Francois K. Gregoire
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Florida
Austin and Others,
Withour commenting on the amount of money generated by actions of the Appraiser Qualifications Board, the Appraisal Standards Board and the Appraisal Foundation, there is a legitimate concern about the propriety of a non-government, Standards Writing body manipulating standards and criteria in such a way so as to assure a financial benefit to them or their parent organization (The Appraisal Foundation). Some state regulatory boards have concerns with this, as do other organizations.
Below are excerpts from a comment letter on the AQB Fourth Exposure Draft on Revising the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria sent by the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board in May, 2003.
---------------------------------
ISSUE: 15-Hour National USPAP Course versus 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course
POSITION: As long as the Appraisal Standards Board continues to make regular changes to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, mandatory continuing education in this area is wise. If licensees choose to fulfill their continuing education obligation with the longer course, it should be considered to be an acceptable substitute. Although we recognize the difference in the offerings, and what the Appraiser Qualifications Board is attempting to accomplish with the distinction, please reconsider your logic and recognize the realities of the marketplace and universe of licensed and certified appraisers.
With respect to the requirement of the 15-Hour National USPAP Course and the requirement to include at least one AQB Certified Instructor, we suggest there is, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. The AQB should not mandate criteria which may provide, or gives the appearance of providing, a financial or other benefit to the AQB and/or The Appraisal Foundation.
Although the AQB permits a course equivalent to the National USPAP Course and the National USPAP Update Course, equivalency is determined solely by the AQB. We believe equivalency should also be determined by an impartial review body, state regulatory agency or disinterested organization. There must be a method to appeal decisions or rejections by the AQB. Many, if not most states have been delegated the authority to review and approve courses by their state legislatures.
ISSUE: AQB Meetings
POSITION: Once again, we suggest you may also wish to open up all your meetings to public attendance and scrutiny. Decisions made in meetings behind closed doors do not garner support from board members and legislators accustomed to “government in the sunshine”. According to responses from regulatory jurisdictions detailed in the recently released GAO Report mentioned above, this is a widely held view.
ISSUE: Minimum Educational Offering - 15 Hours and Closed Book Examination
POSITION: What is the educational objective? How has it been determined that only courses of a minimum length are sufficient for qualifying education? Why must the examination be closed book? It appears as though the AQB is delving too deep into the specifics of qualifying education. Without rationale and convincing supporting data, it is impossible to support this proposal.
ISSUE: USPAP Retakes not Repetitive
POSITION: With all due respect, just because the AQB believes this does not make it so. From a purely personal perspective, my recent completion of the newly developed 7 Hour AQB Developed National USPAP Course was, in fact, repetitive. New material, at most, comprised 50% of the offering.
Leave it to the states to make this determination.
------------------------------------
Since the Third Exposure Draft, the 2002 Annual Report of the Appraisal Subcommittee has been released. Consistent with the 1998, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports of the Appraisal Subcommittee to the United States Congress, the 2002 Annual Report fails to mention any allegation the current Appraiser Qualification Criteria is insufficient or inadequate. For at least four years, the Appraisal Subcommittee has not raised the issue of an inadequate or ineffective Appraiser Qualification Criteria in their reports to Congress. Despite the AQB’s attempts to provide rationale in the Fourth Exposure Draft, questions remain about the impetus and reasoning for the dramatic increases in the Appraiser Qualification criteria proposed by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. If problems with the current criteria are one of the root problems with the appraisal regulatory structure in place, why has not the Appraisal Subcommittee made the disclosure to Congress?
Another significant report, Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of the Real Estate Appraisal Industry, has been released by the General Accounting Office subsequent to the AQB’s Third Exposure Draft. Although the issue of Appraiser Qualifications was not part of their charge, the GAO examined many of the nooks and crannies of the Appraiser Regulatory Structure and conducted dozens of interviews with participants representing the entire spectrum of ideas and points of view. There does not appear to be any recommendation or suggestion made by the GAO in their report the current Appraiser Qualification Criteria is inadequate, dated or in need of enhancement.
-----------------------------------------------------
There is no question of the need for more stringent oversight and review of the actions of the Appraiser Qualifications Board.
Withour commenting on the amount of money generated by actions of the Appraiser Qualifications Board, the Appraisal Standards Board and the Appraisal Foundation, there is a legitimate concern about the propriety of a non-government, Standards Writing body manipulating standards and criteria in such a way so as to assure a financial benefit to them or their parent organization (The Appraisal Foundation). Some state regulatory boards have concerns with this, as do other organizations.
Below are excerpts from a comment letter on the AQB Fourth Exposure Draft on Revising the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria sent by the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board in May, 2003.
---------------------------------
ISSUE: 15-Hour National USPAP Course versus 7-Hour National USPAP Update Course
POSITION: As long as the Appraisal Standards Board continues to make regular changes to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, mandatory continuing education in this area is wise. If licensees choose to fulfill their continuing education obligation with the longer course, it should be considered to be an acceptable substitute. Although we recognize the difference in the offerings, and what the Appraiser Qualifications Board is attempting to accomplish with the distinction, please reconsider your logic and recognize the realities of the marketplace and universe of licensed and certified appraisers.
With respect to the requirement of the 15-Hour National USPAP Course and the requirement to include at least one AQB Certified Instructor, we suggest there is, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. The AQB should not mandate criteria which may provide, or gives the appearance of providing, a financial or other benefit to the AQB and/or The Appraisal Foundation.
Although the AQB permits a course equivalent to the National USPAP Course and the National USPAP Update Course, equivalency is determined solely by the AQB. We believe equivalency should also be determined by an impartial review body, state regulatory agency or disinterested organization. There must be a method to appeal decisions or rejections by the AQB. Many, if not most states have been delegated the authority to review and approve courses by their state legislatures.
ISSUE: AQB Meetings
POSITION: Once again, we suggest you may also wish to open up all your meetings to public attendance and scrutiny. Decisions made in meetings behind closed doors do not garner support from board members and legislators accustomed to “government in the sunshine”. According to responses from regulatory jurisdictions detailed in the recently released GAO Report mentioned above, this is a widely held view.
ISSUE: Minimum Educational Offering - 15 Hours and Closed Book Examination
POSITION: What is the educational objective? How has it been determined that only courses of a minimum length are sufficient for qualifying education? Why must the examination be closed book? It appears as though the AQB is delving too deep into the specifics of qualifying education. Without rationale and convincing supporting data, it is impossible to support this proposal.
ISSUE: USPAP Retakes not Repetitive
POSITION: With all due respect, just because the AQB believes this does not make it so. From a purely personal perspective, my recent completion of the newly developed 7 Hour AQB Developed National USPAP Course was, in fact, repetitive. New material, at most, comprised 50% of the offering.
Leave it to the states to make this determination.
------------------------------------
Since the Third Exposure Draft, the 2002 Annual Report of the Appraisal Subcommittee has been released. Consistent with the 1998, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports of the Appraisal Subcommittee to the United States Congress, the 2002 Annual Report fails to mention any allegation the current Appraiser Qualification Criteria is insufficient or inadequate. For at least four years, the Appraisal Subcommittee has not raised the issue of an inadequate or ineffective Appraiser Qualification Criteria in their reports to Congress. Despite the AQB’s attempts to provide rationale in the Fourth Exposure Draft, questions remain about the impetus and reasoning for the dramatic increases in the Appraiser Qualification criteria proposed by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. If problems with the current criteria are one of the root problems with the appraisal regulatory structure in place, why has not the Appraisal Subcommittee made the disclosure to Congress?
Another significant report, Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of the Real Estate Appraisal Industry, has been released by the General Accounting Office subsequent to the AQB’s Third Exposure Draft. Although the issue of Appraiser Qualifications was not part of their charge, the GAO examined many of the nooks and crannies of the Appraiser Regulatory Structure and conducted dozens of interviews with participants representing the entire spectrum of ideas and points of view. There does not appear to be any recommendation or suggestion made by the GAO in their report the current Appraiser Qualification Criteria is inadequate, dated or in need of enhancement.
-----------------------------------------------------
There is no question of the need for more stringent oversight and review of the actions of the Appraiser Qualifications Board.
.
