For John and any others that are involved in developing the Wind Mitigation course used by NACHI -
Where are you going with the issue of ROOF COVER?
As you may be aware I have been espousing the need for the training in this area to not include the roof covering for porches or carports over unenclosed space that are only attached to the fascia or wall.
I have asked that John take this issue to the board of the Florida Home & Insurance Inspectors chapter for consideration.
I am, like many others I’m sure, preparing training materials for internal use and sure could used guidance on this issue. If documentation or proof of replacement is required for these roofs - many discounts will be going out the window.
No disrespect to John or any of the other trainers, but why would you think it would be their decision to make? Until the OIR and the insurance industry power brokers get their act together and provide clear positions on these issues, development of standardized training cannot proceed. IMHO. Of course, I could be mistaken.
Clearly - but with no definitave guidlines - it is my hope that through training and usage - we, as home inspectors, can get on the same page here to create an “accepted practices” position.
If all the approved training material - and DBPR apparently has approved the NACHI training - exclude the roof covers over unenclosed spaces (attached to the fascia or wall of the host structure) as they already do for Roof Geometry, then when we are questioned why we did not list them we could point to training for background.
Recognized training CAN be used to support a position - better then just me saying I don’t think that these roofs should be covered.
You are not mistaken Steve, but, there are issues where an inspector may say one thing and an insurance companies inspector may say something else, but, because of the way the form was put together, technically, both could be right.
I think Richard is asking for clarity on the issue in question from John as he seems to have the best handle on it. There are a few problems, as were pointed out at the recent meeting, with the form and I suspect a few letters are going to have to be attached to the reports to clarify some tings, like the roof tile letter with the old form.
I do have a question about the form, which was brought up but never answered.
Why is there no “D” selection for question 7?
“D” is used in the sub-categories of Options A, B, C and N (specifically A2, B2, C2 and N2). Because “D” only applies to non-glazed openings (boxes under glazed openings are grey), it doesn’t make sense to have D as an Option by itself.
Nope - My thought is that you have authored the course approved by NACHI. I would think and hope that you are updating the course for the new form. Who and how do you get input into what is in the curricullum I don’t know.
This goes to what Russ is always complaining about - The SOPs, forms and decisions are made out there and nobody ever asks for our opinion. I am trying to insert some language in the training, thereby creating an “accepted practice” that is not specifically noted on the form.
My question remains - When the course is updated, will it have language that excludes the roof covers in question?
If not or if the issue hasn’t been decided - how do we get input into the decision. (And yes - I am looking for support from the masses on this issue. If we don’t speak out in this informal setting - how in the world do we expect to get organized in any way that we would ever expect to get our voice heard anywhere?
You want a chapter that you do not participate in to argue your point. This was discussed at our last meeting.
I told you what my opinion was, hence what would be going into my version of the wind mit training. It is certainly can not be worded in a few sentences and I am still working on the update. I am not sure what else I can do for you.
Don’t get me wrong John - I did understand our discussion. I do appreciate your position here. I was merely seeking that any updates or thoughts on the matter be given some time for public debate. This in the only method I know to ask the question.
On the non-participation front - I have attended chapter meetings, we have donated to the various causes on several occasions, and I have expressed an interest in the goings on in the profession through this message board, legislative meetings or any other avenue I can find.
I don’t believe that my decision to not attend the sales seminar that took place in the fall, nor do I feel a need to apologize for not driving 3+ hours for a meeting over the week-end should preclude me from having an opinion or asking for input into approved association training materials.
So yes, I DO want a chapter I am a member of to argue my point - or give me good reason not to.
If attendance at those meetings is what you require to get any input into decisions made into the way our organization - and you ARE representing NACHI when authoring approved training - then you are quieting many voices.
I am aware of that - That’s my issue. It would seem that if the roof shapes do not impact the peril to the dwelling - how is it that the roof covering would? It is my understanding that one of the primary users of these reports (Citizen’s) is not even going to cover these structures.
Yet - A homeowner replaces his primary shingle roof cover as well as the secondary modified butimen roof cover over his enclosed Florida Room will loose out on the credit because no documentation can be found for the 25 year old metal pan roof over his patio? A patio roof that is not even covered by his insurance policy?
If we can get behind this idea, maybe we can have an impact on the way the inspections are performed - but if we just bend over and follow every single inane thought that comes out of Tallahassee - then why even have a chapter at all? Why contribute to the legislative fund? We will just be the sheep that follow whoever cares to decide where we should go.
So yes - I am advocating we, as a group, take a small stand on a small issue.
I listened to your opinion and you told me your thoughts. I told you mine. Without you attending a meeting were it was discussed and debated what more can I do for you?
You can enlighten me as to the results of the debate and discussions.
Is meeting attendance a requirement of the chapter in order to be included in the discussion and or find out the outcome of the discussions?
When I asked you if this was going to be discussed at the meeting, you stated that you were going to spend a little time on it and that the members had discussed the 1802 at other meetings and you were looking forward to getting in to other things like marketing. I took that, along with my battle with the flu as an indication that it might not be worth 7 hours of driving for a 30 minute discussion.
I volunteered to initiate a letter writing campaign to other trainers that are out there and asked permission to use the name of the Chapter in any such communication (so that it would look like we agreed on *something. *I even sent you a sample of a memo that I proposed. You were going to discuss it with the board. I’m guessing that didn’t happen. I would think that this would count as participation.
I hope that you are not taking my discussion as a negative - It is merely my intention to have my voice heard, not only by you, but by others as dedicated as you. I am asking for your input on the matter in a public forum, because I believe that your opinion matters and your expertise is recognized by a much broader range of folks than I can muster as a lone voice in the wilderness.
Another thought for you Dennis - was the exclusion purposely left out of question 2? Or was it an over-sight of the writers of the form?
I don’t know. I don’t know who wrote the thing, and I certainly can’t ask their intenions or reasoning behind why it is important in one instance, but not in another.
Richard, I told you my opinion, I listen to yours. I can not type it out here, it is just not that simple. I will spend that time working on the class update.
Thanks John, I appreciate your listening (and hopefully agreeing!! (I think you do)). I am just anxious to prepare us for using the new form and would like to have a basis for excluding these roofs. I don’t feel that we are ready to do that as an independent opinion and would ask if you plan on having some updates to the training prior to the February 1 start date. - If we don’t all start off on the same page its going to get ugly.
(I figure that you must be working on it now in the training update scheduled time (weekends between mid-nite and 4 a.m. - unless you plan on using your very own 8th day of the week…You mean you don’t have an 8th day??? How the hell do you manage to do it all???)
Richard, It appears you are trying to instigate a fight. I could be wrong.
The only FLHII Chapter meeting you have ever attended is the one in January of last year. ALOT has transpired since then. Board members have been elected, chapter representatives have been elected. People have become INVOLVED.
You cannot draft a letter on behalf of the chapter when you don’t even know who or what the chapter is about anymore. Again, you have only attended that 1 meeting 1 year ago.
Now, you have something that is passionate to you. Understandably so. You emailed John several times, you called him in the evening. All of which he responded and answered to. He gave you his opinion of the definition of the form during that phone call (most of which I believe is in agreement with you) HOWEVER, The wind mit class is NOT about opinions or what is viewed as more beneficial to the homeowner.
It is about what is right, what is there. WE JUST REPORT FACTS. It is not up to the inspector to Worry about what might or might not give a client a credit or impair their ability to get a credit. It is what it is…
In regards to your comment about our “sales seminar” in October. Yes I agree we had alot of vendors. However, I do believe that if you talk to any of the 125+ attendees they will tell you they learned something and enjoyed it.
Our next chapter meeting will be in Tallahassee in April. I do believe I have to drive 8+ hours to get there. But you know what… it is important to me and the people who I have grown close to… so I am going.
John has answered you. Please understand there is much more going on than what you want.
I am sorry you feel that way - it is NOT my intention to get in a fight!! I was worried that John might be picking up such a vibe…(and my voice sounds even gruffer, I know) It is my intention to get an indication of how this issue is going to be trained -
I respect what you all are doing and think that others do as well, and therefore am asking him to chime in on an issue publically so I can build more grass roots support for a controversial stance. Yes, I believe he agrees with me and I thank him for his time and thoughts.
For the record - I am aware that we just report facts - no opinion included. My point is *what *facts. (as in 4-points - I try not to volunteer too much information)
Yes - I know I have not been to other meetings, but that should not include me from trying to participate in my chapter by other means. And I try to keep my eyes and ears out to what is going on in our world -
Yes - I know the chapter is involved in other things and with larger issues Yes - I know there are officers and lots of time and effort put forth my you and others
Yes - I know I can’t send a letter out on behalf of the chapter - that’s why I submitted a sample and asked for permission to communicate on behalf of the chapter - how does one become and active participant, other than attending meetings? (I was trying to become INVOLVED!)
and
Yes - I know there are many other things involved in your efforts and in home inspections
So again, accept my apologies - no malice intended - I was merely trying to get on official (if you will) chapter stance on a small issue and maybe get some others thinkg about this issue and generate a little good debate.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS - (even if I don’t show up at the meetings! Damn, I told my wife I should go!)