<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Welcome to Capital City Inspections</title>
	
	<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog</link>
	<description>Keeping Texas Inspectors Informed</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 21:54:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/CapitalCityInspections" /><feedburner:info uri="capitalcityinspections" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:browserFriendly></feedburner:browserFriendly><item>
		<title>Another TX Inspection Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1591</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1591#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inspections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s news of another Texas inspector lawsuit. News Article Read the Katy news article here. Original Petition Read the Original Petition here jQuery(document).ready(function() { if(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1591')) postTabs_show(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1591'),1591); });]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s news of another Texas inspector lawsuit.<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><div class='postTabs_divs postTabs_curr_div' id='postTabs_0_1591'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>News Article</b></span></p>
<p><a title="News article" href="http://www.ultimatekaty.com/stories/363922-courts-katy-man-cypress-inspector-sued-after-alleged-mold-infestation-in-humble" target="_blank">Read the Katy news article here.</a></p>
<p></div>

<div class='postTabs_divs' id='postTabs_1_1591'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>Original Petition</b></span></p>
<p><a title="Petition" href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32421886/Brown%20vs%20Chesmar.pdf" target="_blank">Read the Original Petition here</a></p>
</div>

<script type='text/javascript'>jQuery(document).ready(function() { if(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1591')) postTabs_show(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1591'),1591); });</script>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1591</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent AG Ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1567</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1567#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 22:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[E&O Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inspector Advisory Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TREC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TREC Administrator Doug Oldmixon presented a question in Oct of last year to the state Attorney General&#8217;s office regarding mandatory E&#38;O for inspectors and asked for a ruling. Read Adm. Oldmixon&#8217;s question and the AG&#8217;s response. TREC Question https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/rq/2011/pdf/rq1015ga.pdf  AG &#8230; <a href="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1567">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TREC Administrator Doug Oldmixon presented a question in Oct of last year to the state Attorney General&#8217;s office regarding mandatory E&amp;O for inspectors and asked for a ruling. Read Adm. Oldmixon&#8217;s question and the AG&#8217;s response.</p>
<p><div class='postTabs_divs postTabs_curr_div' id='postTabs_0_1567'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>TREC Question</b></span></p>
<p><a title="TREC E&amp;O RFI" href="https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/rq/2011/pdf/rq1015ga.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/rq/2011/pdf/rq1015ga.pdf </a></p>
<p></div>

<div class='postTabs_divs' id='postTabs_1_1567'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>AG Ruling</b></span></p>
<table width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center"><a href="http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/"><img src="http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/images/agga_logo.GIF" alt="Click for home page" border="0" /></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="TOP" width="600">May 18, 2012</p>
<table width="100%" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr valign="TOP">
<td width="50%">Mr. Douglas E. Oldmixon<br />
Administrator<br />
Texas Real Estate Commission<br />
Post Office Box 12188<br />
Austin, Texas 78711-2188</td>
<td>Opinion No. GA-0932Re: Whether section 1102.114 of the Texas Occupations Code, which requires licensed real estate inspectors to carry liability insurance, would be effective if no such coverage were available (<a href="http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/opinions/50abbott/rq/2011/pdf/rq1015ga.pdf">RQ-1015-GA</a>)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Dear Mr. Oldmixon:</p>
<p>You ask two questions about sections 1102.114(3) and 1102.203(a) of the Texas Occupations Code.<a href="https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2012/htm/ga0932.htm#N_1_"><sup> (1)</sup></a> Section 1102.114(3) requires the Texas Real Estate Commission to issue a real estate inspector&#8217;s license to an applicant who, among other things, &#8220;offers proof that the applicant carries liability insurance . . . to protect the public.&#8221; Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1102.114(3) (West 2012). Section 1102.203(a) provides that a &#8220;person may renew an unexpired license by . . . providing proof of liability insurance as required by Section 1102.114(3).&#8221; <em>Id</em>. § 1102.203(a). You explain that &#8220;there appear to be sufficient providers of [such coverage] in Texas today,&#8221; but &#8220;a concern exists that there may not be access to such coverage in the future.&#8221; Request Letter at 1.</p>
<p>Your first question is, &#8220;Would the insurance described above still be required if every insurance provider left the Texas market and no policy was available to satisfy the requirements of Sections 1102.114 and 1102.203(a) . . .?&#8221; <em>Id</em>. at 2. We begin our answer by reviewing the plain and common meaning of the statute&#8217;s text. <em>State v. K.E.W</em>., 315 S.W.3d 16, 21 (Tex. 2010). Section 1102.203(a) states that an applicant is &#8220;required&#8221; to carry the insurance that section &#8220;1102.114(3)&#8221; describes. Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1102.203(a) (West 2012). We neither found nor received briefing purporting to find any statutory language or Texas court decisions that would exempt an applicant from carrying such insurance if it were unavailable. Therefore, sections 1102.114(3) and 1102.203(a) require an applicant for a real estate inspector&#8217;s license to carry the insurance that section 1102.114(3) describes even if such insurance were unavailable. <em> See Brown v. Mem&#8217;l Vills. Water Auth.</em>, 361 S.W.2d 453, 455 (Tex. Civ. App.&#8211;Houston 1962, writ ref&#8217;d n.r.e.) (&#8220;In determining the legislative intent it is to be presumed the Legislature was acquainted with the conditions affecting the area to be affected by the legislation.&#8221;).<a href="https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2012/htm/ga0932.htm#N_2_"><sup> (2)</sup></a></p>
<p>Your second question is, &#8220;Does the Commission have the discretion to waive this requirement if no such insurance coverage is available in Texas?&#8221; Request Letter at 2. We begin our answer by noting that a state agency like the Commission has only those powers that the Legislature expressly grants it, along with implied powers that are reasonably necessary to exercise the expressly granted powers. <em>Pub. Util. Comm&#8217;n of Tex. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd. of San Antonio</em>, 53 S.W.3d 310, 315 (Tex. 2001). We neither found nor received briefing purporting to find a statute expressly granting the Commission discretion to waive the section 1102.114(3) insurance requirement. Instead, we found a statute granting the Commission discretion to &#8220;waive any license requirement for an applicant who holds a license from another state having license requirements substantially equivalent to those of this state.&#8221; Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1102.112 (West 2012). This specific grant of authority to waive certain license requirements indicates that the Legislature has not impliedly granted the Commission discretion to waive other license requirements, such as the section 1102.114(3) insurance requirement. <em>See </em><em>Jones v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.</em>, 745 S.W.2d 901, 902 (Tex. 1988) (explaining that the Legislature&#8217;s naming of one thing generally excludes things not named and that a court may not add words to a statute that are not implied in the statute&#8217;s language). Because the Legislature neither expressly nor impliedly granted the Commission the power to waive the section 1102.114(3) liability insurance requirement, the Commission lacks discretion to waive that requirement.<strong>&gt;</strong></p>
<p><strong>S U M M A R Y</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Sections 1102.114(3) and 1102.203(a) require an applicant for a real estate inspector&#8217;s license to carry liability insurance. The Texas Real Estate Commission lacks authority to waive that requirement.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Very truly yours,</p>
<p><img src="http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/images/abbott_sig.gif" alt="Abbott signature" width="150" height="60" />GREG ABBOTT<br />
Attorney General of Texas</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>Daniel T. Hodge<br />
First Assistant Attorney General</p>
<p>James D. Blacklock<br />
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel</p>
<p>Jason Boatright<br />
Chair, Opinion Committee</p>
<p>Jason Boatright<br />
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee</p>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Footnotes</span></p>
<p><a name="N_1_"></a>1. Letter from Douglas E. Oldmixon, Adm&#8217;r, Tex. Real Estate Comm&#8217;n, to the Honorable Greg Abbott, Tex. Att&#8217;y Gen. at 2 (Oct. 11, 2011), http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opin (&#8220;Request Letter&#8221;).</p>
<p><a name="N_2_"></a>2. Of course, the Legislature may amend section 1102.114(3) to make the insurance requirement contingent on the availability of the required insurance. Tex. Const. art. III, § 1. An opinion of this office, however, cannot. <em>Id</em>. art. II, § 1. <em>See also</em> Tex. Att&#8217;y Gen. Op. No. GA-0781 (2010) at 3 (explaining that &#8220;we will not add words that are not implicitly contained in the language of a statute&#8221;) (<em>citing Lee v. City of Houston</em>, 807 S.W.2d 290, 294-95 (Tex. 1991)).</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<hr />
<p><a href="http://www.TexasAttorneyGeneral.gov">Home</a> | <a href="https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opin/opindex.shtml">Opinions</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p></div>

<div class='postTabs_divs' id='postTabs_2_1567'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>A Theory</b></span></p>
<p>So, what if&#8230;.<em>to be continued</em></p>
</div>

<script type='text/javascript'>jQuery(document).ready(function() { if(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1567')) postTabs_show(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1567'),1567); });</script>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1567</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>E&amp;O Provider Feud?</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1512</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1512#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[E&O Insurance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What’s this I’m hearing about a conflict between two Texas E&#38;O providers? Is one really bad-mouthing and spreading falsehoods about the other’s policy coverage? Surely that can’t be true .]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What’s this I’m hearing about a conflict between two Texas E&amp;O providers? Is one really bad-mouthing and spreading falsehoods about the other’s policy coverage? Surely that can’t be true <img class="wlEmoticon wlEmoticon-confusedsmile" style="border-style: none;" src="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wlEmoticon-confusedsmile.png" alt="Confused smile" />.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1512</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent Inspector Lawsuit Appeal Ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1493</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1493#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[E&O Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Texas inspection lawsuit appeal ruling may help shield inspectors from lawsuits claiming Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations. Brokers &#38; sales agents are already afforded that protection. View the ruling here.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A recent Texas inspection lawsuit appeal ruling may help shield inspectors from lawsuits claiming Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations. Brokers &amp; sales agents are already afforded that protection. <a href="http://www.10thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/pdfOpinion.asp?OpinionID=10986" target="_blank">View the ruling here.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1493</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed Commentary</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1487</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1487#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inspector Advisory Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TREC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TREC has posted the following on their website: The Texas Real Estate Commission is seeking input from inspectors and the public on a recommendation to post a set of comments to the Standards of Practice for inspectors as one of &#8230; <a href="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1487">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TREC has posted the following on their website:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The Texas Real Estate Commission is seeking input from inspectors and the public on a recommendation to post a set of comments to the Standards of Practice for inspectors <span style="text-decoration: underline;">as one of several optional examination preparation resources listed on the inspector examination page of the TREC website.</span> This set of comments is proposed to be added to that location and posted with the following notice: &#8220;These comments are not an official interpretation of the Standards of Practice and should not be relied on as such.&#8221;<br />
Click <a href="http://www.trec.state.tx.us/pdf/inspectors/Request_comments_SOP-commentary.pdf" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.trec.state.tx.us/images/icon_pdf_16high.gif" alt="pdf icon" width="21" height="16" align="bottom" border="0" />here</a> to view the document.</p>
<p>If that is the final destination and the Commentary does not become part of the SOP nor a separate enforceable Rule then I would support that idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1487</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Upcoming TAREI Ethics &amp; SOP Seminar</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1460</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1460#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TREC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, read the gist of the recent e-mail invitation that TAREI is sending out advertising their upcoming TREC mandated Ethics/SOP Continuing Education requirement for HI license renewals. The TAREI Invite Join speakers such as J.D. Fuller, Billy Anderson, and Larry &#8230; <a href="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1460">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, read the gist of the recent e-mail invitation that TAREI is sending out advertising their upcoming TREC mandated Ethics/SOP Continuing Education requirement for HI license renewals.</p>
<p><div class='postTabs_divs postTabs_curr_div' id='postTabs_0_1460'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>The TAREI Invite</b></span></p>
<blockquote><p>Join speakers such as J.D. Fuller, Billy Anderson, and Larry Battarbee as they present the required ethics training and how the ethics relate to our SOP&#8217;s.  Billy Anderson, attorney with Kent, Good, Anderson, and Bush, will present the legal side of the ethics and SOP&#8217;s.  Larry Battarbee will relate how the ethics and SOP&#8217;s relate to E&amp;O insurance.</p>
<p>Lunch WILL be provided courtesy of Larry Battarbee with Battarbee Insurance.</p></blockquote>
<p></div>

<div class='postTabs_divs' id='postTabs_1_1460'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>My Opinion</b></span><br />
Well, I&#8217;m going to let you Comment on this and then I&#8217;ll share my personal opinion.</p>
</div>

<script type='text/javascript'>jQuery(document).ready(function() { if(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1460')) postTabs_show(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1460'),1460); });</script>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1460</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>INACHI &amp; TPREIA team up</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1443</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1443#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trade Associations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[INACHI &#38; TPREIA announced a partnership last Friday that is reminiscent of last year&#8217;s bungled INACHI/TAREI alliance. So far the response from Texas inspectors has been something like this: Response]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>INACHI &amp; TPREIA announced a partnership last Friday that is reminiscent of last year&#8217;s bungled INACHI/TAREI alliance. So far the response from Texas inspectors has been something like this: <a title="Response" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg" target="_blank">Response</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1443</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed E&amp;O Scenario Opinion from AG</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1423</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1423#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[E&O Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TREC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the October 10, 2011 TREC meeting Adm Oldmixon requested approval from the commission to ask for the Attorney General&#8217;s opinion on a certain Inspector&#8217;s E&#38;O scenario, i.e. what would happen if there were no providers of E&#38;O for Texas &#8230; <a href="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1423">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the October 10, 2011 TREC meeting Adm Oldmixon requested approval from the commission to ask for the Attorney General&#8217;s opinion on a certain Inspector&#8217;s E&amp;O scenario, i.e. what would happen if there were no providers of E&amp;O for Texas inspectors. Click the Opinion Letter tab to read the proposed letter to the AG.</p>
<p><div class='postTabs_divs postTabs_curr_div' id='postTabs_0_1423'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>Proposed AG Opinion letter</b></span></p>
<p><a title="AG Opinion" href="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/AG-Opinion-EO.pdf" target="_blank">AG Opinion EO</a></p>
<p></div>

<div class='postTabs_divs' id='postTabs_1_1423'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>My Opinion</b></span></p>
<p>The first question posed to the AG is to whether E&amp;O insurance would still be required even if no insurance company offered it in Texas. The answer to that will be Yes, that requirement is prescribed by legislation and can only be rescinded by further legislation. The simple fact of insurance providers theoretically not offering E&amp;O will not likely change the law, that would have to be done separately. If the AG did not see fit to provide that opinion then most likely his office will state they cannot speculate on such theoretical scenarios. The answer to the second question of whether TREC has the authority to waive the requirement would, in my opinion, be a resounding No.</p>
<p></div>

<div class='postTabs_divs' id='postTabs_2_1423'>
<span class='postTabs_titles'><b>AG Opinion letter status</b></span></p>
<p>As of 10/13, I have not confirmed that the Commission approved of sending the letter to the AG, I&#8217;m working on that.</p>
</div>

<script type='text/javascript'>jQuery(document).ready(function() { if(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1423')) postTabs_show(postTabs_getCookie('postTabs_1423'),1423); });</script>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1423</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trade Association Message Board</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1411</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1411#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Boyett</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inspections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Associations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s a certain trade association message board that I&#8217;ve frequented for over 7 years. Historically, it has been a good place to pose questions and also answer other&#8217;s questions on technical HI topics. Not so much anymore though.To be sure, &#8230; <a href="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1411">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s a certain trade association message board that I&#8217;ve frequented for over 7 years. Historically, it has been a good place to pose questions and also answer other&#8217;s questions on technical HI topics. Not so much anymore though.<span id="more-1411"></span>To be sure, it has also been a focal point for controversy as well but generally that was still inspection related and short-lived. For the last couple of years however it has degenerated and is now predominantly filled with meaningless drivel and focuses on current events, especially politics, religion. There are 4-5 prolific posters that really stink that message board up and I&#8217;ve placed them on my ignore list but that doesn&#8217;t prevent their posts and threads from appearing on the summary pages, i.e. New Posts, Today&#8217;s Posts, etc. Sometimes 50-70% of the posts are off-topic crap. My participation along with several others has really diminished over the last year or so. I do miss a place to share technical, marketing, business, etc ideas but that particular board is no longer the place. Unfortunately, the administrators of that board subscribe to the notion that all controversy is good and that quantity (of crappy posts) is better than quality. My next step is to remove any bookmarks I may have to that board and wean myself completely off of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1411</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TREC SOP Sub-Committee 09/20/11 Conf Call</title>
		<link>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1390</link>
		<comments>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1390#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 21:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nolan Kienitz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inspector Advisory Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TREC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Participated today on the Conf Call with the Sub-Committee working on changes to the TREC Inspection SOP.  Appeared to be a reasonably productive call. Many changes being made to &#8220;clean up&#8221; the SOP and minimize several of the redundant comments &#8230; <a href="http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?p=1390">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Participated today on the Conf Call with the Sub-Committee working on changes to the TREC Inspection SOP.  Appeared to be a reasonably productive call. Many changes being made to &#8220;clean up&#8221; the SOP and minimize several of the redundant comments throughout.</p>
<p>There is still the conundrum of the SOP saying we don&#8217;t inspect to &#8220;code&#8221; but still notes &#8220;code&#8221;.  My view is that we have to be working from a basis of general fact/recognition and (to me) that is the related &#8220;code&#8221; &#8230; be it NEC, IRC and so on.</p>
<p>The &#8220;non-inspector&#8221; committee member made some very good observations and very succinctly pointed out some items that we (as inspectors) face daily. John C. will likely add value to that comment along with other views of the call.</p>
<p>There is plenty more work to do on the SOP and the next conf call is tentatively set for 10/25/11.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.capcityinspections.com/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1390</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

