FAIR Fee Apprasiers Involved in Regulation

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

God bless you Wayne and thanks to everyone else who has pledged support. Wayne, please give us a day or two to figure out who will be monitor. David Smith said he could help with some of it but he is monitoring an other group and I do not want to over load him. He has been more the generous in offering help and lending his experience at this point and of course Wayne said he is available for questions. I am asking for volunteers at this point.

So far this is what we have. This is not, by any means, written in stone. At least at this early point. To all, feel free to jump in and word smith any of this. Feel free to add to it if you like. Austin, I was hoping you would focus on this.

Our tentative mission is as follows:

"We are devoted to maintaining fair and just appraisal laws and regulatory practice nation wide to assure appraisers and in turn the public, are receiving equal protection."

Our tentative constitution is as follows:

"We the people of F.A.I.R believe all licenced appraisers deserve fair protection under nationally defined standards of USPAP.

We believe all regulatory bodies should be held accountable to these same standards.

We believe enforcement and investigators must understand circumstances under which an appraisal has been developed and reported.

We believe appraisals should be judged within the context of there identified purpose, intended use and intended users as stated within reports.

We believe this process need not be adversarial in nature, and indeed, should not automatically be confrontational.

We believe litigation is not a front line of defense and should be reserve as a last resort, when all other measures have failed.

We define such failure as when an appraiser's personal and professional rights are being usurped, particularly as a result of incompetent and/or vindictive enforcement activities by a state board.

We believe USPAP to be applicable to the nation's appraisers and a final authority so as to maintain continuity of standards throughout the country"

Again, comments on the above will be well received. I am open to all input on this second day of meetings.

I am going to the bank at 1:00 and will stop at the post office today to try and get a P.O. box. Sometimes there is a waiting list and it may take a week or two until we can get a box. Until than, I will say it again, send checks to Steve Vertin, 1129 North Marion, Oak Park, Illinois 60302. Make checks payable to F.A.I.R.

Steve Vertin

 

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

I recieved this e-mail a short time ago.

Hi, Stephen,

I'm editor of a new industry biweekly called Appraisal Intelligence, the first print issue of which launches May 13. Our website is live as of this week - appraisalintelligence.com; there, there will be daily industry news, print subscriber content, and other features.

I emailed Tom this morning but he's understandably otherwise occupied and suggested I contact you. I would very much like to cover your new organization in the newsletter. If there is any additional information beyond what's posted on Wayne's site, and especially if you'd be kind enough to let me interview you (email or by phone, whichever you prefer), I would like to run a story about the formation of FAIR, either in the first print issue or second, May 27.

We'll be aggressively marketing the publication through a partnership with a la mode (though we're not affiliated; they get advertising in exchange), as well as direct mailings and emails and Appraisal Buzz and all that. So I believe this to be a great opportunity to reach a broad audience in the industry.

Good luck, and please let me know!

 

[Farm Gal]

Steve and all:

Can someone clairfy for me if this organization, (by whatever name it ends up) will qualify as a 'professional organization' such that by inserting in ones report "may be subject to review by professional organizations to which the appriaser belongs", the individal apppriasers seeking appeal from OUR organization are not in violation if submitting a copy of the actual workfile?

Should this be addressed in any constitution?

Regards,
Lee Ann

 

[Austin]

Steve: I am snowed at the moment but will be delighted to help on the constitution and any other way I can. I just wanted to make one comment on your above post regarding the constitution for FAIR as you outlined above.
In my mind, what you stated as being the constitution is not in any way a constitution, it is a statement of the founding principles as I addressed in my post yesterday. A constitution is a document setting up the basic structure of the government with the basic by-laws and government principles. It is a terrible mistake to try and mix founding principles with the constitution. I say this from experience, because in the future there is also some person of devious intent that knows you can amend the constitution but can’t amend the found principles, so they attempt to amend the founding principles by amending the constitution or writing policy into the constitution. It can’t be done, to wit: the state of this nation.
My free advice, take it for what it is worth, is at this point set up a web room on this board and get input and agreement on the statement of founding principles. Once that is established, elect an interim Chairman and hold an election to select a committee to write a constitution and establish a government. Then hold elections to fill the offices.
My idea of this thing is an electronic organization open to all appraisers but with only paying members having the privilege to vote.

One other idea, and I say this for legal reasons, is to just be a free association based on the statement of founding principle with no general membership, just on a whomever wants to participate basis with a moderator. You can’t sue a smoke screen. There are lots of legal complications involved when you have a corporate structure but these problems can be avoided this way. No deep pockets, no law suit so to speak. No legal fees or taxes either.

 

[David C. Johnson]

<span style='color:darkblue'>Steve:

Here are some tentative observations and comments. "[Bracketed text]" is intended to be considered for actual modifications / additions to existing proposed text, or conceptually as the basis for such a change perhaps. The second "suggestion" is for the inclusion of a new line of text, so those lines it would appear between in the document are included for reference:

"We believe enforcement and investigators must understand [all stipulated / contractual] circumstances under which an appraisal has been developed and reported."
____________________

"We believe this process need not be adversarial in nature, and indeed, should not automatically be confrontational."

[specific statement regarding Probable Cause inserted here]

"We believe litigation is not a front line of defense and should be reserve as a last resort, when all other measures have failed"
___________________

Lee Ann:

Interesting / Good thoughts about the addition of text to reports regarding the organization. It brings up other associated consideration as well.

By the way, what do you think about the name, "FAIR." No doubt the acronym is great (if not already in use otherwise -- as every name/title is these days...), and should serve very well for the organization. A minor reservation of mine is that I have never been 100% comfortable about the term "Fee Appraiser." In an AI class years ago, we did a classroom poll and found that many of the appraisers who previously (that day) had identified themselves as "fee appraisers" in their brief, standup, impromptu, "get-to-know-me autobiography" at the start of the class were not exactly sure what the term meant. For instance (as you are likely aware), No, it does not imply that we "work for a fee," though most of us do. The next 20 years explaining the derivation of "fee" in the name of the organization will be inherent to its use for all members. Well, that's not so bad I guess...
__________________

Austin:

The finest Mission Statement I have ever read is the one of / by the Georgia Real Estate Appraisal Board, and is found on their website. I am a little pushed for time myself, but will either link to it or quote from it later on, probably today. Man, it gets right to the point in no uncertain language for such an appraisal board. FYI, the NCAB never had one for years until this was pointed out on Boardwatch or one of my posts to this forum. One miraculously appeared (near the last of last year) -- reading a bit like it could have been written by the author of OBRE's recent proposed legislation -- in a fairly recent issue of the NCAB newsletter. I will print it (or link to it, if it is online at their website) for contrast between the two documents in the next few days.

You have some interesting comments about structure, protocol and rationale, and distinction between document types, Austin. I have no doubt you have been through similar or analogous / homologous exercises with initiating organizations in the past. Good to have you on board.
___________________

Will:

I am glad you are backsliding. Welcome back.
___________________

Wayne:

You wrote one of your few essays / posts a few weeks ago relevant to the creation of a new organization. It was meaningful and well-thought-out in my opinion. I would ask that when you get the opportunity that you consider posting a link to it in this thread.

Never mind...

http://appraisersforum.com/forums/viewtopi...der=ASC&start=0

(arrow down to find two such posts in this thread)
___________________

Bill Sentner:

FYI, I intend to join the AGA (American Guild of Appraisers OPEIU AFL-CIO). I believe you have made good arguments for months. Thanks.
___________________

Bob Ipock:

Where have you been hiding? Get to High Point tomorrow if you can for Hildebrandt's testimony and Vance Kinlaw's closing arguments. Your pervious "recommendation" to the NCAB for the Administrative Law Judge is much appreciated by many in this state (even the ones who don't, and never will, know anything about the situation), and it may have made a difference. I like your friend, appraiser Allan Betty (sp?) -- I hope to see him too. You Charlotte / Gastonia guys are not as bad as they say (i.e., well, as I say) you are (well, excepting Will, of course).
___________________

Thanks, Steve, for your continuing efforts!
_____

dcj</span>

 

[Farm Gal]

David:

The floor is open! I made some alternative name suggestions, which upon later reflection even I didn't like and so removed. FAIR isn't likely to fly.

Interesting point re: the number of self-proclaimed 'fee' appraisers that know not why they call themselves by that nomiker... Me, I am a simple residential gal and 99.9% of our assignments are 'fee simple' I assume that it is to this that you adress the comment? So it was 'splained to me many years ago...

I am in accord with structuring this group with voting and non-voting members... It appears that Wayne is willing to host it and as I understand the parameters of the new forum would permit not only members only viewing, but also executive sessions and 'invitee only' gatherings for processing of officail docs...

Thanks for your efforts toward cleaning up this profession and for noticing my concern about structuring as a professional org.

 

[Stephen J. Vertin MAI]

Austin, I like how you have compartmentalized what you term "founding principles" and the constitution. Furthermore, I like the term founding principles. And I like the concept they are unchanging. This is what we had in mind. Furthermore, Wayne has already offered a user group. Since no one has volunteered to monitor the group I will talk to Wayne to find out how it works and take the job. That way we can leave the principles up for awhile. However, I think they should be brief and as succinct as possible. Again, the Board will have the final say on content. After completion we can post on the general forum. Currently, the interim Chairman is me. The committee to write the constitution will be the Board. That is Tom, George and me. It will take awhile to write but I hope to hold elections to fill the offices sometime in May or June. Only members will be allowed to vote.

I also want to write into the founding principles they are unchangeable. I would like to put a mechanism in place to assure this thing stays on course. Possibly, Tom and I, as founders, would be written in as "final say"preservationist. If there is a disagreement between us we have an arbitrator. But that maybe better written into the constitution and stated as an appointment. I want to keep this organization as true to its funding principles as humanly possible and not loose sight of its purpose. I think the only way we can do this is be our own organization. There is to much bad blood in our industry, people are mad at this organization and that organization. We need a fresh start.

We do not expect to need a lot of money at first. Most would go for membership drive at first. A case, depending where you are in the country can cost $5,000 to $50,000. Again, these cost expenditures are last resort spending. We have a lot of experience with Boards in this group and the lessons we have learned can save thousands in cost alone. I believe, as George has pointed out, the vast majority of Boards are doing their jobs properly. I am of the opinion, if we have one case every year or two we are doing good. We only need a couple thousand members (at $25.00 annually) to support this type system. If more join, more power obviously, to influence our founding principles. I think in order to do this we have to have a fresh, new, organization without affiliation. Our function is very specific. To bring equity and justice to a struggling regulation system were problems and inequity exist in some areas of the country.

Lee Ann, I liked some of your suggestions for names, but the PO box application and bank account already have F.A.I.R. as our name. Even though David has indicated the term was not originally used for appraisers working for a "fee" he rightly pointed out most consider the term to mean so. I think the more important issue is to focus on what we are about at this stage. I will be posting in the next 24 hours as to our new user group and how it works.

Steve Vertin

 

[David C. Johnson]

<span style='color:darkblue'>Forum:

I mentioned Mission Statements in my last post -- specifically Georgia's and North Carolina's since FAIR will probably be writing one soon. Both are linked here in this post. Georgia's has been up for years. It is good work. My guess is that someone from the NCAB read a few including Georgia's (of which they should have just asked for permission to plagiarize in its entirety) and then wrote their own.

I am going to recite the text for the GREAB's Mission / Purpose Statement in this post as well as cite the URL. Here are both:

http://www2.state.ga.us/grec/greab/greabab...eabpurpose.html


PURPOSE OF THE BOARD

The Georgia Real Estate Appraisers Board administers the Real Estate Appraiser Licensing and Certification Act (Appraisal Act). This act regulates the actions of real estate appraisers in their business dealings with the public. Generally, the act requires appraisers to meet certain standards in order to conduct business and prohibits a wide variety of unfair trade practices.

As a regulatory body, the role of the Board is not to protect the industry or profession which it regulates nor to protect consumers. It is not the role of regulators to be advocates for either a profession or consumers. Instead, the role of regulators is to protect the public interest.

Protecting the public interest means assuring each and every individual's right to justice and equal opportunity. Regulators protect the public interest when they deny the right to practice to the incompetent and unscrupulous. Regulators protect the public interest when they eliminate barriers that unreasonably limit entry into a field of practice. Regulators protect the public interest when they refuse to use licensing or registration laws to settle private disputes. Regulators protect the public interest when they refuse to use licensing or registration laws to advance the interest of private trade associations. Regulators protect the public interest when they encourage free and open markets. Therefore, the public interest demands that regulators use their best efforts to achieve impartiality.
____________________________

The NCAB's equivalent can be found at:

http://ncappraisalboard.org/bulletins/fall00.pdf

Comments:

You will see the following text:

"Continuing education is also required to assure that
trainees and appraisers have current knowledge of the
profession."

This "current knowledge" requirement apparently does not necessarily apply to board members themselves (it does not). This is because thoes who are to enforce current appraisal knowledge have no use for it themselves. They sure prove this on a regular basis during the performance of their duty. Some there take their ignorance quite seriously.

Also, you will see:

"Appraisers, among others, have trade organizations to
bring their concerns to the forefront."

Translation:
"We are uninterested in hearing from you and we sure do
not have to respond -- absolutely forget about trying to get
us to do our job, let alone improve. The majority of your
trade organizations have never gotten involved in what we
get away with here, and that is just how we like it. We
rather like your appraisal organizations. They're reason-
able people."

But here is my favorite:

"Certainly, appraisers are members of the public that licensing
boards are designed to protect. Public protection includes
the concerns of all, even though those concerns may be in
conflict with each other"

Translation:

"OK, sure we rip-off the public and NC appraisers anytime we get the notion, but that's fun. Remember, we are part of the public too, and we like to have fun; so, yes, conflicts arise, but they're really no big problem: We have fun."
_________________________________

I am trying hard not to start critiquing the NCAB's entire newsletter. Much of it is stategically-written propaganda that is just well disguised enough to likely fool the un-NCAB-initiated. I will deviate to the extent of mentioning that you will see photographs of two staff members on the front page: Donald Rodgers, Investigator; and Kim Giannattasio, Administrative Assistant. Regardless of the environment, several of us have hope for both of these employees.

If you do decide to read the newsletter and get to the:

"DUE PROCESS - THE RIGHT OF EVERY LICENSEE -
What is Due Process?"

...then also consider going to the following URL to get another opinion on the matter, if you have not done so already:

www.boardwatch.org/htmfiles/probablecause.htm

______________________________

PS. Steve, I believe you have assembled an excellent team of George Hatch, Tom Hildebrandt and yourself. If I am not mistaken, both George and Tom are ASC-Certified USPAP Instructors, which can't hurt. Tom has an unusually keen legal mind as well, and all three of you are well-respected appraiser-related commentators on this forum. Keeping it small is smart too. Regard any suggestions of mine, and those of most other participants,' as "brainstorming" only rather than actual request or even as suggestions -- too many cooks spoil the broth. That our Continental Congress formed itself and actually got things done has always struck me as incredible -- but then, I do know of a few documented incidences that were amazing, but also understandable considering the task at hand.

Regards,

David C. Johnson</span>

 

[Leon Stewart]

Since many of the Members of the New Organization (FAIR) will also be members of existing Appraisal Organizations, how will they be able to reconcile any conflicting objectives.

Some post on this Forum recently indicated that some members of these State Boards are concerned with eliminating appraisers from the Business who are not members of their Organization. So how are the members of FAIR who are also members of these organizations going to be able to deal with this particular issue?

What could happen with the formation of "FAIR" is that you could end up with an Organization where the members would have cross-purposes for their participation. In otherwords everyone would be working against each other.

leon

 

[Austin]

Leon: When a person or organization finds themselves at cross purposes with due process of law, the right of every person to have his/her day in court, and the right for an accused to be represented against a tyrannical state board or some private association with unlimited funds, etc., then it is time for the organization that person is associated with to cease and desist. My concept of FAIR is to let these state boards know: If we jump on little appraiser Judy Doe, we had better have our act together because this FAIR outfit has an army of highly qualified appraisers and standards experts looking over our shoulder with the money and gonads to fry our butts if we don’t do it right. Any appraisal association that has a problem with these basic concepts of justice-who would want to be associated with them anyway? It is called justice and economic and legal equality.

David: I love that Georgia Mission Statement. Sounds like something I would write. They didn’t beat around the bush. I like the part that says, to paraphrase: If you are have a problem with the number the appraiser came up with, that is not our problem, that is between you and the appraiser. I like that kind of straight talk. It has been a long time since we have heard straight talk from our political leaders. It is like a breath of fresh air. That NCAB statement was weak and vague. Georgia's dealt in specifics and NCAB's dealt in generalities.