Virginia Board 8/19 meeting may have national coverage

[DWiley]

Maybe you should put as much effort for your state for change or no change as you did for FNC.

Maybe you should put some effort into researching the work I have done related to matters in my state before posting such innuendo. Your post did remind me of something a moderator said in another thread

Any posts that are made that are not on topic or have the appearance of being posted only to instigate further emotional outburst will be removed and that poster to be at least banned from this thread.

The reports of some who attended the last VA meeting are interesting. For example, Mr. Turner stated:

The Virginia Real Estate Appraiser Board removed the petition regarding electronic portals because the way it was written may have impeded commerce.

However, the VA web site says that the Board did not do what the petition asked because the Board did not have the legal authority to do so.

http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/l/viewpetition.cfm?petitionid=56

As I recall, several people were blasted in a previous thread for pointing out this very fact.

We definitely have problems with the regulation of appraisers. In order to address those problems it is critical to understand how the system works, the legal authority that each participant in the process has, and what mechanisms can effectively be used to change the current system.

One of the few upsides to the current situation is that we do have an opportunity to bring about change. The window of opportunity is open, but time is of the essence. We need to avoid wasting time and resources trying to get an entity to do something it cannot legally do. I see lots of people pursuing personal agendas rather than focusing on the real issues.

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Here is the full version from the Virginia site:

The Board voted to deny the petition since the Board was advised by legal counsel that the Board does not have the authority to require providers of electronic portals to cease doing business in Virginia until such time as they provide the Board with sufficient evidence and documentation that ensures the integrity and unadulterated transmission of appraisal reports from the appraiser to the client and/or end user of the appraisal report.

This issue is back in committee.

 

[Bearslide]

Pam has it correct - you would have had to have been at the meeting to get the full flavor and all of the discussions. I don't believe I saw you there, so maybe you don't have all the facts.

Many of us are fighting on different levels and each of us is choosing our battles. This is just one of many and I believe change can happen from within the states.

 

[TJSum]

Didn't the Virginia State Appraisal Board already obtain a major victory for the individual appraiser with their investigation regarding AI Ready by getting them to add a print/save function to the process, so that the appraiser could actually print out or save the report they were sending. Having those in charge of AI Ready finally allow this after 10 years +/- right before the Virginia hearings is rather transparent and does not point to Virginia exceeding their authority, rather it shows they were properly using it to protect the appraisal profession. AI Ready's last second change of heart did undercut the USPAP compliant leg that Virginia was basing their complaint on, but it does not undercut their accomplishment in this regard.

 

[DWiley]

Pam has it correct - you would have had to have been at the meeting to get the full flavor and all of the discussions.

The part that Pam highlighted was simply the request that was made in the petition. It does not speak to the action that was taken or why it was taken.

Is the account posted on their own web site wrong?

The "flavor" I get is that the Board may have wished to take the action requested in the petition, but they didn't because they were advised that they did not have the legal authority to do so. From a first-hand perspective, does that seem accurate to you?

I believe change can happen from within the states.

So do I, which is one reason I have been working on changes to our state law for a long time. However, change cannot occur by asking a Board to do something they do not have the legal authority to do.

 

[Bearslide]

The part that Pam highlighted was simply the request that was made in the petition. It does not speak to the action that was taken or why it was taken.

These 3rd parties, who are not the lender and therefore really not the client, are pushing the responsibility of these conversions/alterations of our appraisal reports onto the appraisers. IMO, unless these 3rd parties want the legal responsbility of being a designated agent of the lender, which makes the lender responsible for their actions, the Appraisal Boards DO have the authority to protect the public trust via a rule that the appraiser must not use these unauthorized portals that are in between the appraiser and the appraisers legal client. It would be interesting as well to get this in front of a federal judge.


Is the account posted on their own web site is wrong?

No - but that is a very brief summary and not exactly what transpired. Had you been there, you would have heard ALL of the discussion for yourself. That was a very brief statement and does not tell the whole story.

The "flavor" I get is that the Board may have wished to take the action requested in the petition, but they didn't because they were advised that they did not have the legal authority to do so. From a first-hand perspective, does that seem accurate to you?

Not quite - the petitioners asked for revision to the petition and Rules of Order had to be followed.

So do I, which is one reason I have been working on changes to our state law for a long time. However, change cannot occur by asking a Board to do something they do not have the legal authority to do.[/qoute]

Then we shall agree to disagree, because I, and many others, believe the various Boards DO have the legal authority to take a stand on this issue in order to protect the public trust. This is far from over, and will be fought on other fronts as well.

 

[DWiley]

If people are honestly concerned about reports being changed, why is so much energy being spent on something that accounts for such a small percentage of appraisal reports, while big issues with the report format that most people actually use go ignored?

AIReady accounts for a very small percentage of reports. On the other hand, PDF files account for 90%+ of all residential appraisal reports, and most appraisers unwittingly believe that “locked” PDFs are secure. Anyone who still believes this can send me a locked PDF, and I will send it back to you unlocked just to demonstrate how “secure” it is.

Appraisers have been lulled into a false sense of security by a large software company that offers no real security. Yet, no one seems to be screaming about that company. Why? In fact, many want to force use of their software.

The petition I would support would be the one calling for mandatory use of real digital signatures for all electronic appraisal reports, regardless of the report format. That would not fulfill some of the personal agendas, but it would help protect appraisers and users of appraisal services.

 

[Bearslide]

If people are honestly concerned about reports being changed, why is so much energy being spent on something that accounts for such a small percentage of appraisal reports, while big issues with the report format that most people actually use go ignored?

First, it remains to be seen how many reports have actually been altered. You and I disagree on that point. Myself, and many others, believe it is a very large number. And I must remind you - this is not just about FNC, Appraisalport and AIReady. It is about ANY 3rd party portal and ANY 3rd party conversion process. There are numerous threads on this forum about altered reports.........too many to be coincidence.

Second, each of us must pick our battles and where we can be the most useful. This happens to be one of the ones I, and others, have chosen.

Third - clarify please - what report format are you referring to?

AIReady accounts for a very small percentage of reports. On the other hand, PDF files account for 90%+ of all residential appraisal reports, and most appraisers unwittingly believe that “locked” PDFs are secure. Anyone who still believes this can send me a locked PDF, and I will send it back to you unlocked just to demonstrate how “secure” it is.

No disagreement there - but PDF's CAN be secured. You have said so yourself.

Appraisers have been lulled into a false sense of security by a large software company that offers no real security. Yet, no one seems to be screaming about that company. Why? In fact, many want to force use of their software.

And another large software company is attempting to do just as much "lulling". It's only QC, dontcha know...........

The petition I would support would be the one calling for mandatory use of real digital signatures for all electronic appraisal reports, regardless of the report format. That would not fulfill some of the personal agendas, but it would help protect appraisers and users of appraisal services.

I'll take you one better. I would 100% support a petition requiring use of real digital signatures applied to reports completed in the appraisers software of choice and delivered directly to the underwriting department of the lender, in pdf format, bypassing any and all 3rd party vendors, portals, AMC's, conversion programs, loan officers or processors. Then, and only then, will the lenders get exactly what was written - and they will have FULL responsibility for it. At that point, if they choose to slice it and dice it - fine - they have the full report, untouched by anyone and they can then do as they please with it. Put that one forth and you will have my complete support. THAT is my personal agenda - that the lender gets exactly what I wrote, how I wrote it, in the software in which I wrote it and in the format I wrote it - with no interference from anyone. I think you will find that is everyone's agenda in this matter.

 

[Workbox]

Yes, we have been force to use software that has given us no security. Correct.