I hope to collect the names/e-mail addresses of all Home Inspectors that may be subject to the proposed Washington State Home Inspector Licensing Legislation.
As of a couple of weeks ago, the bill was in committee with the “Licensing Department” and will be discussed, and likely put up to vote in the legislator this winter. If it is passed we will all have to live with it.
Please post your thoughts about the legislation here and/or contact me via e-mail so a strategy can be discussed. 
</IMG>
Dennis,
Can you post a copy of what has been proposed?
Here is a link to a 12 page .pdf As it has been in the process of being modified by committees, I do not know how it reads now. Since my first above post I went back to January of 2006 and found a few conversations on the subject. Do you guys that were a part of these earlier posts have any updates?
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6229.pdf
The latest that I have heard----directly from Senator Spanel’s office (one of the two senators that introduced the bill) is that it is dead and that nothing will be forthcoming unless someone “in the inspection industry” wants to see licensing happen in the state.
If I was in WA I would try and change the existing WDI/Termite law on the books so, as a HI, if I did not want to inspect for WDI/Termites, I would not have to.
Some people in Washington still don’t do SPI’s even though they are supposed to by state regulation.
James,
You should be receiving a call from a staff member from the Dept. of Ag over the next couple months. They will be phoning each and every person listed as a home inspector in any of the media including the web. They are starting a crackdown on all home inspectors that are not meeting the SPI requirement. Based on how overwhelmingly the SPI law passed, I doubt there will be any chance to overturn. This is Washington and they will legislate to protect you if you want protection or not.
I subscribe to the legislative email updates for anything to do with the committees in charge of this type of legislation. SB6229 is dead. If it makes an appearance again, it would be after the elections and during the 2007 session.
Charles,
I thought you guys on the West Side were working on a Bipartisan Bill to propose to the State and meeting there in Shoreline on the third Friday of every month? Do you know of any updates on what has been accomplished in those meetings…I was going to go to one a coupld of months ago, but the Sun was shining and the wind was blowing, so I sailed to Sucia instead.
Lew
I understand those meetings are still happening. Don’t know if they have any links to legislators. My understanding is the same as Charlie’s regarding H. Spanel and her bill. She felt seriously attacked by many HIs and seems to want to stay away from this kind of thing.
Yes, there is a non-denominational group of inspectors who meet monthly and are rewriting 6229 so it is fair and inspector friendly. The individual who was pushing 6229 dropped out and the bill never passed sunrise review. According to the legislative aid in Sen. Spanel’s office without a defibulator and interest from the Senator herself the bill will never see daylight. As it was 6229 was “inspector school” friendly in that it favored the schools that teach new inspectors and CE’s The board of directors was setup with 75% percent of members being school owners!
Jerry Domogala represents NACHI on this committee. Please direct any comments or concerns to him,
//Rick
Glad to hear that. Let’s even the playing field.
Do you guys who support the idea of legislation also support the proposed use of the NHIE as a qualifier?
Also, as I read the proposed bill it is clear to see the hand of education providers in drafting it. Might it be wise, as we are learning the hard way in Arizona, to limit the number of schools and the class size to keep your market from being flooded with brand new, registered inspectors?
I got this in March:
*Dear Nick:
Just a quick note to let you know this bill never made it out of it’s policy committee - it doesn’t look like it even had a hearing.*
It will need to be reintroduced again in the 2007 session for it to be considered again. If you are still interested, you might want to work with the prime sponsor, Senator Harriet Spanel: spanel.harriet@leg.wa.gov; 360-786-7678
*I hope this information is helpful! *
*Sincerely,
*Mary Anne Ross
EXECUTIVE LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT
for Senator Margarita Prentice
We Jim in AZ, who is the we you speak of?
Interesting stuff. I can only say that I strongly oppose the DOA’s creation of law to force WDO inspections on the HI Profession - but this discussion is for another time. I have not been involved in the legislative process but given my distance from Olympia (is it still sold in bars?) I cannot imagine my contribution to be significant - unless necessary. I was told that SB6229 was within the Department of Licensing for review and comment - I can see them making effort to revive the bill, yet I confess I have not talked to them. 2007 is coming and I did not want someone slipping the bill in a pile of bills for the Governor’s signature. I trust now that there are enough of you watching to prevent such an atrocity.
Thanks for the update - see you in Olympia. 
</IMG>
Thanks Rick - good to know of effort to stay on top of this. I searched for Jerry Domogala on the web and did not find - do you have a link? I would love to keep in touch with them.
</IMG>
Nick: don’t miss a trick do you? Thanks for taking the time to help. 
Brian2: you’re trying to get me all worked up again ain’t you? :mrgreen: Okay, now you’ve done it … :twisted: I’m back. I had to go hit my head against a wall a few times and remind myself that “I NEED protection because Washington residents are devoid of good sense.”
Keen eye you have - keep up the good work! 
</IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG></IMG>
I’m not for further legislation. I am for leveling the playing field as it applies to SPI. The rules regarding SPI licensing require us to all have E&O coverage or a surety bond. If I’ve got to pay $3400 a year for occurance based E&O, I want my competition to have to pay also. If they choose to do business with the minimum ($25000 surety bond) coverage, at least they’ll be paying something and I believe that the difference also gives me a small marketing edge.
James, my friend, I really can’t help myself so please allow me to apologize in advance. Nothing personal you understand. If you do 200 inspections a year and I do 50, why should I have to pay the same amount that you do (does this sound like “a level playing field?”) :shock:
</IMG>