Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[woodyva]

That's a specious argument. I know I put a steak in the grinder and they know that it is ground steak that just came out. It's easier for them to deal with ground steak than whole steak. If I was putting in a little horsemeat without telling them, then that would be dishonest.

I think you and I can agree on the fact they need it in small chunks, that is fine, I support allowing them to have small chunks. All any of us want it to see that we send them our report as we see fit, as far as formatting, then all they need to do is convert it into XML. They have that ability right now. The source codes are all there with each vendor. I mean these are data companies at their core, so why is it so hard for them to do the conversion?

Let us make our report. What we are asking for is harmelss and does not hurt the managment/portal company at all. It simply allows honest reports to go through.

 

[DWiley]

You helped FNC with the RDB while a part of the leadership at the AI, you more than anyone that come sup here should be able to answer that. What is FNC doing with our reports and why? This is not an attack, but you have to admit that you have a vantage here that no one else does here.

Yes, I have the advantage of knowing the true character of the people involved. FNC is not doing anything improper with reports. As I said earlier, half of the original FNC founders were USPAP instructors. They have great respect for appraisers, which is why I stated earlier that I think a viewer will be available soon. They are not unaware of this controversy.

There should be a print feature. I have said so for a long time.

If you want state boards to start enforcing unwritten rules, beware the consequences.

 

[woodyva]

Jonesy,

.

Or what was not written be it by oversight, lack of foresight, or deliberate omission with the intent to capitalize.......on what was not written.

It is blatantly obvious that at this juncture what was not written requires evaluation. Now that “what was written vs what was not written” has been outed, it is incumbent that State Boards upon the next USPAP revision to address these issues at the next call for advisory “opinions”.

IF not before, for State Board clarification. Until then, no Appraiser should be held liable for reports submitted to and made subject to AIPortal ransacking.



T.K.O granted on generic semantics and what was not "specifically" written. From whence that appraisal fee originates, I would not want it.

Sweetie you can't win when all people do is twist your words and spin the truth. I know these guys are intelligent people, but sometimes their own hubris displaces any common sense they have.

I hope it is simply that, or else some folks have sold their ethics. These are the same kind of people in coporate conglomerates that do unethical business right up to the point of breaking the law. All they see is that is does not exactly prohibit this directly. They never ask should I do this?

John Ross and the rest of the wild bunch are to thank for this. That is what happens when you hire a lobbyiost to run an institution.

 

[TJSum]

Greg, I think your analogy does not apply in this case. Maybe a better one would be a newspaper reporter who writes a news story and submits it for the next edition. However, during the editing process, some things were changed, some facts were left out, others moved around, etc. When the writer goes ballistic and questions the editor regarding the changes, well the editor says that is how the readers like it, we have to make it more exciting for them so we sell more papers.

Does the writer have a right to be upset?

Actually, this still is not the best analogy because at least the writer would have access to the paper to read the final result, with these conversion programs, the appraiser does not have access to the final results to see what has been changed?

Isn't there something very wrong with that?

 

[CANative]

It seems to me that the only concern of the appraiser is the USPAP argument based on the prohibition on allowing a misleading appraisal report to be communicated. If we're concerned that the grinding operation results in a misleading appraisal report (pretty difficult argument if you ask me) then the question is which grinding operation is to blame, who did the grinding and where the grinder is located. If it's an application that resides on our computer then we probably have responsibility. If it's an application that is controlled by the client then how are we responsible?

 

[CANative]

Greg, I think your analogy does not apply in this case. Maybe a better one would be a newspaper reporter who writes a news story and submits it for the next edition. However, during the editing process, some things were changed, some facts were left out, others moved around, etc. When the writer goes ballistic and questions the editor regarding the changes, well the editor says that is how the readers like it, we have to make it more exciting for them so we sell more papers.

Does the writer have a right to be upset?

Actually, this still is not the best analogy because at least the writer would have access to the paper to read the final result, with these conversion programs, the appraiser does not have access to the final results to see what has been changed?

Isn't there something very wrong with that?

Writers are paid to write copy by the inch. Editors are responsible for presenting the copy in a way that best serves their needs. The writer got paid for what he wrote and that should be the end of it unless he wants to start his own magazine.

 

[woodyva]

Yes, I have the advantage of knowing the true character of the people involved. FNC is not doing anything improper with reports. As I said earlier, half of the original FNC founders were USPAP instructors. They have great respect for appraisers, which is why I stated earlier that I think a viewer will be available soon. They are not unaware of this controversy.

There should be a print feature. I have said so for a long time.

If you want state boards to start enforcing unwritten rules, beware the consequences.

Danny:

Would you go out on a limb and say that you trust these guys? That you hold them in the same ethical vein as yourself?

 

[DWiley]

I had to bring this back up because it just needed to be done. Now that we have had a taste of you attitude twoards State Boards. Will you show the same contempt in responding to a subpeona for documents from a general court of Justice in Tennessee?

I have received many subpeonas for documents. I supply what I legally and physically can supply. I have submitted many electronic files in court-related assignments. These include native report files from SFREP, PDF files, Excel files, etc. No court has ever asked me to supply them with the software needed to view these files.

I have received many legal notices requiring me to produce documents that I cannot produce. I got a deposition notice last month requiring me to bring a copy of an appraisal report I had prepared. I could not comply because I no longer have a copy (report was done 8 years ago).

One cannot produce what one does not have, and so far every court I have worked with has understood that. Even if I still had a copy I would not have supplied it without a direct order from the judge because of confidentiality rules.

 

[woodyva]

TJ:
Where they get you at is the fact you can view during the OADI process. YOu d see what you are transmitting, you just can't keep it. NOt only that, but as i am getting more mature, i find that i prefer to print mt reports to read them when I proof. I could read the whole thing on the screen but i would miss it.

What you can do, to protect yourself is screen capture each page in the OADI viewer.

 

[woodyva]

Post details removed due to it being a copy of an email.

See Forum Rules: http://appraisersforum.com/rules.htm

8. RESPONSIBILITY OF POSTER. You are prohibited from posting or posting links to any unlawful, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene, scandalous, inflammatory, ****ographic, or profane materials or any material that could constitute or encourage conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any law. We will fully cooperate with any law enforcement authorities or court order requesting or directing us to disclose the identity of anyone posting any such information or materials.

YOU are responsible for what you post! Posting here is NOT amonymous, your IP number is recorded for security purposes. Postings made listing a name other than your own are subject to be deleted without notice. Do not post information here that is copyrighted, unless you own the copyright. If you want to share an interesting article from some other website then leave a LINK to the website, do not copy and paste the entire article here. Do not post emails sent to you without express permission from the sending party. Do not post personal information about others, such as addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers.

By posting messages to our forums at AppraisersForum.com, you automatically grant AppraisersForum.com a world-wide, royalty free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use or reproduce the communication in any form. Please note that we will not remove your posts if you decide to cancel your registration or if you are banned from the forum.