So at this time the IAC has not published the meeting minutes from 10 days ago and we are being asked to comment on meeting outcomes that have not yet been officially published?
TREC has not posted the meeting recording. Everyone I talked to heard different things being said. One IAC member was loudly hurrying the process. He was so forceful it suppressed public comment. I listened to the meeting but had a periodic bad connection. The meeting kinda sounded like mayhem. Oldmixon mentioned statute opportunities to define liability; that is a total trap. We already can limit liability with current statute and the TREC lawyers are wrong regarding their interpretation. Reject Oldmixons idea for statutory clarification. We already have that right.
That is exactly why I was asking if an official post of meeting minutes has been made for what the IAC decided to do.
Thank you Michael! So they toned down their intended actions. Other than the addition of the GL requirement there really is nothing to send in comments for that have not already been covered.
I sent an open records request for the March 26 meeting. TREC posted the audio recording a few days after my request. There are no written minutes because it was a working group. The audio is fairly easy to hear. Meeting Details
The 4-9 meeting discussed insurance a lot and they kinda put it on the July burner. I think they did that because Sunset was listening in on the meeting. TREC is suggesting statutory changes to clarify the law. Be very cautious of statutory promises.
They are also proceeding with the definition of “client”. It is, in my opinion, an effort to restrain trade and Nicks legitimate “free listing inspection” idea. It is a gross overreach by a regulatory agency. I protested this to TREC General Counsel as a restraint of trade argument and she was offended by my suggestion. I will oppose this in the Commissioners May meeting. The FTC shut down TREC in 2005 for trying to prevent discount brokerage. They will do it again after listening to the inspector committee meeting tape. It is a blatant attack on InterNACHI and the FTC won’t like it. The FTC letter is at this link.
I do not recall any discussions about defining “client”. What is TREC trying to do with that?
Here is the Proposed Definition revision. I didn’t hear the discussion at the 4/9 IAC meeting so I can’t put it in context. Maybe John can.
Thanks and I do recall that now. That is the definition TREC has always based their opinions on as far back as I can remember. It is the same definition they provided me over a decade ago when looking into “Walk & Talk” type inspections.
I do not see how this definition can “restrain trade”? Can you elaborate?
Ill get back to tonight. If someone has time find the word “possible” or “prospective” in statute or rule.
The statute says if you do an inspection for a seller or buyer you have to have a TREC license.
TREC is saying that no matter who you work for either the seller or buyer is the client. There is a big difference between the two. If you work for a relocation company TREC argues you are working for the seller.
In my opinion: The IAC meeting tapes specifically state the objective of the definition is in regards to concerns over Porch and InterNACHI. The formal definition is being created to stop Porch and InterNACHI? Listen to the tape for yourself.
This oringinated with complaint by an inspector regarding InterNACHI listing program. Look at pages 31 through 36 at handouts link.
I had a lawyer tell me “client” is defined by contract law and may or may not necessarily mean the person who paid you (there are variables apparently). TRECs definition seems like an intent to regulate contract law in Texas. Will wait and see what happens at May 7 Commisioner meeting.
So has TREC changed the definition of a client, yet? Not seeing anything final.
It’s an interesting argument. TREC is clearly trying to establish total control over the services inspectors can offer. IMO 1/2 of these decisions are made to restrain competition and the other 1/2 is to empower bureaucrats. It really has little to do with public protection. The dilemma caused by this is the regulatory agency is clearly limiting the choices of property owners and buyers and that could be illegal. It violates property ownership rights.
It’s humorous. I own a home, can list it for sale and there is no way TREC can stop me from asking the lawn service guy what he thinks about my foundation. Home inspection has evolved into being nothing more than restraint of trade, insurance for the agent’s commission and employment for bureaucrats.
I am old. I understand the process and know the loopholes. Younger people will need to cause change or just learn live with it.
That pretty much summarizes what most if not all licensing has become. It has moved away from consumer protection, if it was ever there, and toward a means of controlling and harming those who follow the laws by becoming licensed.
The reason I asked is because Scott Patterson of ASHI says that Nick was lying about the whole thing. That Scott seems to just tell one lie after another. What pisses me off is there was some Texas ASHI inspectors in the discussion and they remained silient. Texas ASHI most have them by the balls.
Seems they blindly follow their leadership without questioning anything. It gives the impression they have no ability to think for themselves.
I said “Home inspection has evolved into”
should be Home inspection regulation has evolved into"
I have found that inspectors who follow this forum are dedicated to improving themselves and doing a great job for their client. An example is Manny. Licensing was a gateway for him. His desire to excel is what made him an excellent inspector. There are many others like him. InterNACHI is a wonderful gateway towards self-improvement (as are other associations). Your client protection is first and foremost. I never think about the public; I think about my client. Public protection is an incidental result of many individual efforts and not regulation. Our inspections may vary a bit but the end result usually results in protecting the client.
Attention new or younger inspectors, be aware of the negatives that are posted but then focus on your self-improvement. If there is a rattlesnake on the trail just walk around it and keep going. The goal is not being the best inspector but the best inspector you can be. You will succeed.
The public record objection to Nicks plan was from Brian Murphy. He is an excellent inspector and businessman. He is also very competitive and “in my opinion” he perceived the innovation as a threat to his existing business.
The TREC Inspector Committee appeared to have similar “competition” concerns.
The TREC lawyers jumped on board because they vote for anything that increases their control.
Lone Star ASHI is comprised of a small handful of excellent inspectors but there are many many Texas inspectors who do not belong to ASHI that are equal to the task. Lone Star ASHI has very little power and certainly no more than any other group.
Nick is an entrepreneur. His ideas are continually forged into better plans. He has never lied to me and I have known him for a long time.
His idea for a listing inspection caused me to have a few feasibility questions and that in turn allowed me to create alternative ideas that I am working on. I’ll share with you in months to come if someone does not beat me to it.
Innovation will happen like over the air TV to cable TV; cable TV to streaming etc. I guarantee one thing . . when it happens those who oppose will jump on board.