National HI Organizations

[Steven Meyer]

never mind already made my decission

Thanks to the couple of you that gave good/informative information.

I am NOT a newbie, have been doing inspections as a general contractor for a number of years. With GC license, didn't need HI license..

Similar Threads:

• NAHI's Position on the Creation of a National Standard for Home Inspection
• National Cont. Ed Seminars
• HWA Launches First National, Licensed Home Inspection Warranty Program - RisMedia.com
• Walt Jowers, a national treasure for home inspectors
• May Is National Electrical Safety Month:

[Nick Ostrowski]

Oh no!!! Steven, for all of us, please delete this thread at once and save everybody the organizational bashing.

Honestly, do a search on this board. This subject has been hashed out many times.

And then delete this thread .

[Gunnar Alquist]

Joining an organization is generally optional. I would find one that has local chapter meetings and attend a few before joining. I have found that the local meetings are far more useful than any national (or statewide) organization. If there is more than one local meeting, then attend any or all to find the best fit.

[John Arnold]

...the general HI community just might have a unbaised or ( biased) opinion...

Try biased. And we have many flaming shrieking threads to show for it! I'd suggest you try searching the forum, but that would be too embarrassing.

[Rick Hurst]

Nick,

It was time some Newbie had to come along and ask this question.

[Raymond Wand]

If you feel compelled to join an assocition(s) here is what I would look for as part of my due diligence.

1. An association that has a set of SOP and COE.
2. An association with bylaws which establish how the organization is managed and to what degree.
3. Financial reports/statements as per the bylaw and or government requirements for non profit associations.
5. Accountability
6. Elected members to the BOD
7. Annual AGM
8. Good governance
9. Outside oversite either by licencing or other independent review by outside independent review.
10. An association that exist to look after members interest not the associations financial interest through its members.

Cheers,

[Scott Patterson]

never mind already made my decission

Thanks to the couple of you that gave good/informative information.

I am NOT a newbie, have been doing inspections as a general contractor for a number of years. With GC license, don't need HI license..

Steven, are you aware that Washington is now a licensed state for home inspectors as of last Friday! You will need a HI license now. I think that you will have to the middle of next year to get the requirements out of the way. Just a little FYI.

[Steven Meyer]

SCOTT

Thanks for your reply.

That is the reason for now getting my HI license.

As being a general contractor no longer applies. Thus to continue in what I was doing, need both licenses. AND, no, I do not work on the houses I inspect.

I belong to the Master Builders Association up here, and have found it useful in GC business. My question concernig HI organizations was for input from others that could give insight into the different organizations. Same as I did before joing MBA. My original post affronted some, so I deleated it.

So, will continue my search/investigation of HI Organizations else where, no sense rocking the boat, so to speak.

I do thank those of you that did respond in a helpful and positive manner.

[Deleted Account]

My question concernig HI organizations was for input from others that could give insight into the different organizations. Same as I did before joing MBA. My original post affronted some, so I deleated it.

So, will continue my search/investigation of HI Organizations else where, no sense rocking the boat, so to speak.

Steven,

Rocking the boat is in many cases the only action a whole host of characters who regularly post here ever get, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Scott Patterson was membership chairman for ASHI and in that capacity he is a very good honest source of information, I say this even though we bitterly disagree regarding HI licensing.

My view regarding HI associations is:

1). Belong to as many that serve your business needs.

2). Think globally but act locally.

To me, the local group that gets together on a monthly basis has always been more important then the national associations that has very little influence over anything.

This board has in the past has hosted some very heated discussions regarding associations and it appears there are as many opinions as there are posters but that is not necessarily a bad thing as it disseminates information that you will get nowhere else.

If there is anything you would like to ask about various associations please feel free to email me and I will do my best to give you the straight answer.

Joe.

[Lewis Capaul]

never mind already made my decission

Thanks to the couple of you that gave good/informative information.

I am NOT a newbie, have been doing inspections as a general contractor for a number of years. With GC license, didn't need HI license..

If you've been doing Home Inspections as a General Contractor in Washington State there has been no HI Licese to get, until now. But if as a GC you inspected structures involving the sale, trade, or transfer of property and you mentioned anything pertaining to WDO or conditions conducive to WDO in your report, either written or verbal, then you were required to have a Structural Pest Inspectors License issued by the WSDA. Looking at the list of SPI's it appears you never bothered to obtain one.

You might hope that the DOL doesn't decide to verify the required 100 inspections for grandfathering by checking the ICN's issued by the WSDA.

In a licensed State what benefit is there to belonging to any HI Association, other than for comradship?

[Steven Meyer]

LEWIS

My Inspection back ground is from California. And rather doubt that those inspections would be of use here under the new licensing law.

Washington state does not "recognize" any prior licensing from California, and that runs the full spectrum of licensing, from school teachers, real estate agents, contractors, pharmacy, you name it. But turn about is fair game, Calif. does not recognize Wa. licensing.

Have stayed with contracting of my own investment properties up here, but with the housing market down the tubes, time for a change.

My understanding of new license law is that WDO for HI inspectos may not be required any more, That would be a plus, as there is to much liability in the HI business as it is. Let the experienced pest industry take on that liability.

Think the new law is that you can refer out pest inspection, as it was in California years ago.

Pest companies in Calif., in the olden days, did termite inspections, (which almost always resulted in the house being "tented" and treated for termites). Talk about a racket, they inspected it, and tented it!!!!

So, with UBI already in hand, just do the hoops in new licensing law. But that is dependent on my desire to stay here, right about this time of year, south west warmer/dryer climate looking good.

[John Arnold]

In a licensed State what benefit is there to belonging to any HI Association, other than for comradship?

Education.

[Steven Meyer]

JOSEPH,

Thanks for your reply, just may take you up on it, and thanks for the other information.

I posted on this BB, in that I figured it was independent of any "organization" and those who chose to respond could do so in an honest manner.

Thanks again

[Lewis Capaul]

LEWIS

My Inspection back ground is from California. And rather doubt that those inspections would be of use here under the new licensing law.

Washington state does not "recognize" any prior licensing from California, and that runs the full spectrum of licensing, from school teachers, real estate agents, contractors, pharmacy, you name it. But turn about is fair game, Calif. does not recognize Wa. licensing.

Have stayed with contracting of my own investment properties up here, but with the housing market down the tubes, time for a change.

My understanding of new license law is that WDO for HI inspectors may not be required any more, That would be a plus, as there is to much liability in the HI business as it is. Let the experienced pest industry take on that liability.

Think the new law is that you can refer out pest inspection, as it was in California years ago.

Pest companies in Calif., in the olden days, did termite inspections, (which almost always resulted in the house being "tented" and treated for termites). Talk about a racket, they inspected it, and tented it!!!!

So, with UBI already in hand, just do the hoops in new licensing law. But that is dependent on my desire to stay here, right about this time of year, south west warmer/dryer climate looking good.

The recognition of inspections from other States is kind of up in the Air, there is no one in Washington right now who can claim 100 inspections under the New Law, the wording is very weak in what the requirements are, the law states the there is a reciprocal agreement or policy that those inspectors from States with laws at least equal to WA's will be accepted once they pass the Washington portion of the State Exam.

Right now there is no stated policy as to what the 100 inspection requirement is or what and how they will be verified. But once again, no one at this time or when the licensing procedures come out will have 100 inspections under the new law. It's a very poorly written Lawwith too much left up to the bureaucrats in the DOL and the proposed HI Directors Board.

I'm afraid that all the Washington Inspector's are going to end up with is another bureaucratic mess like they have had for years with the WSDA, the good thing about the Law is at least now inspectors have a choice of whether or not they want to deal with the SPI license.

[Lewis Capaul]

Education.

I haven't seen any of the Associations offer any education much above the newbie level.

[Joseph P. Hagarty]

I haven't seen any of the Associations offer any education much above the newbie level.

Providing Continuing Education for Inspectors 5 - 10 -15 + years has been a dilemma for all Associations.

Hanging on to minimalistic SOP's while attempting to increase educational offerings to established & experienced inspectors will continue to be problematic for all Associations.

[Steven Meyer]

LEWIS

If no Washington inspector can qualify under the 100 inspection requirement, that ought to throw the whole HI business into a free fall!!!

Legislation good for consumers?, not if there are no inspectors to perform the inspection!!! unintended consequence???

The problem with this, (and most legislation) is way to much is left up to the bureocrats. A group, unelected and not accountable to anyone, that determines the "intent" of the law, and makes all the rules.

The legislation is only a "guide line", the real teeth of the legislation is what the bureocrats decide it should be. That is what frightens me the most, my "future" is in the hands of some num nut in Olympia.
It is the unintended consequences of these laws that we should fear.

As to Washington state recognizing other states licensing, it there is again up to a bureocrat to decide what is equal to Washington law. There in lies the problem. I do know factually, by my experience, and others, Washington is not that very comfortable accepting California licensing.
Other western states do recognize California, notably Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, I know of one person who with California credentials, had a heck of a time in Wa. State, so went to Arizona for that states license, then applied to Wa. Seems there was noooooooo problem accepting a Arizona license/certificaton. Same person, same background, different state!!!!

You are right, that the only good thing about this bill is not needing the SPA Dept. of Ag. license.

So, as we all anxiously await our marching orders from the DOL, we should probably expect the worse and start to get our ducks in a row. The law doesn't take effect for a year or so, hopefully that is enough time to do so.

[Joseph P. Hagarty]

Steven,

In case you have not realized........

Licensing is about Exclusion.

&

Never about Inclusion.

[Michael Larson]

Have to ever seen all the completely bored inspectors at a convention or regional training session as they are once again are forced to listen to electrical 101 or plumbing 101 for the umpteenth time just so they can fulfill their states licensing requirement for CE hours?

Inspectors who have been in the business for a few years and have done hundreds or thousands of inspections don't need the same thing over and over but they have few choices.

There has to be a better way.

State licensing tends to exacerbate this problem not improve upon it as the courses often have to be approved by the state and the state often doesn't accept classes that go beyond the SOP.

[Raymond Wand]

In case you have not realized........
Licensing is about Exclusion.
&
Never about Inclusion.

How can it be exclusionary when everyone has to licenced?

It seems to me to be a moot point.

Cheers,

[Harvey Hempelstern]

the good thing about the Law is at least now inspectors have a choice of whether or not they want to deal with the SPI license.

They always have.

[Joseph P. Hagarty]

How can it be exclusionary when everyone has to licenced?

It seems to me to be a moot point.

Cheers,

Raymond,

You did not have a Clue when you were a NACHI Member.
I see that not much has changed....

[Michael P. O'Handley]

The recognition of inspections from other States is kind of up in the Air, there is no one in Washington right now who can claim 100 inspections under the New Law, the wording is very weak in what the requirements are, the law states the there is a reciprocal agreement or policy that those inspectors from States with laws at least equal to WA's will be accepted once they pass the Washington portion of the State Exam.

Right now there is no stated policy as to what the 100 inspection requirement is or what and how they will be verified. But once again, no one at this time or when the licensing procedures come out will have 100 inspections under the new law. It's a very poorly written Law with too much left up to the bureaucrats in the DOL and the proposed HI Directors Board.

Gosh, I'm so happy we have folks from Idaho, Missouri, and Florida out there who are such experts on our laws here. Don't know what we'd do without them. Here's what the law says:

Persons who are currently working as home inspectors have until July 1, 2010, to meet licensing requirements. However, a person who is currently performing home inspections may become licensed by only taking the examination if that person applies to the home inspector advisory licensing board by September 1, 2009, and has worked as a home inspector for two years and conducted at least 100 inspections. The DOL may begin issuing licenses July 1, 2009.

No offense meant Lewis, but it would be obvious to a 6th grader that it says that anyone who is currently performing home inspections, who has worked as an inspector for two years and conducted at least 100 inspections, has until September 1, 2009 to take and pass whatever test they come up with and could actually obtain their license as early as July 1, 2009 if they've completed all of the requirements. It doesn't say that the 100 inspections must have been done after passage of the new law. In fact, it doesn't put any special criteria at all on those 100 inspections. All of the special criteria that some special interests had sought to get inserted into the law, in order to keep some folks out, were removed.

As for verification, although ICN numbers would be one way to verify number of inspections done, it is not the only way to verify numbers and the law doesn't specifically say anything about ICN numbers, which is another rumor you've been floating. There's a reason for that; if ICN numbers were the only accepted criteria, there'd be no way to induce those inspectors who've been operating without pest licenses to come forward and apply for licensure and they'd remain out in the cold.

I know this is going to rub you the wrong way, but right now, unless those folks without SPI licenses are writing up bug issues, they are no longer breaking the law. As of last Friday when the governor signed that bill into law, the WDI issue was separated from the WDO issues and all inspectors are permitted to legally comment on pest conducive conditions and wood deterioration and rot, even if they haven't got a pest license. Of course, if they are commenting on WDI and WDI damage, they'll still need an SPI license.

One of the reasons the law is worded the way that it is, and the requirement for ICN numbers was pulled out of the bill proposal, was so that those who were trying to skirt the law would come forward and get licensed. If ICN number are the only acceptable proof, those people aren't likely to come forward, are they? This way, they start with a clean slate. This way, everyone's training and/or experience can be verified and they are able to ensure, through testing, that everyone has the requisite basic knowledge to do the job.

Yeah, there will be some folks who despite the new law will continue to operate without a license after the cutoff date, because they'll think, for whatever reason, that they won't be competent enough to pass the tests; but those folks will find out pretty quickly that when the gray area between the pest law and the lack of a home inspector license is removed, that everyone is going to expect to see every home inspectors license. Besides, there's this:

"All advertising, correspondence, and documents incidental to a home inspection must display the term "licensed home inspector" and the inspector's license number."

So, they'll either need to step up and do what's right or end up sooner-or-later, being identified and fined. There are always some who won't comply, but the likelihood is that, now that elimination of the pest license requirement has made it less expensive for inspectors to operate legally, those who were not operating legally will no longer have to fear the cost of the E & O/Bond requirement and will step forward and get the new license. That's one thing that this licensing law can solve.

It's a very simple law and doesn't require a whole lot of analysis - one will either have the 100 inspections under his/her belt, have been in the business for two years, and will have passed the required tests by 1 September 2009, or by July of 2010 they'll need to show they've got 120 hours of training under their belt, have completed 40 hours of supervised training with a licensed inspector, and have passed the tests. There is no number of inspection requirement for new inspectors; only the requirement for the 120 hours of classes and a weeks worth of ride alongs with an experienced inspector - plus taking the tests - to be licensed.

The vast majority of inspectors in the state - even east of the mountains - who have two years of business under their belt right now already have 100 inspections done, those who don't still have another 18 months to meet the cutoff date.

I'm afraid that all the Washington Inspector's are going to end up with is another bureaucratic mess like they have had for years with the WSDA, the good thing about the Law is at least now inspectors have a choice of whether or not they want to deal with the SPI license.

Yeah, the WSDA thing was a mess; mostly because WSDA really didn't want the task of enforcing it. It was shoved down their throats by a bunch of pest guys back in 1989-90 who thought that, if they could get a requirement that anyone doing a home inspection had to have a pest license, it would reduce the number of folks they had to compete with. Yeah, ostensibly it was for consumer protection, but some pest guys I know have admitted to me off the record that it was to try and limit their competition.

Of course, that was when they greatly outnumbered home inspectors in the state, now we outnumber them by a whole lot. It backfired on them - instead of reducing their competition, it practically wiped out the pest inspection end of their industry and forced most of them to get into the home inspection business. Well, now the table is turned. Now, those pest guys who's only investment in a home inspection education is the $30 for the two manuals and the $45 for the pest license are going to have to meet the same criteria as home inspectors if they are doing home inspections in addition to doing pest inspections; they might be able to show they've been in business for two years and have done the 100 inspections, but they'll have to take the tests as well.

What have I been saying for the past 11 years? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Seems to me, that's another thing this licensing bill has solved.

Reciprocity only deals with recognizing someone else's license. It seems to me that, even if one's own state licensing law isn't equal to Washington's, or there is no licensing requirement in that state, all any out of state inspector has to do to be licensed is prove that he's done the 100 inspections, show that he's been in the business for two years, and take the tests, and he's got reciprocity, since he will have met the state's requirements for licensure. I could be wrong on that, because the law doesn't specifically state that, but it seems to be the most logical conclusion. Guess we'll have to see. Are you going to be the test case?

Please, give the wild conjecture a rest; you're making up scenarios as you go with no basis in fact. The licensing battle is over here, so please stop trying to stir the pot in Washington State.

If you feel such a compelling need to rag on some home inspector licensing law, why not rag on one of the bills pending in other states? I'm sure Harvey Pussfart or Joe Chubbycheeks would be ecstatic to have your support ragging on legislators and folks trying to put through licensing in their own states; or, better yet, look to what's going on in your own state. Wasn't there a guy who posted on this board only this past weekend who's interested in getting licensing through in either Idaho or Utah?

It's coming, Lewis, you need to start trying to figure out whether you're going to spin your wheels defeating a bill year after year until it finally gets passed and you end up marginalized, or whether you'll be part of the solution instead of the problem and start working with others in your state to attempt to prevent whatever bill is proposed from becoming your worst nightmare. That's what we managed to do here; it's far from perfect, but it's definitely not our worst nightmare and it actually made things better for a lot of inspectors.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Michael P. O'Handley]

LEWIS

The legislation is only a "guide line", the real teeth of the legislation is what the bureocrats decide it should be. That is what frightens me the most, my "future" is in the hands of some num nut in Olympia.
It is the unintended consequences of these laws that we should fear.

Steven, the boards authority isn't very hard to understand:

Licensing Board's Authority. The board may do the following: establish rules for adoption by the Director; establish minimum qualifications for licensing applicants; approve the method by which exams will be administered; approve exams prepared by other entities to be used by DOL; set the time and place for exams with approval of DOL; and establish and review standards of professional conduct, practice, and ethics for adoption by DOL.

One of those; establish minimum qualifications for licensing applicants is written into the law and is very clear (see my previous post). The others are mostly housekeeping rules. The only ones that are really up in the air that could prove to be difficult to get done are the standards for professional conduct, practice, and ethics that the DOL has to adopt.

As to Washington state recognizing other states licensing, it there is again up to a bureocrat to decide what is equal to Washington law. There in lies the problem. I do know factually, by my experience, and others, Washington is not that very comfortable accepting California licensing.

Other western states do recognize California, notably Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, I know of one person who with California credentials, had a heck of a time in Wa. State, so went to Arizona for that states license, then applied to Wa. Seems there was noooooooo problem accepting a Arizona license/certificaton. Same person, same background, different state!!!!

Reciprocity for home inspection only deals with home inspection licenses issued in other states. California does not have a home inspection license requirement; they only have a fair trade practices act and a contractors license is no more a home inspectors license in California than a contractors license has ever been or ever will be a pest or home inspectors license in Wasington State. You'll have two ways to go; prove the two years of experience and 100 completed inspections and pass the test, or get the required education, do the ride alongs and take the test. That shouldn't be that difficult.

You are right, that the only good thing about this bill is not needing the SPA Dept. of Ag. license.

Obviously I disagree; see my previous post.

So, as we all anxiously await our marching orders from the DOL, we should probably expect the worse and start to get our ducks in a row. The law doesn't take effect for a year or so, hopefully that is enough time to do so.

Yeah, sounds like a plan.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Steven Meyer]

Peobably time to get off the licensing topic. No sense beating a dead horse, so to speak. Licensing is a fact of life, will just have to live with.
Have lived under both situations, in different states, never made much difference one way or the other.

And then there is: (a little humor here, but true). A fellow I know bought a farm in a mid west state and decided to remodel the old farm house which was in grave disrepair. (When I flew back and saw it, my suggestion was a 5 gallon can of gas and a match) He Went to city hall, which also served as the county seat to inquire about getting a building permit. The person there, who was probably the mayors secretary, librarian, school principal, county clerk, etc. Said that a permit was required BUT "most folks around here don't bother getting them".

Now, that's my kind of enforcement!!!!!

We should be so lucky!!!!

My original post got hi jacked some where along the way, from organizations advice to licensing, amazing how that happens!!! but has been a good discussion on both fronts.

[Steven Meyer]

MICHAEL

As I have previously stated to you, I don't have much of a problem with the WA. legislation. All in all, think it was the best that could be done, and doesn't "lock" any one out. Just another hurdle to over come, but life and business endeavors are full of that. Guess it all depends on how we appeoach it, and I am in a positive manner. I will, however reserve my final judgement when we all know what what, if any, rules come out of the DOL. If they stay with in the guide lines of the intent of the legislation, then all will be good.

Yes, I probably do not agree on the bug issue. I do firmly believe that a good/professionsl HI should have a good basic knowledge of the signs of infestation, and if it takes additional schooling, so be it, I did so, but think that it should be referred to an expert in that field if the inspector suspects a bug problem. To me, it is strictely a liability issue, one I wish to avoid. Observe,report, refer to a professional in that trade. A jack of all trades, we are not, and trying to be one, serves no one.

The good part of this bill, is the time we have to comply with its conditions and that is definately a upside, and if every one starts now, I don't see any big problem of moving forward into this licensing, but those who hesitate, will certaintly be lost.

I was not refering to HI as far as recognizing Calif. credentials. GC, however, was a problem years ago for me.

The others: One was pharmacy the other teaching. Fellow had licenses in both Arizona and California as he owned 7 stores in Calif and one in Arizona. Sold them out, and moved up here. Decided to work part time, Wa. would not recognize calif. license, but did his Arizona license. His wife a school teacher in San Diego for over 15 years, with a masters in teaching, ran into the same problem and never did teach in Wa. Fortunately for them, they were not hurting for money. They ultimately moved to central oregon, had no problem with licensing from Calif, there
.
My experience here in Washington, is a inherent dislike of California people moving up here. Most of us "flunked" the driving portion for our drivers license, which was pure BS and harrassment. So, I have little hope of Calif. certifacition, but fortunately the bill does provide a different path that is workable.

When I got my General license in Calif., (that being the first part of the 70's) the requirements were, amount of time in the trades, schooling, (you even got credit for college), a recomendation from current licensed contractors, and a state administered test, from the Calif. contractors licensing board.
And a Bond was required.

Back in those years, it was common for GC to do home inspections, as HI was not a profession as yet, and it was not until the early 80's that inspections became common place and the HI inspector came into great demand. Thus, a new industry was born.

My take on all of this was the real estate industry pushed inspections, due to the many law suites they were getting due lack of/poor disclosure on the part of the agent, and this was an effective way to shift the blame and liability on to some one else. For most agents, home inspection was "mandatory". I worked out of an office of a local real estate firm (as a 'desk renter") but was not involved in real estate so was privy to all their horror stories, and how to get around the liability issue. The 80's were tough times, as San Diego real estate was in the tank, and buyers were in the drivers seat! Law suits were common place in those years.

Thanks again for your postings, clarifications, and information. Have printed all of them out, and will be using the infomation as my road map, quick start guide in getting this done. You're like a readers digest, condensed version!!!!

[Raymond Wand]

Joesph

And here I thought you had a brain on your shoulders. Yes I have a better understanding now how NACHI operates. You tried to admirably point out how dysfunctional it was, but alas as many in the NACHI boat you succumb to trickery of smoke and mirrors.

Cheers,

[Jerry Peck]

Persons who are currently working as home inspectors have until July 1, 2010, to meet licensing requirements. However, a person who is currently performing home inspections may become licensed by only taking the examination if that person applies to the home inspector advisory licensing board by September 1, 2009, and has worked as a home inspector for two years and conducted at least 100 inspections. The DOL may begin issuing licenses July 1, 2009.

No offense meant Lewis, but it would be obvious to a 6th grader that it says that anyone who is currently performing home inspections, who has worked as an inspector for two years and conducted at least 100 inspections, has until September 1, 2009 to take and pass whatever test they come up with and could actually obtain their license as early as July 1, 2009 if they've completed all of the requirements.

Mike,

Your post raises an interesting question:

"
it says that anyone who is currently performing home inspections, who has worked as an inspector for two years and conducted at least 100 inspections, has until September 1, 2009
"

"currently performing" - as in now, today (okay, when that took effect a few days ago, nonetheless a day or two has no effect on my question)

"worked as an inspector for two years" - self explanatory, two years is 2 years is 24 months

"has until September 1, 2009" - two years prior to September 1, 2009 is September 1, 2007.

An inspector "currently performing" inspections, but who was not performing inspections on September 1, 2007 has a built-in challenge of the law.

The dates should have been consistent with the time frame allowed. I.e., "has until September 1, 2009" should have been "has until March 18, 2010" (or whatever date it was signed on, 2 years hence).

Was that intended?

[Joseph P. Hagarty]

Joesph

....You tried to admirably point out how dysfunctional it was, but alas as many in the NACHI boat you succumb to trickery of smoke and mirrors.

Cheers,

Raymond,

Membership in an Organization is a tool for yourself and/or your business just like any other tool. Placing too much emphasis on any one tool can be counterproductive.

The State of Pennsylvania Requires that I send a check to One of the Associations.

NACHI is the best tool to meet that requirement.

[Raymond Wand]

Joesph

No argument from me if that is what your state requires. To each their own. I have belonged to ASHI (full member) NACHI and still belong to OAHI and CFIHI. Personally speaking I am at that point in my career where membership in an association(s) is irrelevant.

All the best.

[Michael P. O'Handley]

Mike,

Your post raises an interesting question:

"
it says that anyone who is currently performing home inspections, who has worked as an inspector for two years and conducted at least 100 inspections, has until September 1, 2009
"

"currently performing" - as in now, today (okay, when that took effect a few days ago, nonetheless a day or two has no effect on my question)

"worked as an inspector for two years" - self explanatory, two years is 2 years is 24 months

"has until September 1, 2009" - two years prior to September 1, 2009 is September 1, 2007.

An inspector "currently performing" inspections, but who was not performing inspections on September 1, 2007 has a built-in challenge of the law.

The dates should have been consistent with the time frame allowed. I.e., "has until September 1, 2009" should have been "has until March 18, 2010" (or whatever date it was signed on, 2 years hence).

Was that intended?

Jerry,

I just got home and I'm not sure I even understand where you're going. It's been one hell of a long day; maybe I'm just too tired.

Everyone keeps trying to envision loopholes and challenges. Why? It's very simple; there's no need to waste mental effort on it. Folks will meet the experienced inspector requirements or they won't. If they won't, they'll have to complete the inexperienced inspector requirements.

There is nothing stopping anyone from getting into this business right now and doing as many inspections as they want to, without a license, all the way up until July 1, 2010. However, if on July 2, 2010 they haven't completed their 160 hours of training, spent a week riding around with someone to get that 40 hours of supervised training, and taken and passed the required test, filled out an application, paid their fee for two years and gotten their license, and they're still inspecting, they'll be operating illegally.

For those who consider themselves to be experienced inspectors, there will be a 60 day window from July 1, 2009, when the window opens, until September 1, 2009 when it closes, to satisfy the requirements for experienced inspectors. They'll have to prove that at the time they submit their application they've got at least 24 months in the business, have done at least 100 inspections, and have passed the required tests, paid their fee, etc.. If they can't do that by Sept 1, 2009, they'll need to start working on the inexperienced inspector requirements and will need to get the education and the 40 hours of supervised training and take the test by the following July.

That seems logical to me. Of course, I'm betting that the Director DOL has the authority to establish rules to deal with gray area folks that get catch-22'd. If so, more power to 'em.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Michael P. O'Handley]

Hi All,

I need to make a correction to a previous statement.

Earlier in this thread I said that as of last Friday the pest inspectors and home inspectors were separated from one another in Washington State.

I was wrong; as it turns out, if, after the bill's signing last week, I'd been listening to the DOL guy who was talking to the inspectors who'd attended, instead of being way off to one side interviewing Senator Spanel about the bill she'd gotten passed, I would have heard the DOL guy tell those assembled that the law doesn't actually kick in until 90 days after it's signed.

So, beginning on the June 21, the bug guys and the home inspectors here will officially be divorced from one another. All other elements of the time line I described still apply as of this writing.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike