Request for Interpretation

Please refer to www.soprfi…com

The home page explains it all. Please visit the Advisory Counsel page at

Many reputable persons are accepting Advisory roles regarding industry related activities.

If you know of a Texas HVAC, Electrician or Plumber to recommend please advise.

Also looking for additional software and insurance participants.

The job is simple. Give the group your opinion if a recommendation has good or bad affect on your specialty.

Sign up to receive the emails I will be sending out.


I miss Phil Stojanik’s cool demeanor on the IAC. I don’t know the politics involved but he would be a good resource for HVAC I bet.


Put a forum up to collect surveys

one period .com fixes the original broken link


Wow, have not even marketed and I have 75 people signed up. The site is 9 days old! Trade groups are on board and with a bit of marketing, free membership should grow. This will finally be a voice for Texas Inspectors and it allows them to continue to support the inspector association of their choice. They can discuss and ask questions about the Standards (and commentary if it continues). They can then present those questions to the State agency for comment.

I was at a seminar this past week and consensus was they did not want a Commentary. I told them to think about it. Done correctly, a Commentary could work. There are significant challenges and it is a question of organization and budget. If anything kills the Commentary it will be burn out by the volunteers who are trying to write it. I know the task would burden me.

Will work on ways to promote all associations with site.

I support the commentary as a reference and not part of the SOP but I doubt there will be any way to maintain that type of separation. Especially once lawyers get hold of it.

John O…what if the Commentary was totally separate from TREC, written by the IAC subcommittee but championed by the trade associations? Just thinking out loud here.

Its tough to maintain the separation when discussing defects. Anytime you identify a defect in the Commentary it creates a requirement in the SoP. I believe ALL requirements should be specified in one document only.

Implied requirements are a lawyers icing on the cake and they create confusion.

I understood the Inspector Commitee to want the Commentary to explain how stuff works. Its like writing a text book on theory but not being able to specify any defect that is not listed in the SoP.

I do not mind the SoP being “fleshed” out with more details. After all, if something is decied to be a requirement it should be clearly stated as such. I don’t care if the document is 20 pages long or a 100 pages long as long as truth prevails.

More power to them if they do it but its a tough nut to crack.

Mike your post snuck in before my last. My last post is not meant to be a reply to your question.

I know…I saw your copy of John O’s statement. On to your reply however…can’t that same thing be said of the many standards that also publish commentaries, i.e. IRC, NEC, etc, etc?

Yes, that can be said about the code documents. The problem (or benefit) is that the AHJ who use them are indemnified and also have amendment authority. Code was not written for home inspection.

A Commentary for inspectors does not offer that protection. It has potential for setting a higher or lower bar outside the original document.

An example is where the Commentary states the shingle fastener must go below the seal tab. I found manufacturers who *prefer *the fastener to be below, allow it to be above and on certain wind resistant brands require the fastener to be placed in the sealant strip. In this case the Commentary improperly supercedes manufacturer instructions and causes the inspector to perform to a unique requirement that is not stated in the SoP. IF the IAC wants to say “put the fastener below the seal strip” then I can live with it IF it is adopted into the SoP by Rule.

This also opens up arguments for manufacturer preferences. Comp shingle manufacturers prefer nails but provide instructions for staples. Given the Commentary example for fastener location they should also ban staples.

I would want the commentary for selfish reasons, I want it it as reference to help cover the inspectors ***. I suppose if it’s done under the auspices of helping the consumer, the IAC can be involved, huh? I really don’t know about such matters. Mike I think you’re onto something here but my opinion, for what it’s worth, is that to protect inspectors the commentary should be devoid of any connection to TREC, it’s committees or sub-committees. Maybe, the best thing to happen to it would be if all these folks put all their effort into it and create a superb commentary document that receives utter rejection from TREC. Walla, we have a reference document we can use that cannot be used against us!

Ok, taking your lead here Mike and talking out loud. :smiley: