I thought by sending this letter it would contain some helpful information for your readers, the general public.
During the last two years, Indiana government has established a licensing system for home inspectors. As of July 1, 2005, home inspectors need to be licensed to perform home inspections. This will be of benefit and interest to the public who is engaged in buying or selling their home. This is just a sampling of the law. Indiana Code 25-20.2 and the Indiana Administrative Code Title 878 go into details with 17 pages of fine print.
The law states that "an individual who performs home inspections after June 30, 2003, does not violate IC25-20.2-5-1 or IC 25-20.2-8-5 (a)(1), both as added by this act, and may not be disciplined or sanctioned for failure to have a home inspector's license if the person obtains a home inspector's license not later than July 1, 2005." (A licensed home inspector is not the same as a city or county building inspector.)
The home inspection is not required to "include a code compliance inspection," but it does require reporting on systems or components that are "significantly deficient or are near the end of their service lives." Significantly deficient is described as "unsafe or not functioning." Unsafe means a condition "that is judged to be a significant risk of personal injury during normal, day-to-day use. The risk may be due to a change in accepted residential construction standards," among other items.
Home inspectors are required to show proof of their license upon request, carry a minimum of $100,000 general liability insurance, (no errors and omissions insurance is required), and complete 32 hours of continuing education over the course of the two-year license.
State required report writing standards must include inspecting, and describing, (the defined) systems and components and if they are significantly deficient or near the end of their service lives.
Home inspectors are not required to report on environmental hazards, but may do so, under separate contracts, if licensed or qualified.
Licensed home inspectors cannot "repair, replace, or upgrade for compensation, systems or components covered by the minimum standards of competent performance found in section 1 of this rule for one year after the inspection." This will help ensure the client of an unbiased report. Licensed home inspectors cannot "disclose inspection results or client information without client approval."
A person who exercises "good faith" in recommending a licensed home inspector is free from liability "for the actions of the licensed home inspector, including errors, omissions, the failure to perform contracted duties of a home inspection, or the failure to meet the standards of performance, report writing standards, or code of ethics established by the board."
To view the law, you can search "Indiana Professional Licensing Agency."
In Kosciusko County, where we do not have a county building inspector, it is wise for the public to choose one of our reputable builders or remodelers for their new home or remodeling projects.
I will make this my final response to Ms. Hughes, Ms. Fancil and Ms. Oler.
First of all, Ms. Fancil ... Ms. Hughes is not the first person to put effort into causes for Redeemer Lutheran Church, one doesn't do this for a church because they are reaping the benefits, one does it because it's service to God. My Dad and my brothers and I set up the Lincoln School Gym every Sunday morning for a year and a half while the building you see now was being built. I painted the classrooms you think are substandard and ran a floor machine in them afterwards to clean the floors. My Dad fixed toilets, windows and babysat an aging boiler among other duties as a trustee.
The Hughes aren't the first people to work for that church unpaid and won't be the last.
Secondly, nothing in my first response was "mean", nor was it intended to be such. If you think that was mean, you don't know what mean is and by the way, nothing you can say will "hurt my feelings". You, Ms. Fancil, seem to think I should apologize, I think you are right, so here goes.
I sincerely apologize to all the Times-Union readers for attempting to engage emotionally driven people in what should have been a logical discussion. I really do know better.
I'm sorry that Ms. Hughes took an emotional complaint to the public when it should have stayed within her "church family". I pray they are very forgiving.
I'm sorry that there are people who will cry about and condemn the very people that have been paying their way for them, when the free lunch stops. The proper attitude should be gratitude for the free ride to that point.
I'm sorry that a group of emotionally/socially driven people at Redeemer chose to ignore the warning of a senior congregation member when he warned them that they couldn't afford to build that new building. After all, this man had only spent his entire professional career as an accountant, what could he know? They wanted a new building.
I'm sorry that the desire for a new building overshadowed the fact that it still would have been cheaper to buy the corner lot to the west of the church and do the repairs and expand there.
The fact remains, it was a necessary logical decision to close that school, no one is responsible for paying for your wants or needs but you. Your church couldn't afford this fiasco and still can't, blame yourselves for allowing it to happen. Stop blaming the people that have tried their best to pay for it.
In closing, I'll stop this exchange so that I'm not tempted to re-pay in kind the disservice of Ms. Oler's letter by dragging all of hers, Ms. Hughes', and Ms. Fancil's family members names into the public eye. I can be mean, I remember how, I didn't like that person and changed. Perhaps if I ignore these emotionally driven people I can keep a bit of what's left of my dignity.
