PIC of State Rep and sponsor of new NACHI H.I. Bill in NH.

(Nick Gromicko, CMI) #1

http://www.nachi.org/nachinhbill2006.htm

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #2

Can't wait to see the comments on this....

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #3

Here's mine...

No matter how tolerable the wording of the proposed bill...the major discomfort to one's sphincter muscle comes from penetration and thrusts of its interpretation and implementation.

Proponents of licensing would want you to think that licensing is inevitable. Instead of fighting it, all together, they would prefer that you join them in drafting legislation that you could support. Then...with a tweak here and a tweak there...

Having said this, if it is truly the desire of NH inspectors to turn over control of their business to the state, this law (in its present form and without regard to how it may be implemented) seems harmless and could work for them. The apprentice program does have potential for abuse, depending upon how the board chooses to implement it, though.

Good luck, New Hampshire.

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #4

On a relevant side note, I recently received a PM from a proponent of licensing in Florida who argued that ... while licensing does not ensure that an inspector is any more qualified, it provides a means (by taking away a license) to get rid of some who should not (in the opinion of the powers to be) be working.

Why would anyone volunteer to let someone else hold a hammer over their head?

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #5

I think this is being submitted as a Joke. Now I get it. Funny.....

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #6

Since there is apparently no association bias to the bill, I suppose it will be NACHI's official position to leave it to the state without further involvement of its leadership, correct?

Certainly, NACHI leadership would not involve itself by siding with any faction against an alternative bill presented by its membership that did not show bias toward any association, would it?

0 Likes

(pcarter-old-04) #7

I thought all HI legislation was a joke :)

Getting off topic here -
John, whats up with the Nebraska Avatar, so in the competive spirit of the new college athetic season coming up (football, basketball and other trival sporting events) I have changed my avator. Wanta make a bet on the outcome between Nebraska and KU series in football and BASKETBALL this year, John?

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #8

Are we reading the same bill? I see bias.

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #9

Sure you had to throw Basketball in there. My avatar can beat up your avatar.....lollling.

Let's go with Football and Wrestling and Gymnastics.

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #10

Exactly how long have you had this vision problem, John?:D

No association domination of the board. No association eligibility standards (i.e. 250 paid inspections) to be licensed, multi-choice testing options to include the NACHI entrance test...

Where do YOU see bias? I think I can, but not in this bill.;-)

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #11

Want to have fun today and go over this bill - Line for Line. Of course we will just write our responses as our personal opinions and not NACHI policy or anything.

Should be interesting. Members can get my prospective and yours as a member of the ESOP.

What say ye. We need a moderator. Someone to post the lines as we go.

0 Likes

(Greg Bell, Sr CMI) #12

Since NACHI does not have a proctored exam it would seem that our test is there as fluff only.

0 Likes

(pcarter-old-04) #13

Well, it starting to look like that James wants to keep this thread on track, which is probaly a good idea so I will post my trival sporting talk on another thread and try to hijack it. ;) :) In my last attempt to hijack this thread - John, lets say Football, Basketball, Wrestling, Baseball, Golf and Womens Basketball, What say ye? I like that line. :)

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #14

Greg,

Outstanding. And as such shows bias against a nationally recognized exam. That one requirement alone puts every NACHI member who is not part of another proctored exam association out of business.

Apparantly Bushart supports that. Heavens forbid. In addition I like the effective date, Jan 1st, 2007. The bill won't even be heard until after that date.

I believe that this was posted as a Joke.

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #15

Greg,

Your own pal, Jeff Hooper, has written that licensing laws are not there to ensure qualified inspectors...but simply to provide a means of having "unqualified" inspectors removed, once identified. What difference does it make as to where the minimum basic standard is set?

John,

I would prefer that the bill be debated/supported by its author. He knows more about what went into it and why. I will share my thoughts if you wish, however, but I am a poor representative of a proponent for this bill.

But where is the bias you are referring to?

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #16

I am encouraged by your change of heart and desire to make this a matter of concern and reason for involvement by NACHI National. Keep going....;-)

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #17

My support goes to those wishing to refrain from handing control of their profession over to "Big Brother", period. Supporting any legislation, to me, is like going through my dirty clothes to find my cleanest dirty shirt...

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #18

Change of heart?????? Please explain....

0 Likes

(James H. Bushart) #19

In an earlier post on another thread, you stated that the one and only concern of NACHI was that a bill not be biased toward any particular association. You went on to explain that, while NACHI "frowns upon" language that would put an inspector out of business, that such things were an inevitability of any legislation...and that issues that would keep inspectors in business, such as "grandfathering" etc...was a matter for the inspectors in that state to address on their own. Not NACHI.

Your recent criticism of this bill, and how it concerns you that it might put NACHI members out of business, appears to me to be a change in that original position statement and I am encouraged by it.

0 Likes

(John Bowman) #20

So your interpretation of my statement is what is in question here. Putting some inspectors out of business (hopefully temporarily) is a fact when it comes to licensing. For example, the inspector that just hung his shingle out last month, has a very good chance of not meeting "grandfathering". Especially when "grandfathering" is based on bias towards an association or independent business offering exams. I feel (my opinion) sorry for the individual business man that just bought a $30,000 dollar franchise six months ago. This bill as written puts him out of business, because it requires 12 months in business before you can get a license. If you don't have the 12 months, now you must apprentice (insert ramping/mentoring fees -here), to qualify to operate your $30,000.00 franchise you just purchased.

And what in the hell is up with the E&O requirement for an apprentice. This bill is going to force anyone wanting to get into the trade to spend thousands of dollars for a simple license. The only intent of the bill is to restrict the trade.

Did you also notice that you must be a NH resident to get a license. Shoots reciprocity out the window.

This bill will also open up to the cut-throat inspections. A necessity to accomplish the minimum number of inspections needed to qualify for licensure. It in fact dispels the 100 inspection requirement by forcing everyone to operate a business for 12 months as an apprentice regardless of how many inspections you have performed. It reeks of bias towards new inspectors entering the business.

No doubt that the submission of this thread was meant as a joke. Look at the effective date. Jan 1st, 2007....It wouldn't even had been heard on the floor yet.

0 Likes