Senator Greenleaf is meeting with me in Horsham on Jan 11th. Help.

If you want to join me at this meeting which will be held at a local restaurant the morning of the 11th, post here. I am also looking for any changes you want made to the proposed legislation before the session starts 5 days later.

Perhaps that’s why I didn’t get a return call on the scheduling of my meeting with him.

I would like to attend.

I am most concerned that:

  1. the granfathering provision as it is currently written will still require most of the inspectors currently in the business to go back, do 120 hours of “approved” training, plus 40 hours of in-field practicum before they can continue their careers. Inspectors currently in the profession should be grandfathered in (or at least within some reasonable measure of experience or longevity) without having to pay thousands for training.

  2. The Board has some very braod authority with no checks on its power - such as the authority to suspend any inspectors license for 90 days without a hearing.

  3. If PHIC dominates the Board, and continues to refuse to acknowledge NACHI as PA complient, all NACHI-only inspectors will be forced into other associations by the bill.

PHIC? Judge already ruled on that… where have you been? There is no PHIC in the proposed law and never was and never will be. Stop making up stuff that isn’t there. This bill is the most anti-scumbag NAHI bill ever written and we’re going to drive those agent-bribing, repair-offering scumbags right out of my home state.

Nick,

This bill is the scariest I have seen. It gives sweeping authority to the Licensing Board, with little or no recourse. If the board is made up of those who currently support PHIC (whether a Judge likes it or not) they will kill NACHI. The law allows them to decide if an association qualifies today or tomorrow. PHICs philosophy has been to do it until they are legally stopped. They have never stopped in their desire to have NACHI swept aside. Never.

The bill has a long way to go. The first thing is to limit the role and authority of the licensing board. The second is to require that the board is made up of representatives of major national HI associations, with a STATE-defined criteria, that is irrevocable.

The Board needs to be ADVISORY only, with no special authority, powers, or privileges, AT ALL.

Watch these guys protest when their power becomes limited. These two modifications will likely create the biggest stink with PHIC guys.

Nick.

I am planning to attend your meeting with Senator Greenleaf.

My concerns are as follows:

1.) I believe the board should include representitives from the HI associations operating in the State.

Nick,

I mention PHIC because in discussions with Senator Greenleaf’s legislative staff it was made clear that he had some assistence in drafting the bill from “interested home inspectors”.

Given the way the bill is drafted, it is not illogical at all to infer that PHIC has had come influence. If PHIC is allowed majority control of the Board, there will be significant issues arising. It does not hurt to address the issue.

Regarding the propsed change to allow all HI orgs in the state to have particiaption on the Board, the problem I forsee is that they could allow just one NACHI member, while allowing 4 PHIC/ASHI members. Control will likely always rest with that body unless other language is also adopted.

Joe F’s thought to make the Board an advisory body is a good one.

I have composed another letter to Senator Greenleaf outling my concerns as an indpendant home inspector in PA, not as a NACHI member.

I understand that avoiding organizational infighting is probably a good idea at this meeting - however, some discussion of the topic must had. In addition, my concern over the unlimited power of the Board and the grandfathering provision remain my top two concerns, and I would like to have them specifically addressed as well.

Nick,

For some reason, my entire reply was not posted…I’ll try again.

I am planning to attend your meeting with Senator Greenleaf.

My concerns are as follows:

1.) I believe the board should include representatives from the HI associations operating in the State. This should prevent one person or agenda from dominating the board or trying to move the board in a particular direction.

2.) Licensing requirements are confusing at best. Requirements must be clarified. My understanding of the licensing requirements are an individual will need to:

(1) Furnish evidence of:

(i) Be 18 yrs of age.


(ii) (A) High school grad, have GED, or
(B) 5 yrs experience


(iii) Meet other criteria established by the board

Most NACHI members will have no problem with (i) and (ii), but what is the definition of (iii)???

(2) Complete an application

What will be on this application?

or

(3) (summarized) Complete: 120 hr. course of study that includes 40 hrs of in-field training.

*Does the 120 hr. course **include *the 40 hrs of infield training, or is the 40 hrs of training in addition to the 120 hr. course??

It seems to me that a current home inspector would have to satisfy (1) and
and (2), but as noted above, how is (iii) (under section(1)) interpreted? Section (3) appears to be for a person wanting to enter the HI field.

Is this the correct interpretation?

A defined, detailed mechanism to handle (grandfather) current certified inspectors must be included. To do otherwise will only create chaos in the HI industry in the state. Everyone that reads the licensing requirements as written, can have a different interpretation of these requirements as they apply to a current inspector…

More comments to come after I apply my trade this afternoon.

Joe M.,

I would be happy to offer any assistance I can (and which would be wanted, of course) in your quest. Look at NY’s verbiage pertaining to the HI Board. Adapt it if it works for you. And, yes, I too believe NACHI may be in for a very bumby ride if this is allowed to move forward the way it is presently drafted.

It’s good for Nick to have this meeting arranged, but is there anyone in PA organizing folks into an opposition? This would be a great opportunity to hold a “second” meeting and let the Senator know, if nothing else than by attendance, that those presenting this bill are not representing a majority.

James, many conversations betwen interested inspectors in PA have occurred over email. I have a fairly comprehensive list of objections accrued through them and was in the process of attempting to schedule a meeting with Senator Greenwood (awaiting a call from his scheduler for a suggested date) when nick posted this.

The meeting would/will not involve large numbers of attendees as (apparantly) many PA HIs either are unaware of the issue (a blast email to them would be helpful) or do not care.

It will be issue oriented as we do not have sufficient resources, and I do not have enough time to organize an effective grass roots approach.

Then, perhaps, someone else does.

The audience with the senator is already set. I believe that the more opposition he physically sees will only enhance whatever alternative measures he may hear.

I think that hearing from different constituencies presenting different concerns does not hurt. The inspectors who have been part of the discussion seem to have a general agreement about the proposed bill and a working outline of our concerns.

I intend to present them to the Senator independantly of the meeting Nick has arranged.

Thanks for the offer of help, Joe. I am going to study the NY and NJ laws as I think they will be useful tools to see the possible directions this could go.

Chaos is a good strategy…that is, flooding the legislature with a myriad of opinions and opposition to their bill from a variety of sources…in defeating any kind of legislation from passing. It worked very effectively in Florida, last year.

Presenting a unified front to back an alternative bill, as is presently happening in New Hampshire, is another means. If there are PA inspectors out there who would like to organize an effective campaign to counter the one that has already been launched by PHIC/ASHI, there is time to pull something together and present it - in the form of an organized coalition - at this meeting arranged by Nick with the Senator. I hope someone will step up to the plate and take advantage of this opportunity.

The problem, James, is that this meeting is being led by someone who has expressed personal support for the bill repeatedly. I do not know what to expect from Nick at the meeting, but I have learned from past experience not to rely on his word=.

If the meeting successfully presents all objections without watering down our serious opposition to the proposed bill, then great! If not, alternative strategies are in place.

Chaos is also not the plan (at least not mine). As I mentioned, many inspectors have privately stepped up and collaborated to outline our objections and will present them to the Senator.

Let your coalition run the meeting that Nick arranged. I’ll bet he will be happy to support the group’s position. Ask him.

If Nick wants to provide the stage, then (again) great! If not, or if it turns out otherwise, we will be prepared. I no longer take Nick’s word for anything.

The coalition consists of several inspectors who contributed to the end document, but who did not wish to attend a meeting. Of those, only myself and two other inspectors indicated a desire to attend such a meeting.

This is not a mass uprising. Had we had the ability to send a legislative alert to all NACHI members, perhaps it might have been. It is a well-discussed, and carefully constructed set of objections compised by inspectors from various parts of the state with (more or less) common concerns (most of which have been outlined here).

From my observation of PA inspectors, which I admit has been limited only to this message board, I have noted an unusual phenomena in which most new inspectors are coming into the PA industry controlled by the real estate agents who are, in turn, controlled by PHIC - at least to the extent of believing them to be a legitimate governing agency (which they are not).

I am astounded by the fact that no one…not even the former president of our own association…took a stand against this in your state and fought as hard to discredit them as publicly as they did NACHI.

As a result, I think you have inspectors in your state who are so accustomed to that control that they feel that such control becoming legitimized through legislation is only natural. They have not been educated regarding an alternative.

Now is the chance, and certainly the time, to make one last effort to put the truth before all of the folks in the real estate industry in PA. This time next year, it could be too late.

PHUC PHIC!

MY personal experience is that PHIC is a very minor presence. While many of the larger or long-time REaltors may have been courted by them, they remain a relatively inert group (more active in some areas than in others).

Here in my area, I have only come across about 7-10 Realtors who have ever asked me about NACHI being PA compliant (as per the PHIC diatribe).

I think it is bigger in other areas of the state, and for that reason, I attempted to revive the discussion, get to the core of the issue and try to find an acceptable resolution to make the issue go away for newer inspectors. It was clear that no middle position is about to be adopted by either party and that no successful resolution can be reached.

I would not go so far as to say that PA HIs feel controlled and accept that, as I would say they understand how to work around it and have become accustoned to doing that.

We all have certain jurisdictions that have imposed theri own licensing or other controls, and are accustomed to dealing with those as well.

This bill is - in my opinion - undoubtedly written by PHIC affiliates (too much of the language and purpose is familiar) and has the expressed intent of codifying PHICs objections to NACHI. Removing those portions that are detrimental to NACHI and NACHI members is the goal.

The fight over licensing (in principle) is one that most inspectors I know do not care about. Maybe it’s becuase some jurisdictions already require it. Maybe its becasue they are ok with it since they are required to be licensed for termite inspections, radon, etc. Whatever the reason, the focus has been on specifiying objections to the proposed bill to make it better for NACHI members and current HIs in PA.

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7248

Here is a thread that gives an example of what I described…a new PA inspector wanting to know how to handle a real estate salesman requesting his PHIC compliance statement…and an experienced PA inspector suggesting he submit himself to it.

As to the license argument, generally, it is popular with new inspectors looking for “instant credentials”. Licensing requirements are usually minimal and achieving them makes one, in the eyes of his state, equally competent with all of the other inspectors…and he sells that to his client.

Licensing is popular with ASHI and, in your state PHIC, because it provides them the means to control that they otherwise lack due to the minimal amount of actual membership.

Licensing is popular to some uninformed oldtimers who think they will use it to eliminate some of their competition.

Licensing fails to achieve its desired effect and there is a study published by a branch of the Ohio State government that establishes this fact in real and hard statistical data.

If you want it in PA…it’s your business, but if you simply bend over and grab your ankles for PHIC — which has been the trend for the past few years, I think your inspectors will learn to regret it in a hurry.

Good luck in stirring the masses and awakening them to their destiny.