty goal- but I believe that it is the morally and ethically correct position and one worth pursuing for the professional inspector and the public at large.

:

Look familiar?

evandeven · January 23, 2013, 12:10am

I would like to see our leaders on the council work on the following:

Removing the unfair trade practice that currently exists is F.S. 627.711 (wind mitigation inspections) by either of the following methods:
A. Prohibit contractors and engineers from using unlicensed employees to perform wind mitigation inspections:
That is what I would vote for. If you let unlicensed individuals perform the inspections, why bother even bringing this item up?
Require ALL underwriters in the insurance industry that review inspections by licensees to have the same wind mitigation training and competency testing as the licensee that does the inspection. I think the reason for this is apparent.
Agreed. I just spoke with an adjuster last week about this very thing and she said, absolutely!
Finalize the standards of practice. I would suggest dropping the current work in progress in favor of recognizing the current SOP of NACHI, FABI, and ASHI. As long as the licensee is using on of those standards and conveys that to the client- it should be legally recognized and acceptable.
I seem to remember saying something like this about 10 years ago!
Work and language in the home inspector statute that closes the giant loop hole that currently exits as to what constitutes a “home inspection”. Currently, the law allows a “so called” inspector to omit one item or system in the home and do some sort of an inspection. By doing so, the “so called” inspector is not bound by the home inspector licensing law as he/she has not done a “home inspection” as defined in the statute. Consequently, they are not regulated or in violation of “unlicensed activity”.
Any inspection performed at a home/condo/etc… is classified as a home inspection. See 5 for exemptions.
Similar to item 4 above, require ancillary or single item or system inspections to fall under the home inspector licensing law.
*Exemptions: WDO inspections. Mold Inspections. Radon inspections.

I am NOT in favor of establishing a “Home Inspector Licensing Board”. I have many reasons for this and would be happy to debate this issue in detail in an open forum for all to see and participate.
*I would be curious why, but we have enough to deal with as it is. Maybe a later date.

Finally, work on reversing the CILB decision regarding contractors performing inspections without a home inspector license and without being bound the the home inspector licensing law’s ethics provisions. Obviously a lofty goal- but I believe that it is the morally and ethically correct position and one worth pursuing for the professional inspector and the public at large.
I would agree, unless the contractors would let us become contractors by passing a test!

wsmith3 · January 23, 2013, 12:38am

Finally, work on reversing the CILB decision regarding contractors performing inspections without a home inspector license and without being bound the the home inspector licensing law’s ethics provisions. Obviously a lofty goal- but I believe that it is the morally and ethically correct position and one worth pursuing for the professional inspector and the public at large.
I would agree, unless the contractors would let us become contractors by passing a test!

Question-is it still allowed for a Division 1 contractor to have an ASSOCIATE perform the inspection and the contractor signs off?
I would think this would be important to address if in fact it is the case.
Thanks, Bill

jshishilla · January 23, 2013, 2:02am

Do we want to keep with the coalition this year? To keep Wayne our part is $2500.

mshishilla1 · January 23, 2013, 2:52am

Lot’s of great ideas… but they can only be worked on if we contribute to Wayne’s salary.
Here is the link to donate:
http://fl.nachi.org/floridainsuranceinspectors/floridainsuranceinspectors913.html

mshishilla1 · January 23, 2013, 2:23pm

THANK YOU to Maxwell McCord for your $100.00 donation to Legislative Funds

mshishilla1 · January 23, 2013, 3:04pm

THANK YOU to Bruce Graham for your donation of $50.00 bucks! You Rock my friend.

jshishilla · January 23, 2013, 6:19pm

We Florida Home and Insurance Inspectors of InterNachi will not continue with the Florida Home Inspector Council at this time. Raising money is always an issue, most of which is done by a few board members. The council can not seem to appreciate the many views of the many Florida Home Inspectors and work together for common goals. Finally, no goals have been met over the last couple of years and we feel that unless there are changes we will be in the same situation. We will work on efforts as we see fit separately.

John Shishilla
President FLHII InterNachi

staylor7 · January 23, 2013, 9:16pm

Shocking:shock:

mshishilla1 · January 23, 2013, 10:35pm

Why?

staylor7 · January 23, 2013, 11:22pm

that was sarcasm. I am surprised that the council can’t work together towards a common goal for the benefit of our profession. (that is also sarcasm).

Seriously though. Best of luck in your efforts to affect positive change. (that was sincere)

jshishilla · January 24, 2013, 12:52am

The issue is inspectors themselves. They are paranoid, unwilling to listen and intolerant of each other.

staylor7 · January 24, 2013, 1:00am

who are you calling paranoid? I wont tolerate that.:twisted:

serously though, those are personality traits that many inspectors share.

jshishilla · January 24, 2013, 1:02am

You are correct there. It is time for a new way of doing things, the old ways are not working.