Washington Inspectors and those who work in Washington

I decided to start a new thread because of the drift on the other one. It appears that Senators Spanel and Koehl-Wells will be looking at this proposal over the next week. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, NOW would be a good time to contact both senators, and your local state senator also. If we, as home inspectors, don’t get active with input we will truly get stuck with something we may not have wanted.

Thanks for the update David. I took the liberty to find their contact information for everyone interested.

Here are links to their websites respectfully. Please make your opinion known. Its your right, your business and your livelyhood. Email is on their website.

Senator Harriet Spanel
Majority Caucus Chair
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/spanel

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
36th Legislative District
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/kohl-welles

You guys have it right. Get involved, lobby personally for what you want to see, instead of complaining about it later. If you get involved, and still lose out, then at least you have a valid complaint and know you did something to try to make things better. I will be sending letters, and Emails, stating my positions to a number of legislators.

Steve

Thank you David and Peter, as well as Steven. I am going to be working on this too.

Lewis, before you post anything about me, please keep your comments to yourself and post them on the other threads you already ruined. This is serious business and if you can’t act like a professional, then don’t ruin it for those of us who do.

Thank you.

I take that to mean 3 yays and 1 nay

Mic

Sorry about that, won’t happen on this subject, by me at least, again. Thanks for inviting me Dave.

Thanks for the Links to the two Senators involved so far Peter, but don’t forget all the rest, especially from your home districts everyone. Here are two links, one to All the Senate and the other to all the House, write lots of letters.

Senate:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Senators/

House:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/members%20by%20district.htm

Sorry about that, won’t happen on this subject, by me at least, again. Thanks for inviting me Dave.

Thanks for the Links to the two Senators involved so far Peter, but don’t forget all the rest, especially from your home districts everyone. Here are two links, one to All the Senate and the other to all the House, write lots of letters.

Senate:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Senators/

House:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/house/members%20by%20district.htm

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6229.pdf

Now that the dust is settling on last years senate bill, that was defeated, I think it is time for everyone to realize that the legislature can pick the best parts of the two proposals, last years and this years from the committee.

It is my view that, despite all the commotion at the time, a main reason that last year’s bill failed was because home inspectors had not previously faced this type of regulation, other than the WSDA part that most of us adhere to, so there was a knee jerk reaction. Everyone hated it, and there were some reasons for that – such as references to ASHI. Despite all this, I suggest that you read that bill, link above. It seems to me that, that last year’s original bill, with some modifications, had and has potential. The big criticism was that it benefited state colleges. Well, I am involved part-time in a program at a state college, so you can call me biased there if you want, but instead please look at the bill again with the idea of making some modifications, not accepting it as it is but improving it. Mentoring is the biggest difference, but here are a number of them:

Grandfathering: The original bill used the same basic grandfather requirements: 250 inspections, passing the NHIE. However, it did not specify years on the job. If you met those two requirements, nothing below applied to you.

If you were under the above criteria: Last year it required 160 hours of formal, state approved home inspection education, if a person DID NOT meet the grandfathering criteria. This only needed to be approved by the state and did not have to come from the college system. The new proposal recommends 120 hours of similar training, 40 fewer hours.

The original did not require mentoring within the industry. The new student would have been able to, in one place and one time, complete the full 160 hours which included 25% onsite inspections and report writing. This had people very upset last year. However, such a plan gives predictability of scheduling and an established curriculum where one could do this in a single month, either side of the mountains. The tuition is moderate compared to what mentoring might cost.

Now, in a practical sense, if we realize something is going to happen, you have to weigh that formal training option that takes you start to finish up to the NHIE, against the suggested mentoring proposal of 30 inspections with private and willing parties AFTER completing the 120 hours of formal education. So, what you are really looking at is one more week in class, against 30 mentored inspections arranged on your own, paying whatever fees the inspector demands, if he or she is willing to cooperate in training the competition.

As said, the bill last year was also full of comments about ASHI standards. In my view, that was the biggest failing. That needs to go! These should be state standards, not ASHI. They should be the best of ASHI, NACHI, etc.

I had no part in last years bill, and am no expert on it. I know that there was language in it excluding structural pest inspectors from licensing. There needs to be clarification of that, obviously.

I would not have brought this up a few weeks back, as I know that the old bill was highly criticized at the time and was dead. Some members of the committee are suggesting you read it to see how much better their new suggestions are. I suggest you do that and that is why I posted the link.

We know the legislature is looking at everything again, with the mind to do something. So those of us affected need to throw everything back on the table and try to lobby for what is best. So take a look at this old bill, take a look at the new suggested changes and get to work contacting legistators. One thing about it, last years bill was sponsored and had support in the legislature so it would not seem to me that it would be too hard to get a few needed changes in it. For example, cull ASHI, reduce education requirements to 120 like this new committee suggested. As for grandathering and mentoring, or not, that is really the key to the bill. If you are impacted by this, figure out if you would rather take training in a formal setting or if you would rather be on your own arranging mentoring at market rates. I think, like it or not, everyone will be taking some form of proctored written test.

Please no flames, I am sincerely offering my opinion in hopes of all of us getting the best possible legislation by studying our options. I have stated upfront that, as adjunct faculty, I work in the state education system very part-time. But I also work full-time as a home inspector.

Steve

Thanks David & Peter for posting the information. I have e-mailed both Senators.

I found SB6229 at this link;
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6229.pdf

Steve, Read Section 4 a little closer, the parts below the 250 Inspection requirement Section 4-2 This Chapeter does not appy to:

g. (g) Structural pest inspectors licensed under chapter 15.58 RCW;

The bill made a requirement, and tehn grandfathered in every HI who has an SPI License, among many other exclusions.

Section 12, The Board, 9 Members – 4 Educators, 2 realtors, 1 Engineer, and only 2 Home Inspectors on a Home Inspectors Board…that one of my main arguments in my contacts with Kolle-Welles last year.

The Bill was written FOR Vendors and Educators, it had no other purpose.

SB 6229 could be enacted as is, it has already spent it’s required year in the Sunrise Committee,

The new porposal has some good Ideas and many bad, it seems to be very protectionist of established HI’s, the mentoring provisions may work in the Seattle area but here on the East side even ride alongs are hard to find. Who will Mentor a new Inspector from say Republic, WA? The mentoring, IMO, should be replaced by annual Peer reviews and submissions of random copies of Reports to the Board for review, even established Inspectors should have to submit one or so a year and to go through a Peer review every few years.

The proposed SOP as I understand it is a combination of ASHI, NACHI, and NAHI, with the restriction that an Inspector cannot work on the house he inspected.

The bill made a requirement, and tehn grandfathered in every HI who has an "SPI License, among many other exclusions.

Section 12, The Board, 9 Members – 4 Educators, 2 realtors, 1 Engineer, and only 2 Home Inspectors on a Home Inspectors Board…that one of my main arguments in my contacts with Kolle-Welles last year."

Yes, as I said, the SPI thing needed clarification. I do not think it was intended as it read. It needed a revision in language. And, again, I agree that the board members could be chosen in a different manner. It does not need that many educators, although I think one makes sense since education is in each proposal. I do not see a need for an engineer although a realtor probably makes sense, but HI’s could argue that one forever. I think the board could be better chosen than as proposed in the new suggestions from the committee too. Again, I am not promoting one or the other but saying both have problems in my view and let us take the best parts of both, and can the worst of both, and try to lobby for something that works.

I wouldn’t mind one Educator on the Board if he came from a Public type school like one of the Jr. Colleges, but not a private Education Vendor.

I actually see very little in 6229 that I would support or feel needs to be transferred to a new Bill, as far as the new proposal, they are several things I like, but those that I don’t I dislike enough that I won’t support it as written, before I commit myself to attempting to kill it though I’ll wait to see if it can or will be mondified.

I believe there is more than just a requirement for it to spend a year in the sunrise committee. I believe it says that it must be substantially proven that the consumer desires it and would benefit from it. None of which has happened.

Inspectors need to write their Senators and Representatives. 2005 had over 183,000 single family residence sales in this state. And there were how many complaints? 1% would be 1830 complaints. And we saw 1 on TV, maybe 2? And of those complaints, how many were NOT complaints filed with the WSDA? That is the number that counts. Because the complaints filed with the WSDA over WDO or WDI are already covered under current laws.

99% satisfaction? Or more? Unless you are part of the 1% OR LESS that filed a complaint, I would say that everyone should be happy with that record. So I guess legislation is there to protect those that want it. You sure don’t need it to protect the public.

Just received this response from Jeanne Kohl-Welles office;

The Department of Licensing did not complete the sunrise review but I understand that Sen. Harriet Spanel will be introducing a new bill for this session.

**Jeanne **

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
36th Legislative District
Chair, Sen. Labor, Commerce, Research & Development Committee
Washington State Senate
District Office
157 Roy St.
Seattle, WA 98109
(206) 281-6854
Olympia Office
219 John A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504
(360) 786-7670
Residence
(206) 285-1869

Who are Senator Spanel’s enemies in your state senate?

Probably me. :wink:

Actually, I think Senator Spanel is pretty well liked. She has been in office probably close to 20 years. She is a democrat though so obviously republicans are the oppostion. However, this state has substantial democrat majorities. Again, I agree with the committee assessment. Forget trying to derail this. It is going to happen. Instead use the energy to modify the terms and lobby to get something that works.

Steve

I was just teasing. :slight_smile:

As to not trying to derail it, of course those who think an alternative is a better idea are going to say that. It’s okay for all of us to have differing opinions. It’s when we try to impose those opinions on the other that we run into problems.

“It’s when we try to impose those opinions on the other that we run into problems.”

I think that is kind of the legislature’s job, whether we like it or not. That is why often half the people hate any given politician or any given rule or law at any given time. So we have to try to do what we can to make sure that what they write we can live with.