Appraisal Institute Controversy

[djd09]

so....what do they do with all that sponsor money...round trips from 15th st to sunny san diego

 

[George Hatch]

I dunno what TAF was doing with the measly $45k/year. They *might* have used that money to offset their own administrative costs involved. Maybe some of the money went to their photocopy or mailing costs or renting a meeting room a couple times a year. I don't know what the answer is.

I do know that the number of AQB members +ASB members is greater than the number of Sponsors. Or Partners. That's how little money the $3500/yr amounts to when you're going to allege 100% of the $3500 is being used strictly for the purposes of bribery and corruption to get AMC-biased results in the appraisal standards and appraiser qualifications actions.

Did I mention that it is the appraisal orgs that is being accused by some of these underinformed asshats of bribing TAF? Even when adding REVAA to the $0/yr Partner program they still only have a 1/16th vote in any outcome.

Have you ever even thought through any of these accusations prior to making them? Or do you just trust Baggott to know what he's talking about?

 

[djd09]

they could of gave it to some sucker appraiser trainee...and just got it back when they sold them the book and made them take the class

 

[RCA]

Unhinged from reality. More "pipe" dreams?

 

[Tiffany Gibbons]

Like I said, TAF would have had to have saved 100% of the "sponsor" fees for 12 or 13 years to come up with enough to pay off the Relman Colfax shakedown. The math doesn't otherwise support your conclusion that the sponsor fees amounted to enough to purchase a result. Which result you have yet to identify. Not to mention the point that the recent revision only amounts to an elaboration on the existing prohibition against personal bias; it doesn't create or add any new elements to those prohibitions.

I know that a lot of people engage with the idea that racial bias is somehow more professionally unethical than any other form of personal bias, except that it isn't. Personal bias is bias and directly conflicts with our professional requirements to act in an impartial and objective manner. Independent of the existing prohibitions in the Civil Rights Act and related state and federal legislation dating back to the 1960s, USPAP and at least a couple of its predecessor codes of conduct at the professional orgs have also required appraisers to act objectively and impartially. All licensees came under direct regulation for that at the state level with the inception of licensing 30+ years ago.

The costuming enhancements haven't added anything new to the IRL requirements of our role as appraisers.

And here you are, sponsoring TAF for free!

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not doing one thing that the Sponsors (or Partners) are/were doing when they are operating in that function.

I teach. That's what I do. Thousands of hours in front of roomfuls of my peers who can/will scorch me in real time when I get something incorrect. Same as will happen here. I didn't teach just USPAP or the Laws/Regs course, but more than a dozen QE anc CE courses others, too. I was doing this before I even came to this forum. So when I bring up screenshots from the source which correct someone else's misunderstanding that isn't even a form of advocacy so much as being a form of instruction. When I explain how and why something came about that is also a form of instruction rather than advocacy. The fact that I also agree with some (but not all) of these evolutions doesn't make me some undercover shill. It just means I actually agree. Or disagree, as the case may be.

Now I definitely do advocate certain opinions, one being that problem identification comes first. Especially when attempting a fix or remediation. You and others have concluded that just because I have noted the conduct of the lenders and the AMCs and the appraisers and how those elements have come to be that it makes me an advocate for the status quo. Which WRT the AMC situation I most definitely am not. I have even said so directly, but some of you just blow right past that, apparently on the basis of you thinking I am lying about how I feel about your fees and how these lenders and AMCs are operating. I've only been saying these same things all along since I first joined this forum but apparently none of that registers.

If you think the $45k/yr that the Sponsors were previously paying was enough to purchase an outcome in USPAP and Appraiser Qualifications then that's your prerogative. I'm just asking if you are aware of any specific example of an outcome *at TAF* that could be attributed to pay-for-play. So far everyone is ducking that question for lack of any response which doesn't consist of all pathos and no logos. .
-----------------
You got paid for that appraisal you performed. Money was exchanged. Does that mean we should assume your conclusion was biased in favor of the party who cut that check? Of course not. It's a stupid mode of reasoning to assume that just because there was a payment that it purchased a biased outcome. It would be stupid for someone to assume that just because you got paid proves that you lied on behalf of one party in order to cheat another party on the undisclosed basis.

You have paid membership dues to appraisal orgs in exchange for participating. Did your payments "bribe" those orgs to do anything they wouldn't have otherwise done on their own and per their own actual policies? (even when not in sync with their assertions). Doubtful. Highly doubtful. You paid dues to participate, not to purchase a change in their policies. They took your money in large part to offset their costs in providing their programs to their members.

 

[Tiffany Gibbons]

I'm not doing one thing that the Sponsors (or Partners) are/were doing when they are operating in that function.

I teach. That's what I do. Thousands of hours in front of roomfuls of my peers who can/will scorch me in real time when I get something incorrect. Same as will happen here. I didn't teach just USPAP or the Laws/Regs course, but more than a dozen QE anc CE courses others, too. I was doing this before I even came to this forum. So when I bring up screenshots from the source which correct someone else's misunderstanding that isn't even a form of advocacy so much as being a form of instruction. When I explain how and why something came about that is also a form of instruction rather than advocacy. The fact that I also agree with some (but not all) of these evolutions doesn't make me some undercover shill. It just means I actually agree. Or disagree, as the case may be.

Now I definitely do advocate certain opinions, one being that problem identification comes first. Especially when attempting a fix or remediation. You and others have concluded that just because I have noted the conduct of the lenders and the AMCs and the appraisers and how those elements have come to be that it makes me an advocate for the status quo. Which WRT the AMC situation I most definitely am not. I have even said so directly, but some of you just blow right past that, apparently on the basis of you thinking I am lying about how I feel about your fees and how these lenders and AMCs are operating. I've only been saying these same things all along since I first joined this forum but apparently none of that registers.

If you think the $45k/yr that the Sponsors were previously paying was enough to purchase an outcome in USPAP and Appraiser Qualifications then that's your prerogative. I'm just asking if you are aware of any specific example of an outcome *at TAF* that could be attributed to pay-for-play. So far everyone is ducking that question for lack of any response which doesn't consist of all pathos and no logos. .
-----------------
You got paid for that appraisal you performed. Money was exchanged. Does that mean we should assume your conclusion was biased in favor of the party who cut that check? Of course not. It's a stupid mode of reasoning to assume that just because there was a payment that it purchased a biased outcome. It would be stupid for someone to assume that just because you got paid proves that you lied on behalf of one party in order to cheat another party on the undisclosed basis.

You have paid membership dues to appraisal orgs in exchange for participating. Did your payments "bribe" those orgs to do anything they wouldn't have otherwise done on their own and per their own actual policies? (even when not in sync with their assertions). Doubtful. Highly doubtful. You paid dues to participate, not to purchase a change in their policies. They took your money in large part to offset their costs in providing their programs to their members.

But you haven't been a member of AI past or present, and do not plan to join AI, so how come you know more than appraisers who have been members of the organization? I think you are stretching your coverage here. You are not an AI instructor, you're not into Cindy Chance with her defense of appraisers, so what are you teaching here.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not talking about the AI or Cindy Chance. I'm not asking anyone about the AI or Cindy Chance. I'm not challenging anyone's opinion of the AI or Cindy Chance. I did make a crack about people coming to conclusions about why she was fired when the facts have yet to come out, but one reason I commented on that is because "jumping to conclusions prior to the facts coming out" has practically become a full time hobby for some people.

A couple members here have repeatedly complained about the internal politics at the AI. I always stay out of those discussions because they have nothing to do with me.

 

[RCA]

Some people have blind spots. They may not know explicitly that they can't see a problem, in which case you accuse them of being apologists. But you never know. So, you are excused to take EXTREME ACTION to make them see the light of day. If they still can't you may come to the conclusion they are indeed apologists for said given organization or cause. You may if you you believe it is reasonable to assume that any sane person would begin to understand issues if large type, bold face, underlined with extreme supporting advice and logic is applied. But, then again you many also have a blind spot in not seeing your own failures at presenting cogent arguments. Or, you may be right, they may simply be advocates for some cause, covering their mistakes, protecting their reputation or whatever.

-- We are left with the friction and heat of discourse, and if we get tired of it we can drop the proverbial atom bomb - well, if you can find one. Make sure to embed a good picture of some appropriately sized atomic or thermonuclear weapon exploding.

The monster atomic bomb that was too big to use

In 1961, the Soviet Union tested a nuclear bomb so powerful that it would have been too big to use in war. And it had far-reaching effects of a very different kind.

www.bbc.com

 

[djd09]

And here you are, sponsoring TAF for free!