Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Fred]

Danny, that is the very crux of the issue. From what I’ve seen so far, it appears that the report content is modified, changed and/or truncated as it is launched into the electronic either through this AIReady process. Unfortunately, the appraiser no longer controls the report's content that he submits above his signature. The appraiser doesn’t know what is contained in the report (or what’s been carved out.) Nor can he produce a viable copy of his submitted report on demand. The appraiser is vulnerable on multiple levels.

Oregon Doug

I will give you this. The competency rule may have to include technolgical competency. Perhaps there are computer-idiots who should not try to email reports.

While your post is about how report CONTENT supposedly gets "changed" or "modified" when it goes through software, the thread also demonstrates how USPAP gets "changed" or "modified" after it passes through the conciousness of some individuals. For example, you refer to the report that was "submitted," but USPAP says "sent or delivered." Did you just "modify" or "change" the content of USPAP?

Absent technological incompetence, or a natural disaster destroying my drives, I keep getting stuck on the physical impossibility of me not being able to produce what I sent. Other than jumping to conclusions in advance of the facts, how does one prove an appraiser cannot provide a true copy of what was sent? I think you need the drive, and to be able to show what was sent, and how the original file was opened and changed on a subsequent date, or subsequently deleted. There are no other possiblities, and this determination cannot be made correctly using only paper reports.

 

[Marcia Langley]

I will give you this. The competency rule may have to include technolgical competency.

I agree, Steven.

Aside from USPAP or the boards, and going by the reasonable man theory, I would hold appraisers accountable for their competence in using their chosen technology (just as Standard 6 holds mass appraisers accountable.)

Realistically, if an appraiser were before a board or in a court and used as his defense, "I didn't know AlaMode worked that way" I wouldn't expect him to get much sympathy. The same would go for "I didn't know AIReady worked that way."

Of course that lack of sympathy might be mitigated (but not erased) by any fraudulent obfuscation on the part of the vendor.

I agree the Competency Rule should explicitly remark on technological competence, but I'm not sure it's not already covered in other passages that use the terms "credible" and "misleading."

 

[Carnivore]

One would think on face USPAP only governs directly the appraiser. Yet, indirectly a connection can be made to State Appraisal boards and Federally Regulated Institutions for appraisers to comply with USPAP.

State Boards are charged with oversight of appraisers. Federally regulated instituions are charged with insuring that appraisers they use comply with USPAP. This is requirement is made by several federal agencies and the congress.

So how is it that I am the only one with the dilema. In earlier post I attempted and believe that I(and some others) have succeeded in a small way of removing deniability from some State Appraisal Boards on this issue.

I hope to cause FRI's to be placed on notice also.

The problem as I see it is one of the portal provider. They have created the problem by ignoring the needs of at least one paying customer, namely appraisers. I think a fidiciary relationship exist between the portal provider and not only FRS's but appraisers as well.

 

[TJSum]

I will give you this. The competency rule may have to include technolgical competency. Perhaps there are computer-idiots who should not try to email reports.

While your post is about how report CONTENT supposedly gets "changed" or "modified" when it goes through software, the thread also demonstrates how USPAP gets "changed" or "modified" after it passes through the conciousness of some individuals. For example, you refer to the report that was "submitted," but USPAP says "sent or delivered." Did you just "modify" or "change" the content of USPAP?

Absent technological incompetence, or a natural disaster destroying my drives, I keep getting stuck on the physical impossibility of me not being able to produce what I sent. Other than jumping to conclusions in advance of the facts, how does one prove an appraiser cannot provide a true copy of what was sent? I think you need the drive, and to be able to show what was sent, and how the original file was opened and changed on a subsequent date, or subsequently deleted. There are no other possiblities, and this determination cannot be made correctly using only paper reports.

What is the difference between "submitting' a report and "sending or delivering". When dealing with electronic reports, it seems to me they all involve clicking on the send icon?

Per your question on how State Boards can tell when they have not received a "true copy". I would think most of the time they are reacting to a complaint, when the complaint is submitted it contains their version of said report. Then, when the Board asks for the work file or "true copy" from the appraiser, the two reports do not match. Then the Board is left trying to sort out what has taken place.

I have very limited legal experience, thank God, but my thinking on the entire matter is that the governing agency who subpoenas the report will mandate the format in which the report will be delivered to them. It is not up to the individual appraiser to determine the format. It is up to the appraiser to determine how he/she wishes to store the data, they can etch it on a rock if they wish, but it is up to the State Board to determine what format the report is to be delivered to them upon their request.

 

[DWiley]

it is up to the State Board to determine what format the report is to be delivered to them upon their request.

If one imbedded video files as part of the property description, the board could ask for a paper copy of such a report, but would that be a true copy? How would one make a true copy of such a report in a paper format?

 

[Marcia Langley]

If one imbedded video files as part of the property description, the board could ask for a paper copy of such a report, but would that be a true copy? How would one make a true copy of such a report in a paper format?

Danny,

I'll leave aside for the moment that I worry as much about what the appraiser knows is in his report as I do about what he can retain and produce as his workfile copy.

The Recordkeeping Rule addresses three items:

written reports
oral reports
all other data [...] necessary to support ... [...]

I understand that there is a difference between the terms "written report" and a "paper copy of a written report" and a "true copy of a written report."

Just as there is also a difference between an "oral report" and a "summary or transcript of an oral report."

Is it your position that a report delivered through AIReady is not a written report?

Is it your position that an audio or video report delivered either electronically or on a disk are not oral reports?

Do you think the Recordkeeping Rule needs other catagories or do you think the three existing ones cover all the bases?

If we were discussing a video conversion/delivery system, I believe our discussion would be taking about the same tack as it currently is.

========

I will grant you that what you have said about necessary care in the wording of any new laws, regs, etc is correct. Extreme care must be taken to avoid unintended consequences both favoring/disfavoring either appraisers' "other agendas" or clients "other agendas".

But your comparisons between resolving the problems of conversion software and documenting a video report are simply not ringing true with me.

 

[Marcia Langley]

If you had an otherwise written report with an imbedded video I would expect that you would deliver a true copy of the written portion as well as a true copy of the video portion.

 

[Marcia Langley]

but USPAP says "sent or delivered."

And don't forget "actually issued."

 

[DWiley]

Marcia,

Before looking at the Record Keeping section of the ETHICS RULE, one has to look first at the definition of REPORT - otherwise the cart is before the horse. The ASB was intending to do just that when I left. At my very last meeting the ASB had a special session to identify the fundamentals of reporting. Subsequently, politics changed the ASB's agenda.

But your comparisons between resolving the problems of conversion software and documenting a video report are simply not ringing true with me.

If you are talking about issues with the exact manner in which AIReady converts the file, I have already stated that I don't really care for some of the things it does. That is very different than saying its use violates USPAP.

It is simply not possible to create a true copy (of anything) using a different medium.

One of the hardest concepts for some to grasp, especially those who have never seen AIReady actually work, is that it is a medium that is very different from paper, and its dynamic properties cannot be reproduced on paper any more than a video can.

 

[DWiley]

If you had an otherwise written report with an imbedded video I would expect that you would deliver a true copy of the written portion as well as a true copy of the video portion.

I have been waiting for someone to post just such a response. Thank you.

If it is acceptable to deliver the true copy in a format other than what I supplied the client, then for a report delivered in AIReady format, why couldn't I just print out the version of the report created in my native forms software? Why is it acceptable in one situation, but not for AIReady? Why does AIReady have a different set of rules to play by?