I like this new version very much.
Nick,
It took some modifications and industry wrangling, as compared to last year’s proposal, but I think it is pretty much neutral as far as favoring any home inspection societies or associations. There is one group out there that is still not so happy about that. It is my view that our state law should not be written to copy, and incorporate into it, the standards and membership procedures and requirements of any one organization.
Steve,
The only thing I see you left out is the “diagram”,that highly technical, not to scale, hand drawn if the inspector wishes, footprint of the structure showng the general location of the damage or condition.
Software like InspectVue even includes an acceptable report form.
It doesn’t do any good to explain to Bushart that the law says that any report, once it mentions WDO, becomes a WDO report, hence the reason that unlicensed inspectors now need to sub out that portion of the Home Inspection, and I would do no good to show him that the new Law requires a Home Inspector to have a valid SPI License issued by the WSDA, of course the Home Inspector could still sub out the WDO protion I guess, but I don’t know why they would.
Isn’t funny how Bushart is so willing to interfere in other States, yet so unwilling to discuss matters in his own.
…says the geek from Idaho.
Who happens to be a Washington State Licensed Structural Pest Inspector and business owner, what was you connection again James?
What does the Washington State Bill have to do with either Misoouri or the might ESOP Committee?
“The only thing I see you left out is the “diagram”,that highly technical, not to scale, hand drawn if the inspector wishes, footprint of the structure showng the general location of the damage or condition”
True enough, I was just thinking of the stuff that goes at the top of the report. I do a drawing on every complete WDO report but have only, once, ever had anyone ask to see it even though I always, per law, let them know it is theirs for the asking. I almost passed out I was so surprised. They are all filed away with contracts however. Again, this simple rule easily meshes with the proposed law.
Basically, the current WDO reporting law allows a huge amount of flexibility in report form, if you hit the elements and have the license. And the proposed HI bill just says that you must include those elements in your HI report and have the license to do so legally. I do not see how there can be any conflict between the two. Those who have been SPI’s have been doing this kind of report for years. We make sure we get the ICN up at the top, put in bold print that a diagram is available for the asking (if we do not supply one) and then just do the work.
Thanks for asking.
The proponents of home inspection socialization like to point to the number of states who have already succumbed to it and argue that it is “inevitable”. For many years when ASHI controlled all of the HI agenda, perhaps it was inevitable. As their influence has diminished, the success rates in states fighting legislation has increased.
My involvement is to highlight the fact that you, in particular, represent the real agenda behind legislation (as it applies to home inspectors who support it). You are looking to do through legislation what you have not been able to do in marketing — and that is to eliminate the number of inspectors competing against you in a present market.
By seeing this…and by understanding that laws like this can be defeated…perhaps some can unite and fight against you.
Their fight will not (and should not) take place on the message board where you will have the opportunity to counter it. All we are doing here is discussing the bill and its alternatives.
Again, thank you for asking.
Then why don’t WE discuss the Missouri Bill on the Missouri Thread?
Discuss it all you like.
Actions are what are important to me in Missouri and I (in conjunction with a host of others to include my chapter members, leaders from other associations, and leaders of NACHI) am taking them. Discussing the options on the open message board with you would not only be an incredible waste of time, but would alert the bad guys (those pushing the bill) to what is happening behind the scenes to stop them.
After we are finished and the final results are in, I will be happy to share them with you. Until then, I am intentionally concealing them from you and others who would try to interfere with them.
I am confident that the same activities are ongoing in Washington, as well.
Didn’t you tell me that was wrong and unethical when I suggested that Washington Inspectors take their discusions to a secure forum or to email?
Once again I ask why you have different rules for yourself and your pack.
Not unethical. You took it to another board. No one participated with you. That should tell you something.
I’ll tell you when it’s over.
Did they read 5788 before I started listening? OR wasn’t it on today? They are in Caucus now so I don’t know if anything else will happen with it today if they didn’t read it already.
I am on the run, do not have details, but I have been told that the senate committee passed the bill today 45 to 2 against. Not sure if any changes were made to what we have read previously.
The bill has passed----45-2-2
As a clarification, as I had time to track it down, the bill was voted on by the whole senate and not a committee, there are only 49 senators and all voted, except two who were excused from the floor vote. From what I can tell, at the state website, they voted to pass bill 5788 and then, after that or as part of that, also voted for the amendments that had been posted by Gerald (first message in this thread) this weekend. At first it was confusing because, when I clicked on what they passed, I got old language using the Oregon model. But, when I tracked it farther, I found the amendments were also passed, and that was the bill that Gerry posted.