Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 31, 2007

The vote was 45 in favor, 2 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 0 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

Section #6 item 4 This item won't work. It will stop new home inspectors from getting in the business. If an existing home inspector can't charge to over see a new inspector's twenty parallel inspections, why would he take his time to train a new home inspector unless that home inspector is going to work for the trainer?

I don't understand your proposed grandfather clause. Assuming this new law is supposed to protect consumers, why are you planning to let someone get a license who has no training just because they completed 100 inspections in two years. These are probably the inspectors you're getting all the complaints about. Why not make them all prove they have passed the same test any new inspector would be required to take?

This legislation will in no way protect the public from a poor inspector. Holding a license does not make anyone good at anything. If that were the case, there would be no malpractice suits against doctors and no car accidents. In regards to Section 3, the make-up of the Board: In RCW Section 18, there is no other board for any other business or profession that is comprised of members outside of that specific profession except for an occasional “at large” member of the public. To have 2 real estate agents and a “vendor” of home inspection classes on the Board is distasteful to say the least. The real estate industry is dependant on their commissions to survive. The home inspection industry can put that in jeopardy. This is a built in conflict of interest. There is no other Board that requires an instructor of their trade on their respective Board. They make their money by supplying education credits that would now be required for not only starting a business but to continue in the business. Once again, a conflict of interest. In regards to Section 12, the requirement of E & O insurance: Why not just require us to paint a bulls eye on our backs for the attorneys. Malpractice insurance is not required for a doctor to be licensed. Yet they can put the public at greater risk than a home inspector. The State does not seem willing to supply the home inspection industry with low-cost E&O insurance so why should they require us to carry it? This could wipe out any part-time inspectors to have a $3000 or more yearly insurance bill. And what happens after a frivolous claim that the insurance company decides is cheaper to pay than fight? And the inspector is cancelled? Is the State willing to supply a policy for the inspector? Insurance is a personal business decision. It should not be forced down the throat of a business. In regards to the SPI being moved to the Department of Licensing: What do they know about pests? Or the training? If you call the Department of Licensing right now they are unable to tell you the requirement for a SPI license as a home inspector. They are strictly paper pushers. It is best to just leave it with the Department of Agriculture that has some background in the field. Legislation is not the answer. The inspector that made the KIRO story held his SPI. It did not stop him from missing something. There are good inspectors and there are bad inspectors. Legislation does not protect the public.

This legislation is better than that proposed by lawmakers last year and certainly way more logical, fair and reasonable than the recent suggestions made by the so-called "home inspector advisory group". It seemed apparent that the goal of that group was not protecting consumers but protecting their pocket books by trying to restrict competition. A previous comment at this site was confusing. The person indicated that he or she was in the profession and was WDO licensed. The complaint was about mandatory insurance requirements. If that person is a WDO inspector now, he or she should already have such insurance. As for the comments about the agriculture department and licensing, if the person more carefully reads the bill, it indicates that WSDA and DOL will work together to bring the WDO program into DOL. In other words, WSDA employees would probably continue doing their same jobs in the same manner but they might be working for a different state department. I hope that the state will maintain reasonable insurance guidelines, such as those in place today, that cost the average inspector $3,500.00 to $4,000.00 per year. One comment I agree with: The mentoring will not work. This needs to be eliminated from the bill. This was a new plan, proposed by the industry insiders, to make money from newbies. If they are not being paid, these people will not and cannot be made to provide mentoring. The legislature needs to rely on education and also develop an experience rating system,like Oregon, for qualifying new inspectors. If mentoring is mandated, a mistake, the state needs to provide that mentoring in an organized manner so prospective inspectors can receive this training at scheduled times and at reasonable fees. Private inspectors should not be part of a mentoring system. It is not reasonable to expect them to train their competition for free! As to a comment about testing, I believe that the state is wise in not grandfathering in a number of inspectors just because they have done 250 inspections, as was proposed by the industry insiders. That figure means little in that quantity and quality might, but do not necessarily, go together. These people might have done 250 shabby inspections. This legislation would give those who are established in the business a bit of time to prepare for the new state test as the new law phases-in. But, once the cycle has begun in July 2008, every inspector would have two years in which to pass the state exam. This lag or phase-in is fair but it also means that if one fails to take, or fails the test, his or her inspecting days will be over. That evens the playing field in that some people are phased-in, but nobody is grandfathered in or can manipulate matters to skip the test. What could, possibly, be more fair than that?

Why should a home inspector who has been in business for 20 years, and has business and accounting records to prove it, be required to go through all the same processes as a new inspector?

R.E. brokers and agents are in the same bed as the home inspectors..from my own experience last fall.. the brokers/agents had home inspections.. that were to do nothing but lower the asking price on the sale property..mostly to their inside ..so-called investors.. on one of my duplexes in Fall City that had a new roof put on in Jan 2004, with permit from DDES/inspections/ the home inspector declared the roof improperly done, needed replacement for a 2004 roof..this was of course to lower the asking price for the buyer.. the DDES permit imszpector gave the okay for the licensed roofer so all was well.. except that the home inspector wanted me to lower the asking price by 20,000.. it is all a big scam out their.. in the R.E. industry..I agree with the citizen input that legislation is not the answer.. their is tremendous conflict of interest between the home inspection and Rea. Estate industry who is accountable to no one and legislation is not going to help.. or license them either.. they will find a way around it.. their has to be something with some teeth in it to work..

Read the bill more carefully.

Education requirements and mandatory testing to ensure that home inspectors know something about construction methods is proposed in the bill. That should reduce instances of home inspectors being wrong. Plus, there is a complaint process. Under current law, with no testing or qualifications at all if the inspector is working without a pest license, there is a greater chance of errors due to lack of knowledge.

Regarding the proposed legislation; there are several issues that concern me. Number 1 is the makeup of the board. Why are there two realtors proposed on the board. This appears to be a patent conflict of interest. Realtors are often the problem in home inspection problems. Every inspector knows the realtors who only refer the "softball" inspector who happy to write a report that does not slow down the process toward the realtors commission. In my research I have found that the board of realtors only has realtors as members; the board of appraisers only has appraisers and county assessors on the board. Another problem I see with the proposed bill is the mentoring requirement. While this will not directly affect me, it amounts to restraint of trade, unfairly limiting entry into this profession by otherwise qualified individuals. The probibition of working on the inspected house till after the completed sale is not stingent enough. It should read till at least one year after the inspection. Anything that imparts even an implied conflict of interest is, in my opinion, suspect. Parts that I do like: Keeping the requirement for WDO inspections is absolutely necessary (and the test should remain as it is). I also believe that formal, classroom education is important along with some requirement for continuing education. I think 20 hours per year is excessive (given the cost of being in business; E & O insurance about $4000 per year for instance). Some smaller number; 10 or 15 might be a better, more equitable way to go. To sum up, any legislation enacted should actually protect consumers and not line the pockets of the old boy inspectors, but be palatable to honest, thorough, competent inspectors.

Mandatory E&O insurance is not the answer. This is a $3000-$4000 hit per year for an inspector. It could be higher for a new inspector. One previous poster said that someone working in the business as a home inspector and holding their SPI would already have E&O insurance. That is not true. E&O is only one of the options. There is also an option to hold a bond or to have money in a state controlled account in the same amount. The E&O is to protect the inspector. While some think it is there to protect the consumer, that is not the purpose of the insurance. Many times E&O is merely a red flag to some that says "there are deep pockets" and many insurance companies settle without going to court anyway. So the inspector is stuck with a $3k yearly bill and then any number of deductibles they might have to pay because the insurance company would settle for anything less than the deductible. It can be a dangerous and expensive game. That is what happens when inspectors hurry through 2 or 3 or 4 inspections in a day. Sure they need E&O, they hurry and make errors. Sure they can afford it, they are pulling in the numbers to pay for the mistakes. Being a fast inspector does not make you a good inspector. Only performing 1 inspection a day does not make you a good inspector. The inspectors that the public should watch out for are the lazy inspectors that come up with reason after reason to NOT get their REQUIRED SPI license and have been performing inspections that are actually illegal. The requirement for 2 years is good but only if it is two years with your SPI license. Those that have not been able to pass or have been unwilling to follow existing state laws, should be treated as a new inspector. They are a detriment to the industry by pulling the wool over the eyes of their unsuspecting customers.

You referred to me, as far as the person who said that someone would have E&O insurance with a pest license. I concede that you are correct. There are actually four options (1) money in the bank controlled by the state (2) a bond (never to be confused with insurance) (3) insurance (4) insurance and a bond. I am so accustomed to everyone I know having the insurance, as realtors ask about it in this market, that I assume that is the route others have taken. ZOften not I suppose. Everything you said in your post I agree with. Great insight. And right on regarding those who have been skating around the structural pest inspector rules.

I agree that realtors on te board is a bad idea. Most problems I have run into are the raltors do want me to make a big deal about a little problem so that they can get the price down or not to make a mjor problem known such as a bad foundation because it will nix the sale. They only care about their bottom line. I would rather see it be educators and inspectors and even appraisers.

This Bill represents the interest of the Corporate Home Inspection companys and does not allow for small business inspector success or "part time" Inspection/consultant services. The testing and certification is a great idea. However, the E & O insurance requirements are cost prohibitive. The current Bond options seem to be working well.

I'm a trained, insured and experienced home inspector and support state licensing of those in our profession. My feedback on the proposed legislation echos the comments of Inspector Z. Why have real estate representatives on the board overseeing home inspectors? I work with some good real estate agents who look out for the best interests of their clients, but, unfortunately, many more who view me as an obstacle to closing deals and making commissions. Why the non-paid mentoring requirement? As a one-person company, I know I can't afford to train my competition for free. And 20 hours of continuing education credit per year? I keep abreast of the construction industry and home inspection field through a combination of attending seminars (usually pretty expensive), consulting with contractors and other home inspectors, membership in professional organizations and googling reliable resources. If I can receive credit for some of the other-than-seminar continuing education, then the 20 hours seems reasonable. If I can't, then the 20 hours of continuing education appears to be lining the pockets of the home inspector training industry!

Why does Washington State dislike small business so much? Having a mentor system create a good o'boy system like the real estate appraiser system...you can not become an appraiser without the mentor but no one will mentor unless you know someone in the system. With less you can charge more. So will the home inspection trade go. With a state that prides itself on education and testing... ;) Why not go that route. Require training, testing, but not mentoring. What would be my incentive as an existing home inspector to train my competition.. NONE. Few inspector mean I can charge more and get it...how does this help the consumer. Help us both and do not create a good o'boy network like the appraiser. Thank you,

Many good points made with this posting. Is anyone listening?

I think that all inspectors should be tested to a national standard. I also think that all inspectors should have real proof of their knowledge in the field that would be proven with a practical test in all area of residential home inspections, not just WDO,s. This would give this field a real selling feature, and the realtors would have to live with the inspection reports because them are done by licensed professional, and cost of an inspection would go up to cover the business overhead cost that a lower inspection house rate. And a written and practical test would weed out the inspectors that give this field a bad name and the realtors that use those kind of inspectors to make sales.

Realtors generally push for faster, shorter and inspections with less detail. Having them on the board discredits the idea of consumer protection altogether. Financial security to protect the client is already in place. However, there is nothing protecting the inspector from dishonest law-suits. Shielding a complaintant from legal regress will encourage false claims against inspectors greatly. Where's the mechanism to hold these people accountable? The board should be reviewing these claims; not the courts. With the continuing education requirement per year, the license should be a five year renewal; as is the current Structural Pest license. Adequate consumer protection should not turn into a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think that legilation is not the answer to geting a more professional and competent Home inspection . We as Home inspectors have sat idly on the sidelines as fly by night inspectors have given us a bad name I belive Education is one of the hallmarks of a good inspector also life experience plays an invaluable portion as a certified home inspector you have to fulfill on a yearly basis your educational requirements . As a member of NACHI or the National Association of Home Inspectors I belive we can impact the inspection industry in a very positive manner. We need to band together in unity to make our voices heard over the din of bad publicity and send a message to Olympia There are very good home inspectors out there , As I am one !!!

One TV story sparked all this?? If we really care whats on the NEWS (and we know they only air stuff that has shock value for ratings) I wonder why all the stories about shoddy construction, repair work or home improvements 'Gone Wrong' dont get more attention, or legislation like this? At least home inspector are trying to protect the community and here are a few elected officials about to make it harder, or worse,.. even more expensive to get an inspection. I thought 350.00 to 400.00 was alot for an inspection, wait until the monopoly is in place,.. can you say $600.00 to $700.00 for a home inspection? AND,... making home inspectors TRAIN their own compition for FREE?? Truely Amazing work people,.. Good Job Sen. Harriet Spanel you will be remembered a long time for this.

First, and foremost, legislation will NEVER solve any problem within our society. Adding layers of government only costs the consumer more money. Who pays for cost of licenses, insurance, etc in the end? THE CONSUMER through the cost of products!!! We need to be careful that we do not become too socialistic. There are so many errors in this proposal that it is clear that it was not written by someone within the profession, rather by a bureaucrat creating a job for themselves or attempting to secure a higher position for themselves. The "Board" is a full of "conflict of interest". I agree with many of the posts regarding the composition of its members. However, one of the last posts that mentioned the "softball" inspector needs to consider the ethical practices of people in EVERY profession. There are good people out there...and great inspectors that will correctly report deficiencies in any situation. There are Doctors that push specific, new drugs because they get incentives from the drug companies. Appraisers usually ask why you are getting an appraisal....because they can inflate or deflate the value to conform to the situation. And the list goes on... Legislation will never STOP these things. The insurance issue is almost laughable in this state. We're required to have auto insurance in Washington State in order to drive, but how many actually have ANY insurance???? Requiring a specific industry to carry E&O insurance still doesn't protect the consumer. And who is going to enforce this??? Another newly formed branch of government? Education IS THE KEY!!! Nobody should be opposed to testing either. If they've been in the business for 20 years then it should be a breeze! But like another post mentioned, grandfathering some of these inspectors just because they've completed a number of inspections does not provide any further protection to the consumer. Embedding the WSDA into the DOL...hmmmm, this needs to be defined very clearly before anybody buys into it! The WSDA knows what its doing....the DOL is usually confused when asked any question! A very concerning fact, barely mentioned, is that a person can file a complaint (supposedly a just one) about an inspector and then is immune to a civil suit. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound fair in any situation. So the inspector is guilty without any hesitation and they can't fight back legally? This won't get my vote....or anyone supporting it.

legislation is not the answer. Just because one person had a bad inspection does not mean we are all bad and should all suffer the consequences. The current rules having to be an SPI require on going education credits to maintain licensing. This education consists of continuted education of bulding systems and componenets as well as pest updates. This requirement is sufficient. THere is no need to further the inspectors with this requirement.

There is NO Southsound NACHI President. There is a Chapter of NACHI in the Southsound, but to make it sound like you are the President in this area of a huge organization is entirely unethical.

Dear Senator Spanel and all who are debating this Bill: I ask that you take into consideration the fact that Home Inspectors are Home Inspectors, and Pest Inspectors are Pest Inspectors. When encountering Conducive conditions and evidence of Wood Destroying Organisms, and other pests, we must realize that we are reporting on something that needs to be passed on to an expert in that field. There is no need to require a Home Inspector, a generalist by nature, to become proficient in a specialty in regards to inspecting homes. This is no different than any other system in inspecting the home. There are many different systems that a home inspector "visually" inspects. There is HVAC, Roofing, Plumbing, Electrical, Structural, and Pests and Wood Destroying Organisms, among others. Now, when a home inspector finds an issue with one of the components such as Structural issues for example, the Home Inspector, being the generalist that they are, is not required to be licensed as a Structural Engineer in order to be able to comment on the issue found in the home. No. Rather, the Home Inspector, as they should, calls out the issue and refers the client to a Licensed Structural Engineer. Someone who is qualified to properly deal with it. By requiring Home Inspectors to take special testing in Wood Destroying Organisms and other Pests, not only are you requiring them to step outside the boundaries of their well-defined profession, but you are also showing a distinct bias towards one specialty over all the others. If indeed we are going to make home inspectors take specialized training to become a Structural Pest Inspector, or something in the Pest field, then by all rights we must require them to become specialists in Plumbing, HVAC, Structure, Electrical, etc. If we do not require equal treatment in all of those other areas, then we are showing a distinct bias in the profession and indicating that special favor is being given to one specialty over all others. As well, if you require specialized, individual training in any of the areas, then you might as well do away with the Home Inspection profession or attempt to redefine it not only locally, but nationally as a Specialist rather than a Generalist. When examining other States that have undertaken the task of licensing, we see that they have determined that the Home Inspector NOT file a Pest Inspection report, or Wood Destroying Organism report due to their recognition that this is a specialty like all others, and must be deferred to a Specialist in the field. Senator Spanel, I hope that you will take these thoughts into consideration when determining what will and what will not become law. In all fairness we must bring equality into the profession and we must not let certain Special Interest groups influence the rule of law anymore than others do. Thank you for considering my opinion and that of others. I am glad to see the beginnings of positive change within your Bill and hope that soon we will see something that will protect all, Home Inspectors and Consumers alike. Thank you for your time.

Quality continuing education is difficult to achieve----much of it is just a rehashing of 101 type courses that may benefit inspectors with no education but is of little benefit to inspectors that have had considerable training or are doing daily self-education just in the process of providing quality inspections. Some amount should be provided by the state as an option----but not required. Perhaps we could follow the example of the SPI where there is continuing ed that has to be met during a five year window or you have to retest. For the most part continuing ed appears to be a marketing gimmick of the various associations and the training vendors attached to them. Some say that the continuing ed can be satisfactorilly met with free online courses----these for the most part are even more primitive with the exeption of a couple on the NACHI website. While these may be acceptable for requirements of the associations they in no way reflect the needs of many inspectors. The state should not be in the business of supporting vendors of education-----unless it has some very strick guidelines to monitor and aprove such courses. Cost of continuing ed should also be considered. An inspector that can only do 25 inspections a year (because that is all that can be expected in their market) may very well not have the time or money to do what it takes to accumulate 20 hours of continuing ed per year. Others may just choose for efficiency to retest---as many do for the SPI.

I think you miss the point of what a SPI does. As SPI's we "discover" and then do defer to the "specialist"----the PCO for treatment or to the general contractor for repairs or whatever is called for. The training necessary to do the WDO part is generalist-training not unlike the generalist training necessary to identify structural issues, HVAC issues, plumbing issues, electrical issues etc.

This slant is deceptive and wrong. There is no reason that a home inspector cannot learn to be a good "visual" WDO and pest inspector. There is a big difference between simply looking for WDO's or taking apart a furnace or heat pump. That comparison is plain silly and not thought out at all. Current WSDA law, which should not only be kept as it is in the new bill but be made mandatory for any people calling themselves home inspectors, merely requires a visual inspection for WDO issues. That is the same thing we do with furnaces, air conditioners, water heaters. Visual inspection! If we find evidence of problems, we refer to a pest control professional. An inspector has to be willing to put a bit of time and effort into the profession so he or she is actually doing a service for the consumer, not trying to simply skate by the system. If this person is an inspector, and has not been doing WDO inspections, he or she has probably been violating current law, if in fact he or she has actually been doing any inspection work. A person can disregard existing law, but nothing illegal has taken place until opportunity arises, that is there is a client. In the wet climate in Western Washington the majority of serious problems, that kill deals, are WDO issues. Eastern Washington has WDO's too, including subterranean termites. Do not cut out the WDO requirements....make them tougher if anything and put teeth in the law to weed out inspectors who are too lazy to learn how to do the work that needs to be done for the people of this state.

I am curious as to what special interest groups are pushing to keep the SPI process in the new law. From my point of view, the only special interest group that counts are the consumers; and I personally believe that it is in the consumer's best interest to have home inspectors continue to do WDO inspecting and reporting. It is, by far, the most important aspect of home inspecting, at least on the West side of the mountains. 40 to 50% of concerns are either WDOs or conducive conditions. If we are not doing WDO inspections, we are not doing home inspections. I don't believe that learning and understanding WDO's is a specialized process. It is our job to find, identify and recommend action by the consumer (a generalist activity). I also believe that the WDO portion of the license should be administered by the etymology professionals who currently do an excellent job.

I am an inspector in favor of licensing. I also do not believe that just because you have completed 100 or 200 or even 500 inspections you know what you are doing. Any grandfather clause should require that you have taken a nationally recognized exam to proof that you have the knowledge to do the job. It should be easy for someone with lots of experience. Having real estate agents on the board is like having the fox guard the hen house. Too many real estate "professionals" only care about the deal going through. it's a conflict of interest if we have to answer to them. 20 hours of continuing education is not enough. Why not make it 40. That would mean 1 week a year which is pretty reasonable considering how much technology is changing.

February 11, 2007 TO: Whom it may concern RE: Washington Legislation – SB 5788 I am a home inspector who has been practicing in the state of Washington for 19 years. I have a Batchelor of Science Degree from the University of Washington in Building Construction, ASHI member, WSDA Licensed Structural Pest Inspector and have several years of active construction experience. In general I oppose any legislation which regulates a business when a need for regulation does not exist. If regulation is needed, then it should be set to a high standard to protect the consumer. I was a practicing home inspector the last time licensing became an issue in Washington State. At that time a Sunrise study was performed to determine if licensing was needed. The study results indicated licensing was not needed and thus the bill was dropped. I am told a Sunrise study has not been performed as part of HB – 5788. This study must be performed before any additional taxpayer money is spent on legislation which may not be needed. If a Sunrise study is performed and shows a need for licensing then HB – 5788 is a start, but needs modifications to be a meaningful licensing law. Listed below are areas of concern I have with this bill: A)Sec 2.2 – The classification of an active home inspector is to low. The current level would allow inexperienced inspectors to obtain licenses. It should be raised to at least three years and 250 fee paid inspections. B)Sec 3.1 - Real Estate Agents should not be part of the board which regulates home inspectors. This is a conflict of interest. My concern is the standards to which a home inspector must perform would be lowered to promote home sales or shifted to issues not important to a home inspection. Adding an insurance/bonding expert would be a better choice. C)Sec 6.4 - Performing parallel home inspections is a good mentoring process, but not allowing the licensed home inspector to charge for this service is not acceptable. Mentoring will add several hours to each inspection, reduce the over-all income of the mentoring inspector and increase the liability of the mentoring inspector. I would not perform this service if I could not charge a fee and be reimbursed for all expenses. D)Sec 14.2 – A home inspector should not be allowed to perform any repair work on properties which they have inspected. This is a clear conflict of interest. E)Sec 21 – I am not sure what penalties are involved in a class 1 civil infraction, but the penalties should be significant to help assure compliance with this law. F)Sec 25 – The current insurance and bonding requirements for Structural Pest Inspectors are products not widely offered in Washington State. Including an insurance/bonding expert on the board would help shape a policy which could be provided by several companies instead of just a few. As stated before, I oppose any legislation which regulates a business when a need for regulation does not exist. If regulation is needed, then it should be set to a high standard to protect the consumer. Also, any regulation must have significant penalties and enforcement otherwise it will be ignored and sub-standard home inspections will be performed. Thank you for your time and for considering my views on this subject.

" It is our job to find, identify and recommend action by the consumer (a generalist activity)." Re-read the rules governing an SPI, there is no requirement for recommendations, it is expected by the REaltors and the general public, but no rule exists.

I am not a realtor but see the work of many inspectors. Often, and this is a general comment, those inspectors with the most experience provide the most shallow reports. Often this group is better at going easy because they have figured out what they can get by with to avoid a lawsuit. The most serious, and reliable, reports are often done by well-qualifed, newer, eager inspectors. The dedication to the profession, a person's background in the trades and the training in general is the key, not 250 what might be lousy inspections. Quantity has no relationship to quality. As for time in the business, one year is long enough to become familiar with it. Three years and 250 inspections is excessive and sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from ASHI who has, without much success, tried to control the market for too long. If this law comes in, there will be little or no need for ASHI and they are being very protective of what they see as their turf right now. As for mentoring, that language is a response from the legislators to a suggestion by a group who wanted to make money off people trying to get into the business. So legislators included it in the bill, but said the service must be free. That was a real backfire for those rubbing their hands together waiting for the payoff. It is not fair that this mentoring would have to be done for free, so the whole concept -- put forth by the industry committee -- should be dropped since the once eager mentors no longer want anything to do with the program as they cannot profit from it. This bill, with a few modifications, including adjusting the board as suggested in this post, should work. Bending to the pleas of old time inspectors who feel threatened has no place in a competitive marketplace.

In my previous post, I made no mention of a rule. What I should have said was "In my opinion it is our job..." Frankly, I don't believe we are doing our job if we don't make recommendations.

While what you say is technically true, in practice it is a poor way to operate. Telling someone they have carpenter ants is pretty lame. Now, the recommendation may be simple: contact a pest control operator, but anyone not doing better than citing the WDO problem is doing the bare minimum...if that.

Passing a test does not qualify someone to inspect, far from it. There is opposition to the parallel inspection requirement, but take that away and a basic qualification criterion is lost. In my opinion, there needs to be some form of inspection competancy contemplated. Even if one has not been in business, they can study and pass the exam. They are not overly difficult. I am opposed to requiring the experienced inspector from re-taking the exam, for some of the reasoning above. Also, the exams cost $150-200. This will be a boon for the testing organizations, and largely satisfying a paper requirement of the law; this portion is of the bill will be burdomsome to the business owner.

Quote: "Passing a test does not qualify someone to inspect, far from it. There is opposition to the parallel inspection requirement, but take that away and a basic qualification criterion is lost." The first part of your statement is true, passing a test does not prove one knows everything. However, a good test, experience credit and 120 hours of formal classroom education requirements is all the state has to go by. It is an imperfect world and that will be better than anything that exists today. The mentoring is totally unworkable, and the suggestion seems to be nothing more than a last ditch effort by ASHI and their ilk to try to make money off new people. That was even more apparent by viewing the speakers, supporting that position, at the public hearing. This side would be better off being quiet and they might even gain a tiny bit of credibility if it was not so transparent what their motives are. Actually, if they had been less boastful in public about their idea of making money by mentoring, they might have been able to sneak all this in. As it is, legislators said "sure, great plan so we think you can mentor for free". Mentoring is way too impractical and must be removed and, if replaced at all, it should be replaced with some form of state approved education or state supervised mentoring. Letting some inspector, nobody knows anything about, train another party is down right silly. The trainer may be the world's worst inspector, but he skated on 250 inspections. Or maybe he had his rear sued and lost, many inspectors have been there and that is not factored in. You said: "I am opposed to requiring the experienced inspector from re-taking the exam, for some of the reasoning above." This again, if I understand that you are saying grandfathered inspectors should not be tested, is illogical. Any inspector who cannot pass an exam should not be in the business in the first place. That is who we need to weed out. Are you saying to make standards high for new people -- 120 hours of education, a test, etc but let the oldtimers sit back and do nothing? They will already be grandfathered in without the education, which is too bad in some cases, so they get one big break there. But skip the test, no way! They will have two years after this goes into effect, until about July 2010 to raise the $150.00 if that is what it will cost, and they can start studying now. So crack the books folks and good luck to you. This whining sounds like another effort to protect the status quo. If this group is so capable, and so much better than others as they crow, I fail to see why they are in such a state of panic by all this common sense legislation. The goal with the law is to help the public, and to assure minimum competency, not to pad the pockets of existing inspectors.

Your argument is good, except it doesn't show why we need to be under the regulation of the WSDA. If your theory is correct, why don't we need to be licensed and overseen by the HVAC, Electrical, etc...professions?

Some people on here under the guise of anonymity have been misinforming people that it is illegal to not be licensed as a Structural Pest Inspector. When in fact, and this is confirmed by the WSDA representative Dr.Suomi, that one may be a home inspector and sub out the pest portion of the inspection, although he feels it would be difficult, in his personal opinion. To tell everyone on here, a public forum, that it is illegal to do something it is not, is an injustice and rather illegal itself.

Senators Spanel, Brandland, Kohl-Wells, and Committee Members I agree with most the points made by the person under the post "Improved". The grandfather clause of the proposed bill, Section 2 (2), and the provisions for taking the exam are fair and well thought out. Defining an acceptable level of experience, in number of years of active inspecting and in number of inspections performed, is no science. As a member of the advisory group, I can attest that the group's thinking as debated and finally decided by vote, was not grounded in desire to decrease competition and line pockets with wealth. Most, if not all of the inspectors on the board are seasoned, with established businesses. Not that they are wealty, I don't think too many inspectors achive financial wealth from this profession. The thinking in strengthening requirements is to help ensure qualified inspectors. It is to help minimize situations where individuals, new to the profession, use a new homeowners investment to practice their skills. Yes, there are too many problems with the parallel inspections, but that does not mean the issues could not be resolved. In the end, some form of mentoring, along with pier review, may be the best test of all for qualification. Hopefully, the Bill process will keep this alive as ongoing consideration in qualifications for licensure.