ASHI tried three times, hard to pass a HI bill here in Colorado a few years ago, very poorly written and MADE it a REQUIREMENT that HI’s HAD to belong to a National Organization, words in the bill “LIKE ASHI”, to me a membership drive, I was firmly against it then as I am now.
I don’t wish some government dweeb telling me WHAT, WHEN or HOW I conduct my business.
They got three strikes against the HI bills, now they can’t EVER try AGAIN.
Thank you to all the HI’s that went and helped kill that bill.
For general conversation. At one time the old ASHI Test was 3 tests. Proctored either on paper or by electronic testing. Higher fail ratio than today. At one point members of the BOD asked the consultant working on the new shorter version one, how it stacked up the old one. He indicated that due to the length of the old test(s), failure ratio, etc it was about parr.
If I remember right I think because of that, CT may have originally ok’d the old ASHI Tests as well as the new NHIE.
Well isn’t that convenient, I could really care less what they choose to do as qualifications in regards to their association membership but when it comes to state mandated licensing I do not believe the same courtesy should be afforded to those who have not meet the letter of the law, do you?
Everyone who receives a license must meet the same standards, grandfathering and giving a free pass to some ancient unproven test weakens the value of the license in the marketplace and puts the consumer at risk. The only fair option is to require **all **licensees to conform to **all **requirements without exception, that is the only way to be sure that everyone has truly met the minimum standards.
Free rides for grandfathers should be limited to attractions at the State Fair and removed from State Licensing legislation.
If by CT, you are referring to Connecticut, the legislature nixed the NHIE before the bill became law. It was NEVER accepted for licensure, only PROPOSED.
Connecticut, like NY, opted to write its own test.
Remember, all, that the purpose of ANY law it to ensure a minimum level of competency. One can easily argue that the old NHIE had ASHI-based questions in it, which had nothing to do with establishing a legally acceptable minimum level of competency.
I’m not saying that it wasnt a good test, or was too hard.
You obviously have not read Missouri HB 978, Joe. There are no standards even mentioned.
In this case, the purpose of the law is to establish control. For a hint as to which group, look at the occupation of the first person named to the controlling “commission”.
It is not going to pass, but the real estate salesmen (and the home inspector association owned by them) will fight it to the end.
Joe -
I can remember that we were told several years ago that for the initial go around in CT that people that had taken the Old ASHI, the new NHIE, and etc were being grandfathered. What happened after I have no idea. If I understand your post, you said they wrote their own Test eventually, BUT what did they accept or Not for the initial Grandfathering. OR Are you saying they waited until they had written their own test to start licensing, etc.
I agree.
We do not have a grandfathering clause here (as far as I know), but we have some 30 year HI’s that do not seem to know diddly squat about the new codes and this is a real problem.:shock:
I was jacked up by a Realtor ( I had done a pre-listing inspection) about some things that I called out, like- no receptical in the bathroom and no ground for the fridge ect. I was told that the buyers inspector had been doing this for 20 years and I must amend my report:mrgreen: as I am obviously wrong. Well, it actually went all the way to the AHJ and they said “I do not know it was before my time” LMAO. So, I told them to call a sparky as was in the report. Long story short the new owner called me and thanked me for pointing out the problems.:D:D
Strangley enough I have not heard from the Realtor.:(
I understand what everyone is saying. What I’ve heard many legislators say is along the lines of:
“We’re not here to put anyone out of business”. In some parts of the country you’ll find home inspectors that got into this, blazed the trails, developed the standards, fought to get the profession recognized, built the profession, etc when there were really was no state or nationally recognized rules.
Many legislators feel its unfair to the pioneers in our business (or any business) that have been in the work place 15-20-30 years to expect them to have to do what the new intern does to prove his/her worth.
It is a fleeting thought at best once the legislators realize that the new intern and the pioneer are both equal once they step inside the voting booth. A thought that should not be easily dismissed by the pioneers in our business.
The point that inspectors on both sides of this issue will exercise their satisfaction with their legislators should be stressed at each stage of the licensing process.
Those who want to play in the big league should remember to wear long pants.
When licensing imposes itself upon the home inspectors of a state, among the first to arrive are the vendors of licenses…or “schools” that crank out graduates qualified for licensing.
An interesting phenomena can be found in this: In an unlicensed state, we have “home inspector schools” where folks get additional training added to their backgrounds to become home inspectors. Once the state requires a license, this changes and the schools become “licensing courses” where interested applicants are simply prepared for licensing.
No way…call them “pioneers” or anything else…should a practicing home inspector have less than a graduate of a “licensing school”.
BTW, in the State of New York (who recently introduced licensing of home inspectors) one school…I repeat that only one school, alone…has cranked out 273 licensed graduates into the market place in the last 60 days. Marketing was part of their training, and all of them know quite well that the fact that they are licensed has put them on equal footing with any competitor established before them.
What if they could also add that…"My competitor, Joe Schmoe, was not required to meet the same high standards that I was. Because he was in business shortly before me, he was able to lobby the legislature for a special ‘grandfathering’ clause that would award him his license…without having to meet the criteria that I did. Thus, with my inspection fee of $49, not only do you get a less expensive inspection but you get it from a more highly qualified licensed inspector."
Is anything being done in Florida, right now, to attack the “grandfathering” clause in the proposed bill, Joe? (If there is, please don’t expound upon it.)
