NEW YORK

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Dennis,


I can tell you for a fact that I belong to the HICAG as an inspector and a consumer. I would have no idea of how many members are inspectors or how many are consumers, I just know that many of the ideals that I hold dear to me are also dear to them. If you choose not to join that is your choice. I was simply trying to shed some light on the facts, this group is not trying to place restrictive legislation in any state. Is what they are doing is helping the legislation to enact laws that will benefit consumers not certain inspectors or groups of inspectors like that crap over there in NJ. Again it is your choice, if you have any better ideas I am all ears!

Joe Myers


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Dennis,


Gee, you kinda sound like me at the last chapter meeting. Although I was ranting a bit, it seems that you are echoing some of my sentiments.

As for HICAG, they do have some experience in the arena. I believe the time is ripe to put the word out to cansdidate members in "the other" org (who do not meet the 300 club criteria) that they will be put out of business with this legislation. As to consumer protection, I agree with your statement that this law will IN NO WAY benefit the consumer.

Joe Farsetta


Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I have my license as a NY Professional Engineer, so I thought I would share my thoughts on this topic.


I think it is a good idea to license home Inspectors, as long as the licensing requirements are reasonable and they consider the reality that most home inspectors seem to be independents. It provides a licensed status for inspectors, and helps weed out totally incompetent inspectors and practices which might negatively impact the public or the public's view of home inspectors. It's not a guarantee of competence, but a minimum standard ... like building codes.

While I am not really up to speed on all the details, seems like most of the recent proposals in NY are to license home inspectors similar to a Profession like an engineer or architect, as opposed to just licensing the practice similar to some other occupational fields. It may not be practical or necessary to regulate home inspection as a Profession since this usually requires significant education, testing, and verifiable experience under the direct supervision of a professional already licensed.

For example, to get a PE license in NY one generally has to complete a 4 year college degree, pass a comprehensive all day EIT principals exam, work under a PE for about 5-6 years to get a minimum of 4 years of verifiable engineering experience, and then pass another comprehensive all day PE practical exam to then get the license.

It doesn't seem to make sense to propose professional licensure for home inspectors where this level of technical expertise is not needed for basic home inspections, where the public risk is generally not severe, and where state laws do not even require home inspections prior to sale.

Seems like it would be more reasonable to license home inspection similar to some of the other occupations regulated by the state, like a Licensed Independent Adjuster. They are required to take a state exam, and to either work under someone licensed for a year to verify experience or as an option to the experience (or servitude if you like ... lol) they can take an approved 40 hour training class.

For home inspectors I would think it would be reasonable as a minimum to require completion of an approved training course (say 40 - 60 hours) and require passing a state exam to get a license as a Home Inspector. The next legislative step up would be to make these a requirement to obtain a license as say an "Associate Home Inspector", and then require some form of experience verification to obtain the "Home Inspector" license. The experience verification could have several options.

One experience option could be for an Associate Home Inspector to work under a licensed Home Inspector for a certain amount of time (say a year), and perform a minimal number of verified inspections (say 25 or so) reviewed and counter-signed by the licensed Home Inspector ... or something along those lines. Another option could be for an Associate Home Inspector to perform a more substantial number of inspections (say 200 or so), and to have a minimal number of representative inspection reports submitted for detailed review (say 25 or so) ... or something along those lines. Nothing concrete here ... just throwing out ideas.

And I think any proposed legislation should also address what I think at least appears to be a conflict of interest where a seller's real estate agent is often the one recommending the home inspector. If home inspectors are to be licensed then they truly need to only represent their client, which is usually a home buyer, so they can be free of any potential influence or conflicts of interest.

Perhaps seller's agents should not be allowed to recommend specific home inspectors to potential buyers, and might only be allowed to refer potential buyers to state lists of licensed home inspectors or home inspector organizations (that could have membership requirements that exceed state laws, like an on-line inspection exam and additional experience requirements, so that the clients will get a "warm and fuzzy" that the are hiring someone competent).

By the way, I also think home inspection contracts should be allowed to have limitation of liability clauses, and insurance for home inspectors should not be mandatory. Getting liability/E&O insurance is a risk assessment an inspector should be allowed to decide for themselves, as it would allow consideration that having the insurance might actually attract lawsuits. People/lawyers tend to think that if you have insurance you will settle even the most ridiculous lawsuit because it is cheaper to settle than to be right. Insurance also usually doesn't cover someone for gross negligence, which I think is the real risk of harm to the public, and which can be a cause for losing a license as a check.

I also think that laws should not have mandatory association membership requirements, and proposing this might at least appear to be somewhat self-serving even if it is done with the best of intentions.

I don't think any of the proposed NYS licensing laws mentioned, or the models they seem to be based on, appear reasonable. The NAHI licensing model/proposals seem a little more reasonable than ASHI models/proposals, but I still see problems and issues (like the membership and insurance requirements). I don't see an NACHI proposal on model legislation (unless I missed it), and maybe that could be done if the resources are available. It is always better to propose alternates and revisions, and explain why they are better, instead of just opposing something.

Just figured I would put in my 2-cents (or nickels if you consider inflation and how much I wrote ... lol). ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)


Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



And of course, there should be an exemption for a PE or RA who often do perform commercial/industrial and residential condition inspections as part of their practice now. It doesn’t make sense to require a PE or RA to also get licensed in every possible sub-practice area. If you are opposed to legislation that has these requirements, or might allow design evaluations, the local PE and AIA organizations may be willing to help oppose that, if they are not already. icon_wink.gif


NYSSPE already opposes A00076 and A06478. I know they support more modest non-design/non-professional home inspection licensing legislation as an alternate, although I dont know the exact details of what they support. I assume it would have a PE/RA exemption and a limitation of home inspectors not providing engineering/design evaluations or recommendations ... home inspections should just be reports of visual observations with only general recommendations or referrals anyway.

Robert O'Connor, PE

P.S. Someone suggested I tell a little more about myself so you know where my viewpoints are from. I work full-time as an engineer (buildings, structures, and codes), and occasionally do new/existing home inspections and design structural home repairs as a side business. I also teach some classes for a local university, including structures and building codes for home inspectors and contractors.

And yes, I do think that any modest non-design/non-professional home inspection licensing legislation should grandfather experienced home inspectors (where substantial experience can be verified) if they are required to at least take a state test and meet any other requirements. It doesn't make sense to force them to take a basic training course.


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Robert,


Nice post. The problem is that many folks on the HI side, and the PE side are not as reasonable as you seem to be. Many HIs confuse what we do with the practice of Professional Engineering. That pisses a lot of good (and bad) PE's off. Some within your profession do not like HIs, and want the practice by non PE-types stamped out.

On the other side of the fence is the HI whi wants to control the industry and the competition. In the middle is the competent HI, who is wondering what lurks around the next corner.

To your point, there are lots of problems with all forms of proposed legislation. ASHI ans NAHI is dead-set against a state sponsored exam, except for their own NHIE. I believe that a competent inspector need not be able to pull things out of their heads, but should know where to find the required information. Standards, codes, and practices change throughout the years. A person cannot and should not pretend to know everythng off-the-cuff. An entry or competancy exam should be closed book. A comprehensive exam should be open book. This excludes truly licensed professions where life and property is at stake, such as with architecture of engineering. ASHI and NAHI also refuse to recognize code enforcement officials as competent individuals. Yet, they insist on grandfathering their own full members, while condemning all others into servitude. Many believe that architects and engineers are not competent to perform home inspections.

As to the number of supervised inspections, I believe that home inspections do not warrant long apprenticeships. Real estate has a points system befors a licensed sales person can take a broker's exam. It equates to about 7 or 8 sales. That's it. After that, they take a 1-week course, and pass a relatively simple state exam. Bingo... they're brokers. So, Home Inspections are not professional engineering or architecture. We should not be rendering opinions on point loads, design calcs, conforming envelope designs, or a littany of other issues. When we see something that doesn't look right, we should deferr to someone within a specific discipline. Its important to know your limitations; both practically and legally.

I inspected a home with no fewer than 12 significant cracks in the basement floor. The grading on the property was poor, there was significant erosion, the home was brand new, the ground was really wet. Did they need a spread footing? Why did the cracks occur? How significant were they? Beats the hell out of me! Bottom line was that I photographed them, made some commentary, and recommended contacting a PE for further evaluation. There were several other problems with the home, such as not meeting the state's ECCC. They need an architect or engineer to take it from here. So what was wrong with that?

The other significant flaw with all proposed legislatin is the lack of allowance for previous life experience. I worked for Unilever, the 4th largest corporation on the planet, and travelled the country for 8 years building or modifying commercial or industrial complexes. I worked with chemical engineers, PEs, construction management firms, and architects. I learned a lot. Yet, this experience COUNTS FOR NOTHING in all versions or proposed legislation. I have been inspecting residences on and off for the past 20-years. Again, without documentation satisfactory to THEM, I can scrape my butt with all my experience.

So, where is the fairness and equity? This is a question for the consumer, as well. How do they benefit from the proposed legislation? Truth is they DONT...

Joe Farsetta


Originally Posted By: jhagarty
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



icon_question.gif



Joseph Hagarty


HouseMaster / Main Line, PA
joseph.hagarty@housemaster.com
www.householdinspector.com

Phone: 610-399-9864
Fax : 610-399-9865

HouseMaster. Home inspections. Done right.

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



One big issue for NYSSPE is that a HI be licensed as a non-professional (occupation) and not as a Profession. Most people do not realize there is a big difference, and I tried to relay that. It’s very hard to get a PE or RA professional license, as it should be, so I agree with that.


The other big NYSSPE issue is that a HI license not permit the practice of engineering or architecture. There is a tendency to want to figure out a problem and come up with a solution, and I understand that, but it's crossing the line sometimes. I think for engineering/design issues beyond a typical inspection it is best just to redirect to a "Qualified Design Professional". That could be a PE or RA, but they have to be qualified to do the work.

Just because someone has a PE or RA license does not automatically qualify them as a HI or repair evaluation/design specialist. But part of having a PE license is only practicing in areas that you are qualified in. As a professional you are expected to know your limitations, or you could lose your license ? not a good thing. Many PE's/RA's (like me) do building inspections, evaluations, repairs, rehabilitations, and expansions.

There are a some PE's who think home inspections are the practice of engineering, but most (including me and I think NYSSPE) don't think that, as long as you draw the practice line somewhere. NYSSPE seems to have a more reasonable position, as they are for regulating HI's with a more moderate non-professional (occupational) license.

Joe has a valid point about experience, and I think that is something reasonable where partial credit could be given for experience in related fields (maybe a third experience option, with a mix). That is the way it works for a PE license (I think they give partial credit up to some maximum if it?s valid experience, but not under direct professional supervision), so why not for a HI license. I think that is something that could be worked out, as well as the testing issues.

Licensing for home inspection is coming to NY ... it's only a matter of time. I think that NYSSPE does not like a lot of the ASHI proposed regulations, so maybe if NACHI and NYSSPE got together they could come up with something truly reasonable to co-propose. I think it should be a licensed practice, and will protect the public by at least helping to weed out totally incompetent inspectors. And for qualified HI?s it will actually increase their business because then just anybody or his brother can't do a home inspection.

And like I said, it is always better to propose reasonable alternates, and explain why they are better, than to just oppose something. Just my 2-quarters now. ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)

Rob


Originally Posted By: Nick Gromicko
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



N.Y.: Assoc. Defeats Compliance Verification Bill


(August 15) -- The New York State Association of REALTORS has successfully defeated a bill (S49/A2649) that would've required brokers to verify that every property they list is in compliance with all local zoning laws and ordinances. This is the second year in a row that the bill has been introduced and defeated, according to Mike Kelly, NYSAR's government and political affairs representative.

NYSAR opposes the bill, because it would require brokers to make a legal analysis and conclusion beyond the scope of their licensing authority and could therefore constitute the unauthorized practice of law. "Real estate licensees don't have the training to act as zoning compliance officers," he says.


Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Nick … anything new on the HI license front in NY?



Robert O’Connor, PE


Eagle Engineering ?


Eagle Eye Inspections ?


NACHI Education Committee


I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



As far as I can tell, nothing so far. A0076A is still in judiciary, I believe. We should contact as many HIs in the stae as we can to write to the governot to not support any HI legislation, and veto it before what happened in NJ happens in NY!


Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe … I agree that the HI licensure bills being considered now in NY appear unreasonable, but unless a reasonable alternate is proposed the state legislators may just pick one of those to approve by default … it happens all the time with legislation.


Then we might just end up with a mess like the HI's in NJ and some other states have. Sometimes the best defence is a good offense.


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I absolutely agree. I believe that NACHI should have a position statement with regard to licensure, which will help get us some attention. At that point, those involved in NY can craft legislation which can follow the general guidelines, core components, or general outline of the NACHI position statement, and craft something that works for thos of us here in NY.


As far as state licensure goes, I dont believe that one size fits all...


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I agree again … what’s up with that … icon_rolleyes.gif


I think NACHI should consider reaching out to the state PE and AIA groups to maybe come up with something truly reasonable as a "minimum standard" for everyone ... like building codes. I think at least NYSSPE may consider something like that, as it seems they really do not like the HI license proposals so far, and would like to see more modest and reasonable non-professional licensing.

Now wouldn't that be a feather in the NACHI cap!


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: pberman
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Does anybody know the current status of NY legislation? Last I heard it was on hold during the summer break. Is anybody aware of the current situation?


Thanks,


Pete


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



As far as I can tell, nothing so far. A0076A is still in judiciary, I believe. We should contact as many HIs in the stae as we can to write to the governot to not support any HI legislation, and veto it before what happened in NJ happens in NY!


It's like deja vu, all over again...


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: pberman
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I think it would be better to propose a substitute rather than just a veto. History shows that it is much easier to change legislation than to defeat it. Does NACHI have a model legislation?


Pete


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I totally disagree in this instance. The proposed legislation is already in committee. It cant be altered at this point. Once passed, there is no incentive to change it. Legislators are likely to take a wait and see philosophy.


Its easier to build something right the first time, then try and alter it after the fact. If history teaches us anything, it is this. When bad legislation is passed, we're all stuck with it, for however long it takes to try and fix it. The last thing any legislator will admit it that they passed a bad piece of legislation.

If we were to concentrate on the Governor vetoing the proposed legislation, it would simply die in its present form. The bottom line is that there is no justification for it, nor will the legislature generate enough passion to force an override of an Executive Veto.

The legialation sucks. It stinks of political patronage, and protectionism. Once the onion skin is peeled back, a blind man will see that there is no way in which the current proposed legislation protects the consumer.

Based upon these facts, it is better to propose alternate legislation, based upon real fact (not conjecture), good business principles, industry trends, and a reasonable approach to licensing.

Support from PE and AIA members would go a long way, as well, and ultimately may help protect our profession. With three strong voices, not pushing a protectionist package, and with reasonable administrative requirements, something can be crafted.

As far as NACHIs position, it is under development. However, I personally do not believe that a "one size fits all" mentality should prevail with regard to this effort. That is, NACHI should have a written philisophy or template of ideals, packaged around a set of legislative and administrative guidelines which can be altered for the specific state, region, county, or municipality which may want to or need to regulate the industry. This model can also be used at the national level.

For us New Yorkers, the bills presently in committee need to be killed at the legislative and executive levels. Once they are defeated, we have a relatively clean slate to work with. Three bills are currently being bandied about. Two are based solely upon the ASHI model legislation. The third was crafted by PEs and tries and equate what we do with that of the PE. This is the most dangerous proposal yet, as we need to absolutely distinguish what we do with what a licensed professional engineer or architect is trained and licensed to do.

The State Education Law is the process by which licensed professionals are regulated, tested, licensed, and operate under. The way the law is written explains the types of things that architects and engineers may do. In certain instances, this "inclusion" of activities will actually prevent anyone else from performing the same tasks. An example of this is the preparation of kitchen elevations. Believe it or not, in NY, a licensed professional is the only person LEGALLY allowed to prepare these type of plans for a fee. Case law supports my claim. The key phrase is "for a fee". This is how Home Depot gets away with it. They do it for free.

The noose in NY is tightening with regard to enforcing existing laws relative to the unlicensed practice of architecture or engineering. Both organization are lobbying hard in this regard, especially the architects. The HI must quickly move against the legislation proposed by Senator Balboni here in NY, else it will spell the end of the profession for the majority of HIs out there.

The governor should be our focus. Kill all proposed measures, but have valid reasons to do so. Craft meaningful legislation with all affected. Build a bridge. Gain concensus. Protect the consumer. Promote free trade. End protectionism. This will also help to kill any "branding" which is waiting in the wings, by placing everyone on a level, state-controlled, playing field.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
HOME INSPECTION CERTIFICATION Oppose

A6478A Assembly Member Schimminger/S4616A Senator Libous - Judiciary Comm
A76 Assembly Member John - Judiciary Comm
Legislation before the NYS Legislature would provide for certification of home inspectors. The legislation is modeled after legislation supported by the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASHI) and would permit persons other than professional engineers and registered architects the right to engage in some aspects of the practice of professional engineering or architecture without satisfying comparable educational, experience and examination requirements. As an alternative, NYSSPE has drafted legislation, which will provide for the dissemination of information regarding the home inspection process and disclosure of nature of inspections by professional engineers, registered architects and others. In addition, a more modest certification bill for non-design professionals is being circulated for legislative sponsorship. The latter would clearly circumscribe the scope of inspections by non-PEs or RAs.


I agree with both in theory, but havent seen hard copies, and I wasn't aware either was a proposed bill yet ... do you have a link?


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Consider that if alternate legislation is not proposed pretty soon, that the flawed A$HI sponsored bill being considered now has a good chance of being passed and becoming law.


Legislators are much more comfortable opposing bad legislation if there is another more reasonable and widely supported or less controversial bill on the table. The sometimes flawed legislator logic is ... "I dont want to be blamed for killing possibly needed legislation, when we can fix it later if needed ... and more importantly there are no other proposals on the table".

That is the reason NYSSPE indicated they were proposing/circulating alternate legislation, and if NACHI doesn't get on board soon (if they can work out something reasonable with NYSSPE), then something without NACHI input will most likely get passed.


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: tbrady
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Any new word on NYS legislation for home inspection - also does NACHI have any bill in the works thats better than the garbage that exists icon_question.gif