New HI Law Proposed in Washington State

[hausdok]

Originally posted by randynavarro

I was fast-forward thinking.

When and if any bill in any shape or form becomes law, how does the word spread?

It seems it could take a few years before everyone knows that licensing required. We could have real estate agents, mortgage folks and even home inspectors themselves operating for quite a while before everyone knows they'd be required to have a license.

It'd probably even take longer for the public themselves to know about it!

Nah,

It'll get announced to the world in the Seattle PI as a rightous triumph for Spanel and Kohl-Welles and the PI will go out of it's way to make it seem like every practicing home inspector is an evil money-grubbing troll that's stealing everyone's money. All of the other minor papers in the state will then follow suit - that's just the way it is around here.

Officially, DOL and/or the board, whomever that turns out to be, will probably send out letters to all of the real estate offices, banks, title companies, etc., as they did with the SPI announcement, in order to tell them that anyone who's operating without a license past such-and-such date is operating illegally.

In the end, there will be some that don't comply before the drop dead date and those who do will dime them out, the same way that they dimed each other out over the SPI thing, and then the new board, feeling all ambitious, will probably come down on a few of those folks with both feet, and that will jolt the rest of them into complying.

In the end, I doubt that it will eliminate very many practicing inspectors, but it will force every single practicing inspector to at least take a test to prove that he or she is minimally competent.

I suppose that one can hope that it should ensure that those getting into the business in the future step back and think carefully about whether they want to spend the time and effort to get that little bit of education, and do the supervised inspection thing, and take the test, before they leap; instead of one day while they're leaning out a window handing someone their Whopper and fries that tomorrow they're going to be a home inspector.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[hausdok]

Hi All,

Update: SB 6606 was passed from Rules to the Floor and is now in line for a vote on the house floor.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[hausdok]

Hi All,

Well, SB6606 cleared the house last Thursday with a vote of 93 yays and 0 nays, and went back to the senate for concurrence. I just got word that the Senate concurred with the house amendments this morning and SB 6606 got final passage; yeas, 39; nays, 8; absent, 0; excused, 2. It's on its way to the Governor for signature.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[SonOfSwamp]

Well, welcome to government work. From here on out, in every legislative session, the RE lobbyists will shove the pine cone a little further up the HIs' colons.

My smarty-pants lawyer instructed me today to keep up my CE just enough to be able to testify in HI standard-of-care cases.

I don't intend to look at another house for sale. Unless it's headed for litigation...

Sigh. I remember when HI work was kinda fun.

WJ

[hausdok]

FWIW,

WAR, Washington Realtors - the Washington State arm of NAR - told WHILAG two years ago that they were in favor of licensing but they witheld comment about the bill until they knew that WHILAG and the prime sponsor of this bill had concurrence and then they endorsed WHILAG's position. Their only objection has been to the provision in the first senate version that prohibited realtors from recommending inspectors to their clients and to the idea that they should be limited to a list of some sort.

I think we'll have to wait and see how it works out. WHILAG will stay on top of this. They work together well now, despite the fact that they're such a diverse group, and they've learned how things work in Olympia. If a realtor's lobby even approaches this with a pinecone, they'll probably get wind of it pretty quickly and bring all hands to bear on the issue.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Scottpat]

It has been my experience that it is not all that easy to enact legislative changes to license laws. It can be done and it has been done but is not as common as some may think.

[randynavarro]

So, I just got around to reading the final amended bill. I have a few questions. Perhaps they can be answered here.

In order to become licensed as a home inspector, an applicant must submit the following to the department:

(2) Proof of a minimum of one hundred twenty hours of classroom

instruction approved by the board;

I see the grandfathering provision has been removed. This sucks, but as a law abiding citizen. . . .

Will my past 5 yeasr at 20 hours / yr of ASHI CE credits apply? In addition, will my past 40 hours / every 2 years for SPI licensing apply?

(3) Proof of up to forty hours of field training supervised by a

licensed home inspector;

How is anyone going to get this??!! Will I have to hire someone to watch me inspect?

Government, please stay out of my business. . . .

[kurt]

Not gonna happen. Gov't likes to be in your business.

I agree w/Richard. I've read the WA bill a few times w/Mike, and honestly, it seems pretty benign compared to a lot of them.

It's really no big deal. You pay the money, you go out and do the jobs like you did before.

[exploreparadise2]

Randy,

The provision for grandfathering in the last amended bill has not been removed. See Section 2 (2), which is copied below. Grandfathered inspectors will still have to pass an exam, which will be chosen or written by the new licensing board.

"However, if a person performing the duties of a home inspector on the effective date of this act has proof that he or she has worked as a home inspector for at least two years and has conducted at least one hundred home inspections, he or she may apply to the board before September 1, 2009, for licensure without meeting the instruction and training requirements of this chapter."

[hausdok]

Hi,

Sorry to take so long getting back to you Randy. Blair is right, you only have to take the test - whatever that's going to be - because you already have the two years and 100 inspections under your belt.

This law isn't going to guaranty competency or honesty; no law can do that - just look at Washington D.C. What it will do is identify most of the companies in the state and force every single home inspector who ends up in the database to take a bare bones test of competency to at least ensure they know something about home inspections.

It isn't a cure-all but it's also not the worst law in the country by a longshot; at least this one was put together with input from all entities in the profession.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[hausdok]

Hi All,

I'll be following with an article soon but I thought HI's here in Washington State would like to know that ESSB 6606 was signed by Governor Gregoire about 2-1/2 hours ago. Washington is now a licensed state.

Inspectors who've got more than 100 inspections under their belts and have been in the business for more than 2 years, will be required to pass a state-mandated inspector's competency test with a Washington State Component by September of 2009 to be licensed. Those who will not have been in the business more than 2 years and won't have completed at least 100 inspections by September 2009 will have until July of 2010 to garner 120 hours of home inspection education, complete 40 hours of supervised training with a licensed inspector, and then pass the state-mandated inspector's competency test with a Washington State Component.

Bottom line, experienced inspectors need to start studying for the test, and those who right now have been in the business less than about 8 months need to start garnering their 120 hours of training, start looking for a supervised training partner, and also start studying for the test.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Brandon Whitmore]

Hey Mike,

Do you know if OR and WA will have home inspector license reciprocity agreements between the states?

[hausdok]

Hi Brandon,

Here's the specific language contained in the law:

Reciprocity. Persons licensed in other states that have licensing requirements that meet or exceed the requirements of this state may become licensed if they pass the Washington portion of the written exam.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Brandon Whitmore]

Thank You

[randynavarro]

. . .complete 40 hours of supervised training with a licensed inspector. . . start looking for a supervised training partner. . .

Wonder how that's going to play itself out?

[hausdok]

Originally posted by randynavarro

. . .complete 40 hours of supervised training with a licensed inspector. . . start looking for a supervised training partner. . .

Wonder how that's going to play itself out?

It should really not affect that many already practicing inspectors. Figure it out, it's 18 months to the experienced inspector drop dead date. Only those practicing inspectors who, as of now, have been in business less than 8 months are affected. How many could that number be?

It's the new people getting into the business here now who it will really impact. For one thing, there's only one school in the state that teaches a 120+ hour course, so other schools need to begin upping their game.

I really don't see the 40 hours of supervised training as being that difficult to do. It's one week out of someone's life riding around with an established/licensed inspector and getting supervised training - essentially doing the guy's inspections with him breathing down your shirt collar. Finish that, take the written test, provide them proof of education, proof of the 40 hours, proof that you've passed the test and you've got the license. Not really much of a bar at all, unfortunately, but it's better than nothing.

Two years ago, if she'd gotten her home inspector registration bill through, it would have been:

One hundred sixty hours of training; a combination of classroom education and field training, where seventy-five percent of the applicant's time is spent in classroom education and twenty-five percent in field training.

That would have been the sole requirement under her original bill and would have applied to everyone. It was perfect for the burger flippers and a dream for the one school in the state that has a 160 hour course.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[randynavarro]

I'm thinking of the inspectors that provide the 40 hour supervised training. You? Me?

Are we training our competition? Do we do it for free? Are they doing our inspections or are we supervising their's?

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not seeing how this is logistically going to play out smoothly.

[hausdok]

Hi Randy,

Well, I don't know about you, but I've never been afraid that a new inspector whom I've trained is going to take business away from me, so I'm not shy about letting folks ride along with me. If you're purchasing a home, who would you rather hire, someone with a lot of experience and a good rep or someone with almost no experience and no past customers to provide references?

This business is tough enough without us turning up our nose to those willing to take a shot at it. They'll pick up work when we're too booked to do it and eventually will begin getting referrals from past customers and past customers' friends, etc. and their business will gradually grow and shouldn't affect our own; unless we're doing a lousy job. The only time I won't want to help a new guy is when I know that the inspector involved is a crook or one of these guys who's only interested in cranking out 5 - 6 half-assed 1-hour inspections a day. Guys like that I've got no use for.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Lewis Capaul]

I really don't see the 40 hours of supervised training as being that difficult to do. It's one week out of some one's life riding around with an established/licensed inspector and getting supervised training - essentially doing the guy's inspections with him breathing down your shirt collar.

The 40 hour requirement may not be difficult for someone in your area, the I-5 corridor, to obtain, but most of Washington is very rural. Individuals seeking to enter the HI field from small communities several hours away from any population center will have a much more difficult time finding a "Mentor" to provide the 40 hours of training.

My bet is still on some enterprising individual coming up with a "Hands On HI Training School" that will provide the 40 hours of "supervised" training, probably as a class of trainees, which will still require a lot of travel along with food and housing expenses for the rural wannabe. Which, in my opinion, has been the goal of those behind licensing in Washington since the effort began.

I'm for Licensing or Regulation, but only by a Law that makes some kind of sense, is fair to all applicants, provides some kind of protection and recourse to the clients, and requires that ALL inspectors, including those who have been in business for years, are required to demonstrate competency by peer review of their inspection reports and at least one peer supervised inspection and passing the required at sometime during the first licensing period.

The present "40 hours of supervised training by a LICENSED inspector is going to be a nightmare to control. What standards are they going to train to? How is the HI Licensing Board going to verify both the training and the competency and ability of the "trainer"?

A weak unenforcible law is worse than no law at all, the one you have, or may have, now is almost worthless, it provides no benefit to Home Buyers (clients) and sets up a system ripe for abuse by education vendors and unethical inspectors.

Idaho may be next so I will be watching what happens next door, so far Oregon my other neighbor, provides a lot better example of regulation than Washington's

[hausdok]

Originally posted by Lewis Capaul

My bet is still on some enterprising individual coming up with a "Hands On HI Training School" that will provide the 40 hours of "supervised" training, probably as a class of trainees, which will still require a lot of travel along with food and housing expenses for the rural wannabe. Which, in my opinion, has been the goal of those behind licensing in Washington since the effort began.

You know, Lewis, I really wish you would refrain from perpetrating these unsubstantiated claims about "those behind licensing" - especially since you never attended any of the sunrise review meetings to talk to other inspectors or voice an opinion on the matter. Ascribing an ulterior motive to those you don't even know, and without any facts to back up your claims, only breeds ill will.

After the signing ceremony yesterday, I spent a few minutes talking to Senator Spanel. I asked her very directly if her impetus to license inspectors was in some way connected to those in the state who are involved with educating home inspectors. She said that it absolutely was not, that the only contact or correspondence she'd had with any "educators" was to call one or two to inquire about what was available for training here in the state after she decided to go ahead with the idea. I asked her if she'd been motivated by established inspectors who were intent on limiting their competition. She denied that too.

I was a criminal investigator half of my 20 years as a cop; after having conducted tens of thousands of interviews of victims, suspects, perpetrators, and witnesses to crimes, I think I have a little bit of experience reading people and I know when someone is lying or stretching the truth. She wasn't doing either; I'm sure of that. She might have been misguided and motivated by stories of poor inspections that were blown up in the press about the same time she began this process, but I don't think she was talked into it by any educators intent on rolling in the gold, or old timers looking to protect their turf. I admit that I once thought that might be the case, but after interviewing her yesterday, I think my fears were unfounded.

As for WHILAG, the only persons in WHILAG who were instructors for any schools are myself, the WSPCA guy who dropped out of the group over a year ago and was opposed to licensing from day one, and an interNACHI guy who dropped out of WHILAG that was the one who tried to get Rep. Erickson to initiate a licensing law back in 2005. He quit WHILAG and opposed this law because it didn't have any E & O written into it.

Nobody else in WHILAG, except myself, teaches home inspections. My course is only for appraisers, investors, and realtors to understand the home inspection process. The community college I work for has been putting together an online course for inspectors for years and it was in the pipeline before this process begain. Incidentally, I'm on a part-time salary. It doesn't matter if I have one student or 1,000 students, I still get paid the same - 20% of what a full-time instructor does for one semester every fall. That salary is set by statute and it's not a whole lot of money, believe me; when I tried to get someone else to take it over, when I thought I was taking a leave of absence for a year, nobody would do it when they found out what it pays. There is no grassy knoll here, Lewis.

I'm for Licensing or Regulation, but only by a Law that makes some kind of sense, is fair to all applicants, provides some kind of protection and recourse to the clients, and requires that ALL inspectors, including those who have been in business for years, are required to demonstrate competency by peer review of their inspection reports and at least one peer supervised inspection and passing the required at sometime during the first licensing period.

That would be my model too; except I'd require them to submit to a peer-review and re-test every 5 years. Unfortunatly, what you and I want matters little to politicians unless a preponderance of their constituents are pushing for it. Since a miniscule percentage of inspectors in this business want peer review and only about half, based on my experience, are in favor of a standard test, that's not likely to be the case anytime soon.

In an event, it's now a moot point; the law is what it is and all the arm waving and hollering in the world isn't going to do anyone any good. What inspectors here need to do now is stop dissing each other, come together, discuss this thing, and figure out who they'd most like to see serve on this board and then approach those people and try and get them to subject themselves to the abuse and ridicule that's going to come with the job during what's going to be a very tough next few years.

The present "40 hours of supervised training by a LICENSED inspector is going to be a nightmare to control. What standards are they going to train to? How is the HI Licensing Board going to verify both the training and the competency and ability of the "trainer"?

All good questions and there's no way to answer that until the Department of Licensing garners the applications, reviews them, makes their recommendations to the governor, she appoints a board, they get to work, and come up with answer to all of those questions. Hell, there isn't even a board yet; lets give them a chance before we start implying it can't be done.

A weak unenforcible law is worse than no law at all, the one you have, or may have, now is almost worthless, it provides no benefit to Home Buyers (clients) and sets up a system ripe for abuse by education vendors and unethical inspectors.

Have you even bothered to read the law? There will be enforcement in the law; that is clear, and it will be DOL's responsibility to see that it get's done. If it doesn't, there are procedures that have been in place for decades in Olympia for dealing with enforcement issues that come under DOL's responsibility.

Idaho may be next so I will be watching what happens next door, so far Oregon my other neighbor, provides a lot better example of regulation than Washington's

Maybe so. Unfortunately, this isn't Oregon or Idaho, is it?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[exploreparadise2]

Originally posted by Lewis Capaul

The 40 hour requirement may not be difficult for someone in your area, the I-5 corridor, to obtain, but most of Washington is very rural.

Not so. The majority of people in the state live in urban and suburban areas.

Individuals seeking to enter the HI field from small communities several hours away from any population center will have a much more difficult time finding a "Mentor" to provide the 40 hours of training.

Yes, it's true that obtaining the 40 hours of supervised training under the new licensing law will be more difficult for residents of rural areas. Living in a low-population-density area has its advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantage is that it is more difficult to obtain higher education and job training. Having to travel and incur additional expenses for home inspector training is no different than acquiring any other professional training for rural Washingtonians.

My bet is still on some enterprising individual coming up with a "Hands On HI Training School" that will provide the 40 hours of "supervised" training, probably as a class of trainees, which will still require a lot of travel along with food and housing expenses for the rural wannabe. Which, in my opinion, has been the goal of those behind licensing in Washington since the effort began.

I doubt that there was any grand scheme by current or future HI educators and trainers to milk every last dollar from the home inspector wannabes from east of the Cascades. There aren't enough of them to make that a good business model.

I'm for Licensing or Regulation, but only by a Law that makes some kind of sense, is fair to all applicants, provides some kind of protection and recourse to the clients, and requires that ALL inspectors, including those who have been in business for years, are required to demonstrate competency by peer review of their inspection reports and at least one peer supervised inspection and passing the required at sometime during the first licensing period.

State Senator Spanel wrote and sponsored a bill that was passed by the legislature. That's a notch in her political bedpost, which seemed to be the driving force behind the legislation. When the time comes for HI licensing in Idaho, go ahead and make your wish list of everthing you want in the law. Hand it over to your favorite legislator and see what happens. Good Luck.

[Lewis Capaul]

State Senator Spanel wrote and sponsored a bill that was passed by the legislature. That's a notch in her political bedpost, which seemed to be the driving force behind the legislation. When the time comes for HI licensing in Idaho, go ahead and make your wish list of everthing you want in the law. Hand it over to your favorite legislator and see what happens. Good Luck.

Over the past three years I have spoken with Spanel and her people several times regarding HI Licensing, I have also sent her and others in the Legislature letters and emails regarding the subject, and have followed the various proposals and less of what was recommeded by the Sunrise Review.

Washington Inspectors had at least 32 of State Hi Regulation/Licensing Bills to look at, yet instead of coming up with something better you ended up with just another piss poor Bill written and decided by a politician and a few who had her ear. Part of the problem was the secrecy in which groups like the WHILAG Operated, which was their right, but the closest any Statewide movement to get a meaningful Law came from the meetings conducted by the Sunrise Review Committee.

You opinion of those who live and work East of the Mountains is typical of the I-5 population in the State, the only time the East Side is needed is when someone needs a vote or you come begging for money to build a new Football Stadium. n North Idaho we run into the same attitude when having to deal with Boise and Southern Idaho.

There's a difference between having to travel to get "higher" education and having to travel to get education "required by law", if the State is going to pay for HI Education in State Schools like Western WA, and Community Colleges on the West side then they should pay for the same at Central and Eastern WA schools. They won't, but they should.

So far the only discussions that I have been involved in with politicians here in Idaho have been about regulating HI's the same way the State regulates General Contractors, registration and proof of General Liability Insurance for $300K, and workmans comp insurance if the Inspector has employees. They brought up the subject and the idea, no one I know is pushing the idea at all, of course. like in Western Washington, we have all those "important" people in Southern Idaho.

It's not just the 40 hours of "supervised" training that will lead to more vendors offering "education" in WA, there's the 120 hours. Look around you at some of the names in the HI business over there today, and compare them to those who operate HI Schools in a couple of years, then you'll be able to Identify the people who had Spanel's ear, it certainly wasn't the WHILAG or Sunrise Review Committee was it?

I've followed Washington Politics since 69', I've been involved in a couple of Eyman's projects, and have seen many , many Bills passed by special interests and individuals, the same happens in other States, WA is better than most but a lot worse than some, I've always been amazed, and disgusted, by politicians like Spanel, who smile and tell you how they are listening, and then pass just what they wanted in the first place, the amazing part is that then they get reelected.

It's your Law, if you're happy with it then that's good, me I'll just watch and see what kind of fiasco arises out of such a poorly thought out Bill. The WHILAG's recommendations from last year, even if I didn't agree with some of them, were a hell of a lot better than what you got, Mike O's ideas are even better but, regrettably, will never become law anywhere.

Have fun.