Anonymous Complaints

[Restrain]

Texas won't accept an anonymous complaint because of the problems with one appraiser trying to hassel another. It ties up the state's time as well as creates a nuisance problem for the appraiser being cited. Texas now has a rule that if it appears that an appraiser is using the system just to hassel another appraiser, they'll go back after the complaining appraiser for ethics issues.

ROger

 

[David C. Johnson]

George wrote:

"For the record, California requires
complaints be signed and notarized."

Same with the North Carolina State Bar.

Anonymous complaints are not a good idea for the NC Appraisal Board as the board has repeatedly demonstrated that they do not know the difference between sound appraisal practice and very poor appraisal practice -- up to and including fraud. This situation has been documented right on this forum several times over the years.

The problem with anonymous complaints is this:

If an unscrupulous appraiser wanted to "safely" ruin a competitor, they could merely turn an example of the competitor's exemplary work anonymously -- particularly if they knew it contained a "a hot button issue" where our board has erroneously ruled in the past.

Also, the anonymous compliant provides a means for unscrupulous board members themselves to further their original reason for having purchased positions on the board in the first place. Now they could even more conveniently weed out their competition.

Very good appraisers always have more to fear from the current NCAB.

Legitimate complaints -- anonymous or not -- against their own work or their friend's work are probably trashed on receipt or after a bogus "initial investigation." We have seen this happen before -- prior to their being able to hide the evidence of it as Tom mentioned in another thread.

dcj

 

[Rob Bodkin]

I agree with the bulk of the posters. I think anonymous complaints should get the round file. If in my professional opinion I think a report merits the attention of the state then I should be willing to be identified as the one who instigated the process. It would help to keep frivolous and competition inspired complaints down.

I should have a right to know who my accuser is. I understand the concept of the board becoming the accuser when investigating a report, but that does not dampen my opposition to anonymous complaints.

 

[Don Clark]

B) I think anonymous complaints are a cowards way of saying "Sic Um" to a regulatory body. I they don't have the guts to make a complaint in their own name then the complaint is probably weak to start with. Also, they get no feed back onhow the complaint was handled. Unfortunately in my state of Virginia the appraisal board must accept anonymous complaints whether they like it or not. Our board falls under the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation. The board is one of about 50 boards under that department. It is the policy of DOPR that anonymous complaints be accepted.

 

[George Hatch]

"Consider the source."

 

[Mike Simpson]

I'm taking the "Yes" side, although I've never done this. The only time I've been forced to take an appraiser to task I've signed my name to the complaint.

However,

"The other side of the coin is that a professional should have the right to face his accuser."

I disagree. Some of the stuff I've seen would lead one to assume that the person in question could not possibly be considered a "professional."

I feel many criminals in this country are making a mockery out of the system. Right to face their accuser? What if they're dangerous? What if facing their accuser could get the accuser hurt--maybe badly? Or maybe the accusee could, and would hurt someone the accuser loved.

If there's overwhelming evidence submitted that indicates someone is a danger to our financial systems--that evidence should be considered.

-Mike

 

[David C. Johnson]

There's some risk in being an a worthy American, isn't there, Mike? We sure all understand that. However, you mitigate the risk to everyone when you do your duty; you magnify the risk to all others when don't. Go ahead and step up to the plate, Mike. Actually it never was free to live in the land of the free...

Hopefully you will be happy to hear that my "non-vote" (since it doesn't actually appear in the official polling) effectively cancels yours out. You see, I was interested in reading some responses in the thread prior to voting to maybe make an even more informed vote, so I "abstained temporarily" to read the thread; however, unbeknownst to me, the act of entering the thread without voting first nullified my ability to vote.

I'm starting to have all the more sympathy for "attempted voters" in the State of Florida in 2000. Voting there is another place where you better read the "fine print" and understand the term "counterintuitive" real well.

However, as the Florida Supreme Court* wisely and most honorably maintained -- and also per Florida State Law -- it is the Voter's Intent that is of importance -- so if it turns out to be a close one you'll know which side actually prevailed, right?

dcj
___________

* Yes, I read the book "The Betrayal of America -- How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President" by Vincent Bugliosi, and am part way through "Supreme Injustice -- How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000" by Alan M. Dershowitz.

 

[Mike Simpson]

"Go ahead and step up to the plate, Mike."

No thanks...they're throwing high and inside

 

[David C. Johnson]

You know better than that.

dcj

 

[George Hatch]

Fear of personality conflict might actually make for a better complaint. There's more incentive to focus on the report rather than the individual. Besides, if anybody asks we can always say we had no way of knowing if the signatory was even involved with the appraisal - maybe somebody else appropriated their name and sig.