Appraisal Institute Last-minute Shakeup

[RCA]

Another post making its rounds on LinkedIn (bolding mine):


Would you let a volunteer with no direct experience run your $20 million business?

How about a volunteer with no direct experience or no 4-year college degree?

My guess is no.

Two months ago, I published a thought piece about leadership issues at The Appraisal Institute, and now an update. Fourteen months after firing CEO Cindy Chance, the organization still doesn’t have a bonafide CEO. The former CFO, who came from a fractional CFO consulting shop and was promoted to CEO with the understanding it would be an interim appointment, still leads the organization. The CEO search committee, appointed at the time of the firing, still has not made any recommendations.

The AI effectively is being run by the 4-person volunteer committee known as The Executive Committee.

Would it surprise you to know that The AI is projected to lose $2.5 million this year? Or that internally, there have been no reported quarterly financial updates? Or that the 2024 financials have yet to be filed? (My guess is that when the dust finally settles, it will be worse than projected. And how can a CEO trained as a CFO justify the lack of financial reporting?)

Because things are going so well without a real CEO, The AI put out a 45-Day notice to reconsider certain of their by-laws including a provision to downgrade the CEO job to “Executive Director”. This role effectively would become the head of HR, managing the staff. The four volunteers would be making all major business decisions including new business development and membership engagement.

There are rumors The Executive Committee will reappoint as Executive Director a prior CEO (not Cindy) who presided over the mess that led us to where we are now. Because the title won’t be CEO, they won’t need the blessing of a search committee or Board approval.

Does anyone want to take bets?

I always remember my job teaching math at a German Gymnasium back in 1974-75. I recall a discussion with a group of teachers about considering a new school principal, and several expressed a preference for a less qualified principal, implicitly believing it would give them more freedom to run their own show. But since then, I have seen this many times. The lower-level teachers tend to be more aware of the needs and the problems of their classes than principals; that is, they do a better job left alone. Clearly, if that is not the case, then a strong leader is needed. And who is best to decide here? Often, but not always the teachers, if you have competent teachers. It just so depends on the situation.

As for the AI, well, who is to say? I would guess they can't find any good CEOs around. The appraisal ranks, the MAI and SRAs available, are mostly incompetent look-alikes who, if they think they are capable of leading, are especially dangerous.

How in the frigging hell did they decide on Cindy Chance? She lacks the necessary education and experience. She has that stuffed-doll degree in Philosopy/Policy/Economics from Oxford and Philosopy from Georgetown University. Idiots!

 

[Non Sequitur]

How in the frigging hell did they decide on Cindy Chance? She lacks the necessary education and experience. She has that stuffed-doll degree in Philosopy/Policy/Economics from Oxford and Philosopy from Georgetown University. Idiots!

And despite the stuffed-doll degree she almost immediately identified the years long rot at the insta-toot and spoke out. IMO the stuffed-doll degree is what the insta-toot needed.

 

[RCA]

And despite the stuffed-doll degree she almost immediately identified the years long rot at the insta-toot and spoke out. IMO the stuffed-doll degree is what the insta-toot needed.

And, it was not that difficult to identify. Cindy was pushing ETHICS because that was the only thing her degree was good for. Ethics is not the problem. The problems are deeply rooted technical issues, dating back decades. The appraisal profession is primarily an inertia-laden system, extending from TAF and banking institutions to the lowest-level appraisers and outward to the GSEs. To do anything, you really need a leader who has DETAIL KNOWLEDGE of the system and who is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and who is AGGRESSIVE and WHO IS MOTIVATED TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM for the good of the American public.

 

[alebrewer]

Ethics (or lack thereof) is the root of most problems.

 

[RCA]

I'll give you a very good example.

One BIG thing that is needed now is that someone needs to go to the top universities and tell them we need courses for valuation engineers who know this and know that and that and that ..... And somehow get the funding for new educational courses.

That takes a very talented, knowledgeable, and experienced individual with a Trump-like character to get it done, to push it through. That is the first, most important requirement. Find someone who can even talk to Stanford or UC Berkeley and is also able to get the funding—big job. And the AI is currently not even close to doing anything like this. They, if they had to, would likely find some dumb Ph.D. from a lower state or private university - and they would fall flat.

Now, if CC tried that, she would screw it up. She simply lacks the detailed technical knowledge and experience.

 

[chad hampton]

Ethics is a major issues with the high ups and “leaders” in this profession. They have been corrupted in a lot of cases unfortunately. Money will do that, I get it. As an outsider, she identified that immediately. Her comments about the same people being shuffled around from job to job makes it confusing to know what role your playing was about the most accurate statement I’ve ever read concerning this profession.

When you have people that work for state boards, then they run AMCs, then they go play or a role at TAF, then head up AI, then go work for an AMC again, then go to govt, you’ve worn too many hats. You have no idea what’s going on at that point. And you’re easily corrupted.