Thread: PA House Bill 1805

deleted

Similar Threads:

• Vigorous chimney cleaning likely led to house fire - Flint Journal
• Realtor gets much-needed lesson in disclosure - Upstate House
• Bill Slade
• House fire on Goulais Mission Road - SooToday.com
• I wanna be a home inspector - Upstate House

Well no bill is ever a good bill, but just a cursory glance and I found this.

Term of office.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
24 the members of the board shall serve for four-year terms and
25 shall be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent
26 of a majority of the members elected to the Senate.

So Pennsylvania home inspectors are going to be subject to a Board who is comprised of political appointees... You can expect no good whatsoever to come of this arrangement.

But I would expect the licensing kool-aid drinkers on this board who have sold their souls to the demon of licensing-at-any-cost will attempt to spin this positively.

There are inherent flaws with having the Board comprised of political appointees, but there are going to be flaws with any system that allows someone or some body of people to exercise their own personal biases in selecting the board. Joe B - what other method of comprising the Board would you suggest?

As for the bill, it could (if desired) eliminate the existing requirement for membership in an association by simply codifying the requirements currently used to define association (100 inspections, etc).

Other things I would like to see are:

1) Clarification of "recognized or accredited exam," and what body will make that determination. Additionally, use of the term "direct, physical supervision" in place of "supervised by" when referring to a full member who supervises a junior member's inspection (Sec. 705 (b)(3))would further eliminate confusion and clearly define both the intent and spirit of the requirement.

2) 5 years of practice to grandfather in current HI's and not subject them to thousands of dollars of educational expenses is ridiculous. It could push out hundreds of guys who have just less than 3 years of practice at the time the law takes effect. Someone with 4.5 years of experience and a background as a builder, or who was unlucky enough to have attended an "unapproved" training program would not qualify and would have to pay thousands for what (to them) would be redundant or remedial education in home inspections and systems. 3-4 years, given the two year window to apply, is more reasonable.

3) 507 (a)(5) Allows for an HI license to be suspended or revoked even for a first time offender who gets ARD. That will include first time DUI offenses and some other fairly common offenses, and grants powers to this board that no employer and even the DA or Attorney General does not have. It also gives no time limit, it simply says "if the licensee has been convicted of....or received..." meaning at ANY point in time. It would theoretically be possible to go through all applicants, match them to the conviction database, find an underage drinking charge from 22 years ago and deny a license, or revoke an existing one. I am sure they will state that this is not the intent, but if the power exists, it can be abused. This goes WAY too far.


Just my thoughts, and I am sure you have plenty of your own.....

Joseph H.
I didn't read the bill, but I would like to comment on your points. I don't know what Joe B. wrote since I have him blocked.

As far as the grandfathering goes, I'm right with you. When TN had our bill pass, there were several guys I knew that didn't make the cut (I think it was 3 years - I forget). So they had to jump thru the hoops to get their license.

The trouble with ANY guideline, there is always going to be someone that is just short of it, and will be pissed off.

Maybe YEARS in business isn't a good criteria, the NUMBER of inspections might be a better gauge of an inspectors qualifications. I mean, someone could have beenin business for 5 years and only done 50 inspections, where you could have someone in business only 2 years and have 500 under their belt.

Like I said, I didn't read the bill, just your comments. It sounds like the Board has way too much power as far as past trouble with the law. There would really need to be a time limit I guess. However, someone with recent convictions should probably not have a license.

I'll try to read the bill over the weekend and maybe make additional comments.
JF