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

I will not argue against this, because I personally feel that it is the intent of those pushing such legislation.

I will argue that NACHI National, as a matter of policy, should use all of its weight and influence to vigorously oppose any legislation that would put one of its dues paying members out of business. I was hoping that your expressed concern reflected a move in that direction. Apparently, I was mistaken.:frowning:

Are you still part of the Legislation committee. Has that committee devised or written up a draft NACHI policy? I remember sending both you and the Chairman some basic information for implementation. Whatever happened to that?

As far as I can tell, the Legislative Committee has ceased to exist. The last action I was involved in was my report to you regarding all states and their individual requirements that Aimee was to transcribe. That was last Fall. I see that it is not listed as an option for joining on the “volunteer page” of the profile section, either.

Are you speaking about “working”, “full”, or “all” members. Each has it’s own uniqueness.

I am a bit taken back by this question, John.

Why would NACHI National be any less concerned with protecting the livelihood of an active member who has 99 inspections than one with 102?

I guess I don’t understand your original question. You may have to expand. Maybe you need to expand on it. Does NACHI care about its members? Why of course…Look at the membership benefits, education, legal advice and everything else that is offered to all members regardless of their affiliation status. All aimed at assisting you in operation/success of your individual business’s.

I see you have alluded to 99 and 102. What are your thoughts on 1 or 2 compared to 99 or 102. Do you see the difference? I’m disappointed in your response. Your much better than that.

As you said, NACHI makes no distinction between its members in any other benefit or service that it offers. Accordingly, NACHI should afford the same consideration in opposing legislation that would put any of them out of business, IMO.

Your opinion is noted. However, I don’t remember NACHI National ever Opposing or Supporting any Legislation. Perhaps you can point me to one.

Just “one”? Okay.

No good. Try again. Your sample shows NACHI addressing part not the whole legislation.

NACHI National was definitely neither opposing or supporting legislation in your sample.

There was proposed legislation on the table. It was being pushed through a legislature. NACHI found provisions in it that was harmful to its membership and took action. What do you call that?

The other extreme was the Floridian drive to solicit NACHI support for its bill that NACHI withheld, due to the adverse affect that the bill would have on its membership.

NACHI used to have balls, when it came to these issues. What happened?

lolllling. So now you believe that NACHI National should be involved. I can’t keep up with you. Make up your mind.

The bickering is not productive. Not that it’s not fun… it’s just not productive and will have absolutely no effect on this proposed legislation. It’s easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback.

Nick posted this to show that our NH Chapter supports self-written legislation, and apparently has a sponsor, or sponsors, of it.

It is a final draft, and I’m sure will be dissected and tweaked. In retrospect, I kind of wish our own law in NY had a requirement for licensees to be residents of the state, unless the state where he/she is a resident has a reciprocal agreement for licensure between it and NY. Fair is fair.

My understanding is the concern of an influx of Mass. inspectors, with NH inspectors left out of Mass, and some just left out of business entirely.

As to NACHI’s exam hurthig anyone or being fluff, I’ll remind all that it IS recognized for licensure in some states. Here in NY, it was also recognized, along with a few others, prior to NY imlementng its own licensing exam. Now ALL other exams are no longer recognized, whether proctored or not.

NH NACHI members appear to have a handle on this. Let’s try and SUPPORT them when they ask for it.

Bickering on this thread by those who have no dog in this hunt makes absolutely no sense.

Questions/comments should probably be directed to the NH Chapter President and VP.

Which chapter are you referring too?

Exactly how many of those brain cells did you actually kill in Florida, John?:wink:

The entire discussion has to do with NACHI’s position on legislation…when to - and when not to - become involved. Recently, you have attended meetings with legislators that some members do not appreciate or support.

NACHI limited its involvement in the past to only those issues that (1) showed bias in favor of an association, (2) put its members out of business, or (3) created undue hardship on new inspectors wishing to enter the field.

If NACHI were to publish and stick to such a position, and stay away from local factions, it will support and not alienate any of its members, IMO.

The merits of this bill can be best explained, as Joe says, by those who drafted it and have something at stake. All other opinions aside, it is theirs that really count.

Interesting point. This will probably force New England ASHI into immediate opposition. More strength for those opposing any legislation at all, it would appear, since neither bill can garner anyone’s overwhelming support. Maybe this bill was written to ensure passage of no bill at all. Hhhhhmmmm.

No doubt. I agree. Perhaps the drafters of this will enlighten us as to its purpose.

Honestly, if that was the original intent of its authors, they would be foolish to disclose it at this stage of the game.

If it works, though, it is certainly an ingenious plan.

This is going to be interesting to watch.


The thread is about New Hampshire legislation, no?

Sorry for the drift.