New EZ survey. 10 questions that any inspector should be able to answer in a minute or two. No wrong answer. This is preview test of survey being sent out to all SoP RFI subscibers.
Purpose of survey? If it takes an inspector less than 3 minutes to answer 9 TREC request for interpretation questions why does it take TREC 4 to 6 months to answer them (4 months now and still waiting)
Current beta shows a split between yes and no’s so that means the SoP are not being consistently interpretted. All TREC has to do is answer “yes” or “no”. Simple. EZ.
After survey is finished I think we will find all 35 questions could be answered in 15 minutes. Why the long wait TREC? Regulation also means prompt and proper supervision to fair and honest questions.
I suppose, like Devon has explained, that she will answer those she can immediately then send the rest to the IAC-SOP sub-committee which seems to be the vast majority. I see the unanswered RFI’s are on the 4/21 teleconference agenda. It will be interesting to see how many of them the sub-committee can muddle thru that day.
Of interest is, instead of writing the agenda “Answer RFI” they took a lot of time to write each item on the agenda. However they left off many items. That allows them to say “We cannot discuss that because it is not on the agenda”. I think is intentional “slight of hand delay tactic” on Murphy’s or TRECs part. The IAC is not subject to Open Meetings posting rules regardless of what the TREC lawyers say. It is a control tactic they use. Bet a steak they defer all the answers to full committee. Intentional procrastination and delay any judge would agree with.
That is why it is important to state the most liberal interpretation of an RFI. TREC’s failure to answer simple questions could be frowned upon by a judge in a complaint or in a law suit. The judge could agree with the RFI opinion with the inspector especially if TREC is taking six months to answer questions inspectors can answer in 15 minutes.
So far the beta survey has inspectors answering the questions in 2 minutes. Interestingly the opinions are split 50 / 50 in most cases. That means an inspector can answer a question quickly but they may disagree with another inspector. Therefore, proof that the SOP are not written with sufficient specificity. The public is being harmed by the variation and I think TREC could / should be sued for the damages they cause sellers and buyers. Who is the lawyer/seller in Houston who is suing the inspector? Maybe he needs an education on this. Would be fascinating if he included TREC in the law suit . . . heck sue the inspector committee also. . .they are not exempt or indemnified by TREC.
Of course you know I am playing devils advocate simply for the sake of discussion. We all know TREC reads this web site. I want only one thing within the rhelm of current legislation. I want TREC to answer simple requests for interpretation in 30 days or less. Just simple “yes” or “no” questions that tell the inspector and public how it works. No need for a Commentary. . . . just put it in the SoP. No reason not to. If the requirements are truthful they deserve formal documentation. It is really just that simple.
I don’t think they are saying anything different. They’ve used that excuse to me in the past when I was having trouble getting GoToMeeting log-in information. Maybe they are not consistent with their opinion on this.
That’s why I’m concerned about what you had indicated that TREC had recently requested in regards to SOP-RFI’s…that the RFI’s be toned down and simply ask a question without all of the background info. To me, the original way of stating what the TREC SOP said, including what other pertinent rules, reg’s, laws, mfg instructions, etc (i.e. codes) stated and then asking the question allowed a more complete question to be presented to them. That way, in the future, if that RFI was never answered then the complete reasoning behind an inspector’s interpretation would be in one document and easily referenced. TREC doesn’t need to read the b/g info if they don’t want to…they can just read the question and respond accordingly.
There are motions from both sides in that case for summary judgment. I’m certainly no legal expert (and somewhat biased probably) but it seems like the defendant has stated a better case, especially since the TBPE has ruled that the defendant did not violate any practice of engineering laws. I’m hoping the judge rules in favor of a summary judgment for the defendant long before this goes to trial in July.