I wanted pass along information from a recent e-mail update I received from Larry Stamp on WA HI legislation.
I wanted pass along information from a recent e-mail update I received from Larry Stamp on WA HI legislation.
I thought it was in Sunrise or something?
ESSB 5788 - H COMM AMD
By Committee on Commerce & Labor
ADOPTED AND ENGROSSED 04/06/2007
** 1 Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the
3 “NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The department of licensing shall
4 conduct a study of the home inspector profession and make
5 recommendations to the legislature as to whether the home inspector
6 profession should be regulated for the purpose of protecting the public
7 interest under the criteria set forth in RCW 18.118.010.
8 (2) In conducting the study, the department shall consider the
9 factors, to the extent appropriate, in RCW 18.118.030.
10 (3) The department must hold public hearings as part of its study.
11 The department must file notice of the hearings with the code reviser
12 for publication in the Washington State Register. The notice must
13 state that information is sought regarding possible regulation of the
14 home inspector profession; and when, where, and how public members may
15 present information about the home inspector profession and possible
16 regulation. The department must request names of interested
17 individuals and organizations from legislators and other identified
18 interested parties and send these individuals and organizations copies
19 of the notice filed with the code reviser.
20 (4) The department shall submit a report detailing its findings and
21 recommendations under this section to the appropriate legislative
22 committees by December 1, 2007.”
23 Correct the title.
— END —
Official Print - 1 5788-S.E AMH ENGR H3484.E
This is the form it has now been passed in. This is the only form of the bill that is now in play.
[18.118.020](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.118.020) << 18.118.030 >> [18.118.040](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.118.040) **RCW 18.118.030**
Applicants for regulation — Information.
After July 26, 1987, if appropriate, applicant groups shall explain each of the following factors to the extent requested by the legislative committees of reference: (1) A definition of the problem and why regulation is necessary: (a) The nature of the potential harm to the public if the business profession is not regulated, and the extent to which there is a threat to public health and safety; (b) The extent to which consumers need and will benefit from a method of regulation identifying competent practitioners, indicating typical employers, if any, of practitioners in the profession; and (c) The extent of autonomy a practitioner has, as indicated by: (i) The extent to which the profession calls for independent judgment and the extent of skill or experience required in making the independent judgment; and (ii) The extent to which practitioners are supervised; (2) The efforts made to address the problem: (a) Voluntary efforts, if any, by members of the profession to: (i) Establish a code of ethics; or (ii) Help resolve disputes between practitioners and consumers; and (b) Recourse to and the extent of use of applicable law and whether it could be strengthened to control the problem; (3) The alternatives considered: (a) Regulation of business employers or practitioners rather than employee practitioners; (b) Regulation of the program or service rather than the individual practitioners; (c) Registration of all practitioners; (d) Certification of all practitioners; (e) Other alternatives; (f) Why the use of the alternatives specified in this subsection would not be adequate to protect the public interest; and (g) Why licensing would serve to protect the public interest; (4) The benefit to the public if regulation is granted: (a) The extent to which the incidence of specific problems present in the unregulated profession can reasonably be expected to be reduced by regulation; (b) Whether the public can identify qualified practitioners; (c) The extent to which the public can be confident that qualified practitioners are competent: (i) Whether the proposed regulatory entity would be a board composed of members of the profession and public members, or a state agency, or both, and, if appropriate, their respective responsibilities in administering the system of registration, certification, or licensure, including the composition of the board and the number of public members, if any; the powers and duties of the board or state agency regarding examinations and for cause revocation, suspension, and nonrenewal of registrations, certificates, or licenses; the promulgation of rules and canons of ethics; the conduct of inspections; the receipt of complaints and disciplinary action taken against practitioners; and how fees would be levied and collected to cover the expenses of administering and operating the regulatory system; (ii) If there is a grandfather clause, whether such practitioners will be required to meet the prerequisite qualifications established by the regulatory entity at a later date; (iii) The nature of the standards proposed for registration, certification, or licensure as compared with the standards of other jurisdictions; (iv) Whether the regulatory entity would be authorized to enter into reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions; and (v) The nature and duration of any training including, but not limited to, whether the training includes a substantial amount of supervised field experience; whether training programs exist in this state; if there will be an experience requirement; whether the experience must be acquired under a registered, certificated, or licensed practitioner; whether there are alternative routes of entry or methods of meeting the prerequisite qualifications; whether all applicants will be required to pass an examination; and, if an examination is required, by whom it will be developed and how the costs of development will be met; (d) Assurance of the public that practitioners have maintained their competence: (i) Whether the registration, certification, or licensure will carry an expiration date; and (ii) Whether renewal will be based only upon payment of a fee, or whether renewal will involve reexamination, peer review, or other enforcement; (5) The extent to which regulation might harm the public: (a) The extent to which regulation will restrict entry into the profession: (i) Whether the proposed standards are more restrictive than necessary to insure safe and effective performance; and (ii) Whether the proposed legislation requires registered, certificated, or licensed practitioners in other jurisdictions who migrate to this state to qualify in the same manner as state applicants for registration, certification, and licensure when the other jurisdiction has substantially equivalent requirements for registration, certification, or licensure as those in this state; and (b) Whether there are similar professions to that of the applicant group which should be included in, or portions of the applicant group which should be excluded from, the proposed legislation; (6) The maintenance of standards: (a) Whether effective quality assurance standards exist in the profession, such as legal requirements associated with specific programs that define or enforce standards, or a code of ethics; and (b) How the proposed legislation will assure quality: (i) The extent to which a code of ethics, if any, will be adopted; and (ii) The grounds for suspension or revocation of registration, certification, or licensure; (7) A description of the group proposed for regulation, including a list of associations, organizations, and other groups representing the practitioners in this state, an estimate of the number of practitioners in each group, and whether the groups represent different levels of practice; and (8) The expected costs of regulation: (a) The impact registration, certification, or licensure will have on the costs of the services to the public; and (b) The cost to the state and to the general public of implementing the proposed legislation.
[1987 c 514 § 6.]
[FONT=Arial]Latest news from Larry;[/FONT]
**[FONT=Arial]**As we had hoped, the Senate passed the bill amended by the House and the bill will go to sunrise review by the Department of Licensing. Good job by all of you who made your voices heard. Had you not, you would likely be getting a much different message right now. [/FONT]
**[FONT=Arial]**The real work will begin with the DOL study, at which time all of us must make our voices heard again. I will try to identify a contact at DOL for those of you who want to be involved in the process so that you can get on the DOL list of interested parties and stakeholders. [/FONT]
**[FONT=Arial]**I have also attached the role call from the Senate, just in case you wondered if your Senator was present and how he or she voted. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Again….[/FONT]****[FONT=Arial] Good Job!![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Larry Stamp[/FONT]****[FONT=Arial Narrow] AD BS RREI**[/FONT]**
**[FONT=Arial Narrow]**Cameo Home Inspection Services [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow]Your ‘Northwest Home’ Inspection Specialist[/FONT]
Senate vote on Final Passage as Amended by the House
Yeas: 41 Nays: 7 Absent: 0 Excused: 1
Senators Benton, Berkey, Brandland, Brown, Carrell, Delvin, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Hargrove, Haugen, Hobbs, Honeyford, Jacobsen, Kastama, Kauffman, Keiser, Kilmer, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Marr, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Murray, Oemig, Parlette, Pflug, Prentice, Pridemore, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rockefeller, Sheldon, Shin, Spanel, Swecker, Tom, Weinstein, and Zarelli
**Voting Nay: **Senators Clements, Hatfield, Hewitt, Holmquist, Morton, Schoesler, and Stevens
**Excused: **Senator Poulsen
Yep, pretty awesome eh?! There is still work that lies ahead. However, it is a far more hopeful picture that lies before us.
Now, it’s time to attack that screwy SPI crap. Perhaps NACHI can get behind some of you wanting to challenge it, now that your congress has clearly determined that it is not ready to regulate HIs.
So, its over in Washington for now, no licensing?
Yep. Chalk up one more for the good guys.
Hey, I just caught one of the pro licensing inspectors heading home from the statehouse, he was not happy.
Yes, good timing since the laws, even the ones they tried to apply to me, only apply to the regulation of structural pest inspectors. Since I’m a home inspector they should only be able to regulate those who advertise that they are structural pest inspectors and fine those who do so without the license. Clearly that is the only person that the law defines.
Well isn’t that special…
Washington legislators having distanced themselves from the home inspection conundrum for at least another year found time to turn their attention to other pressing issues. :sarcasm:
Congrats WA on your victory!! We can regulate our own industry without Gov involvment.
Exactly!!! Thank you!!!
Another step towards the Victory of choosing to be HOME INSPECTORS, not joining the Structural Pest Inspector industry.
Why attack the SPI laws? According to your legal interpretations, (and NACHI’s official position on the matter) it has been declared that WA home inspectors are not required to abide by the SPI laws.
Therefore there is nothing to attack. Right?
That’s true. The SPI laws only apply to SPI’s, not HI’s.
If I may make a suggestion with regard to SPI licenses in Washington State.
It is doubtful that the current law will be scrapped. There is an argument that it protects the consumer based on the training provided. So, my suggestion is to lobby the legislature to ammend the law.
I propose still allowing the SPI provision to stand, with the clarification that the purpose of the law is to help ensure that any HI performing an inspection be properly trained, and accredited by the State for performing such tasks. The DIFFERENCE comes in where the inspector does NOT apply pesticides.
If the HI bill didnt pass, and there is NO REQUIREMENT for an inspector to carry E&O insurance, then the Dept of Agriculture has twisted this well intended law into a means of controlling an industry that the State is currently not interested in controlling. Clearly, a compelling argument can be made that the control of HIs is NOT within the intended purview of the Dept of Agriculture. In fact, it’s outrageous. Since when does reporting a leaky trap require a pesticide license?
This is totally wrong-headed. As such, the Dept of Agriculture should concern itself with EDUCATION, and ensuring the proper level of completed operations and liability insurance for those who APPLY PESTICIDES. That is it. Inspectors are not applicators.
If the Dept of Agriculture insists that inspectors need to be properly trained, than FINE. Just limit it to the training. Then, what will their excuse be. Sure, if you are going to identify something that may be affected by a WDI or WDO, by all means require the State training. But, that’s it!
By amending the law, the Dept of Agriculture still controls applicators, but only provides TRAINING for those performing inspections.
I would suggest drafting an amendment, and getting some of the legislature to listen to this reasonable and workable proposal, where there will be NO EXCUSES for an inspector to not have the training and state certification. In the end, the CONSUMER wins.
Let the Dept of Agriculture explain how this sort of ammendment will not work. They should not be empowered to require any insurance beyond those required as a matter of liability for applying pesticides. I believe they will be hardpressed to be able to justify the continuation of a law that is quite arbitrary.
Like I said, amend the law and, in the end, the CONSUMER wins.
And THAT is what the law should be about!
Again, why worry about amending a pest (SPI) law if it does not apply to home inspections? NACHI’s position was clearly stated a couple months ago, that we are not required to adhere to the SPI laws.