MO HB 1714 and Why I Support It

Gee Bushart,

You really need to lay off that crack pipe, 'cuz you be trippin.

Washington inspectors aren’t ticked about newbies getting any additional time to comply with the law. The legislation you allude to only applies to “experienced inspectors” - those who were in business two or more years as of June 12, 2008 and could prove that they’d done more than 100 inspections as of that date. Those inspectors had a 14-month warning that they had to take and pass the tests before September 1, 2009 or they’d have to go back to school, get educated, go through mentoring, and take the tests before they could be licensed. It’s those “experienced” inspectors that ignored the deadline and have plead ignorance and are now trying to get licensed by taking the test alone, without getting the training, that’s got so many inspectors here - newbies as well as old timers - pissed off.

The bill you refer to absolutely does not apply to “newbies” at all. Inspectors that were in business on June 12, 2008 who didn’t have two years in business or 100 inspections under their belt on that date are still required to meet all education and training requirements and take the test before they can be licensed - that rule hasn’t changed one iota.

The intent wasn’t to “get rid of the part-timer and inspector who is only doing a couple inspections a month,” the intent was to force everyone in the business in this state to prove to the state, and to the consumer that hires them, that they can at least perform to the same minimum level of competency. It wasn’t intended to produce the best inspectors on the planet or to guaranty consumers that they’ll never be so unfortunate as to hire an inspector that won’t try to cheat them - it was intended only to assure a minimum level of competency; and, if the inspector couldn’t meet that minimum level of competency, force the inspector to learn his or her craft.

There have been comments made here that licensing “levels the playing field.” It does not; I don’t think it matters whether an inspector does 1,000 inspections a year or 10 inspections a year; when a consumer hires an inspector, the inspector needs to provide that consumer what he/she has paid for - a real inspection, not a whitewash and not a demonstration of how to go through the motions while being so incompetent that one unintentionally misses even the easy-to-spot stuff. After that, it’s like any other profession where one’s abilities and reputation will earn one either glowing referrals from happy past clients or stinging condemnations of incompetency from unhappy clients.

The issue here was that some (not all) “experienced” inspectors here wanted full grandfathering; they wanted to be able to walk in, plunk their cash down for a license and be granted a license, without proving to anyone that they could actually do what they claim to be able to do - inspect homes. The law didn’t allow that. It did give them credit as “experienced” inspectors if they could meet certain criteria, but it also set a deadline for every one of them to submit to the same test of basic skills that the newbie fresh out of school takes, in order to prove that they don’t need the schooling and can provide a basic inspection. After all, if the test is so simple that anyone that’s been doing this business seriously for a few months should be able to pass easily (and it is) then one would expect that “experienced” inspectors could pass it with their eyes closed. No?

Still, there were some of these “experienced” inspectors that, though they claim that their prior experience as a carpenter, electrician, pest inspector etc. makes them more competent then others to inspect homes, could not pass the tests, and still haven’t been able to pass the tests, that newbies fresh out of school have breezed through. It’s these inspectors that the law was meant to protect consumers from. Now it looks like one of these fellows, that never even bothered to attempt the test until December - a full three months past the deadline for “experienced” inspectors - who has failed that test multiple times - whined to his legislator and managed to convince that legislator to sponsor a bill that’s intended to give him an additional 9 months beyond the deadline to pass the test without going back to school.

THAT’s what inspectors here are pissed off about - the fact that inspectors that are clearly incompetent are being allowed to continue practicing instead of being forced to go back to school, get trained and become competent. While this drags out, these same inspectors continue to harm consumers by taking money to inspect their homes.

Please, the next time you want to make comparisons do it apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O’Handley, LHI
Your Inspector LLC.
Wa. Lic. Home Inspector #202

I had a feeling Mike was going to write a book about that error of James’.

No offense to anyone here but logging 100 Inspections doesn’t exactly make one a veteran inspector.

Well…whoever it is your law is designed to put out of business…on behalf of them…go to hell.

Licensing solves nothing!!:shock:

Frankly, Linas, I think your little anti-licensing slogan is getting silly.

Missouri is using its licensing law to sneak much needed building codes on it rural citizens that are much too backward to want them on their own. If sneaking them is the only way to ensure the safety and quality of the structure of their buildings, then it is the right thing to do.

Before they even realize what happened to them, they will have code enforcement and be benefited by it.

For this reason…deceit and trickery, when done for good, is the right thing to do. Thus, in situations where the public needs to be fooled for their own benefit…licensing does, indeed, solve some things.

Rep Mike Parson lives in the heart of this area and knows the folks well. His carefully worded bill will sneak these codes right under their noses.

OK,

Well, based on this statement

and the fact that you endorse this bill, it looks like you are no different than those you criticize.

That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t have a problem with part-timers or contractors getting into the business, as long as they are willing to to get the training they need to become competent and can take and pass the same test that the rest of us have to pass.

So, on behalf of the part timers and contractors that are doing inspections in Missouri that you want to see put out of business,…bite me.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O’Handley, LHI
Your Inspector LLC.
Kenmore, Washington
Wa. Lic. Home Inspector #202

Sorry Mr. Wishy-Washy, that’s been your slogan for the last 4 years!:mrgreen:

LOL. Never mind, Linas. I’ll explain everything to you, later.

Eric,
What Bushart means is it will just change the 3 day class to a two week class. Still not enough education to perform a proper home inspection.

Your absolutely right.

The home inspectors’ coalition here fought the Senator that pushed the law through for more than two years. The coalition wanted a board made up entirely of home inspectors and wanted the criteria for “experienced inspectors” to be at least five years and 500 inspections in the business. Truth be told, some in the coalition wanted 10 years and 1000 inspections but cooler heads prevailed and they’d set their sights on 5/500.

She wouldn’t listen. After more than two years of trying and constantly being stymied by the coalition, she finally invited representatives from the coalition down to her office to discuss a compromise.

In the end, resolving the impasse came down to a choice of either getting an all-home-inspector board and accepting her two years and 100 inspection criteria, or keeping the 5/500 rule and ending up with a board made up of an engineer, a realtor, some educators and one, maybe two, home inspectors. The coalition knew that she had a lot of backing and that her bill was most-probably going to go through, and they didn’t relish the idea of non-inspectors making decisions that would impace home inspectors’ businesses, so they met her half way. Still, the coalition didn’t trust her, so they hedged their bets by getting a nearly identical companion bill introduced in the house in order to prevent her pulling another bait-and-switch on the coalition like she’d done two years before. That time, she stuck to her word.

In retrospect, it’s not such a bad decision. There are inspectors in the eastern part of this state in areas that are so rural that it might take them two or three years to get 100 inspections and maybe 20 years to do as many inspections as someone in Seattle can do in five. Those guys usually have to work at something else full time to make ends meet. I think it was a fair compromise for inspectors in the east half of the state; and, so far, except for those who’re dragging their feet or incapable of passing the test, the process has been going along pretty smoothly.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike O’Handley, LHI
Your Inspector LLC.
Kenmore, Washington
Wa. Lic. Home Inspector #202