Is the ASC and TAF Unconstitutional?

[djd09]

NJ lawmakers move on two bills to bar discrimination in real estate appraisals​

The state Senate on Monday approved a pair of bills that are aimed at cutting back on discrimination during property appraisals in New Jersey.

What will the 'Fair Appraisals Act' do?​

Known as the Fair Appraisals Act, the first bill would ban appraisal professionals from discriminating against people based on race, creed, color, national origin or other characteristics during the appraisal process of a residential property.

It would also clarify enforcement of discrimination in housing appraisals, whether that discrimination is shown toward the property buyer or the seller.

The bill, sponsored by state Sens. Nellie Pou and Troy Singleton, also stipulates that professionals who are found to be discriminating would be subject to punishment imposed by the New Jersey State Real Estate Appraiser Board and the Division on Civil Rights. Punishments could range from a suspended appraiser’s license, certification or registration to an order for the holder to make restitution of the cost of the discriminatory appraisal. It would also require the license holder to attend an anti-bias seminar approved by the appraiser board.

NJ lawmakers move on two bills to bar discrimination in real estate appraisals

The state Senate approved a pair of bills that are aimed at cutting back on discrimination during property appraisals in New Jersey.

www.northjersey.com

wouldn't it be a more fitting punishment to cut off the appraisers hands...gouge out their eyeballs...and cut off their tongues...where is the E&O lawyer when you need him....or call relman...

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If you want to know why the ASB is constantly trying to tighten the language up it's because lawyers will do whatever they can to help the offenders to avoid responsibility for their misconduct.

All the states have to do is approve every version of USPAP that comes out. In reality, they should only be able to enforce the last USPAP "by reference" that was approved, and many states did not do so, therefore, are basically governed by the earliest version they did adopt - circa 1992. And if you look, USPAP wandered off the path of departure and limited, restricted, summary, and self-contained, and then slowly left those behind so it is actually closer to the original USPAP than it was in the 1995-2015 period. Catch 22 and touché.'

 

[George Hatch]

Who. Did. What.

The point about this entire topic is that if a state chose to pursue an expedience that occurred at the state legislature. Not TAF. Not the ASC. The ASCs role is to oversee the conduct of state boards in enforcing the state law as those states are required to act per Congress. Oversight of the legislatures which enact the laws or even the content of the law itself is not part of the ASCs mission.

If some of the states have acted "unconstitutionally" that means they didn't have the right to enact whatever state law is the problem. If that's the case then the remediation at at those particular states.

 

[sputnam]

Isn't the question whether under the existing adoption by reference LAW which clearly states that these standards are to be adopted when they change and USPAP is changed every two years and so each state needs to approve those changes every two years. Do they? Not many states do.

Maybe. I think it would depend on how the enabling legislation in the state was worded. They could easily have written the law in a way that adopts USPAP by reference and requires compliance with whichever version is current.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I think it would depend on how the enabling legislation in the state was worded.

It is actually in the legislation the feds passed long ago.

But FOIA also permits agencies to fulfill their publication obligation by getting approval from the director of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) to incorporate by reference “matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby.” OFR regulations establish the standards and procedures that agencies must observe when incorporating by reference. According to FOIA, material properly incorporated by reference is “deemed published in the Federal Register.” Incorporation by reference thus allows agencies to give binding legal effect to material that has not been published in the Federal Register or CFR.​

​

Agencies incorporate by reference a wide variety of materials for many different purposes, but controversy arises when agencies incorporate “voluntary consensus standards” into regulations. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed by private standard-setting organizations according to a process marked by the attributes of openness, balance of interest, due process, an appeals process, and consensus through general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity.​

​

Jeremy Baggott described the process in the Dispatches from the Cosmic Cobra Breeding Farm. A must read for appraisers in my book.

 

[djd09]

The Appraisal Foundation’s governance structure is insular and favors private interests​

Before the end of last year, The Appraisal Foundation’s governance structure featured a pay-to-play mechanism whereby paying Sponsors selected around half of the BOT members. The remainder were elected by that same Board, and many of these elected trustees were members of Sponsors. Although the BOT supposedly changed its structure, the latest hearing brought to light that in practice, the new structure works a lot like Sponsorship by another name.

The Appraisal Foundation has essentially renamed Sponsors “Partners,” whose nominees will almost certainly be added to the BOT. The Appraisal Foundation’s new bylaws state that Partners can only nominate trustees. The bylaws permit up to 10 Partner-nominated candidates be put forward in a given election cycle, but do not limit how many total Partner-nominated Trustees can sit on the BOT. The Appraisal Foundation has publicly stated they intend to have between 9 and 10 Partner-nominated Trustees on the Board. Currently, 11 out of 12 Partners are former Sponsors.1 That means most or all Partner-nominated Trustees will be selected by these Sponsor-Partners.

At the last hearing, Appraisal Foundation President David Bunton confirmed that members of Sponsor-Partners can nominate themselves as “public interest" trustees. Other organizations can also nominate members of Sponsor-Partners. That means there is nothing to prevent the BOT from electing “public interest” trustees that are all members of Sponsor-Partners.

These Sponsor-Partners can still financially contribute to The Appraisal Foundation. Mr. Bunton stated at the last hearing that Partners make no financial contributions. But Partners can choose to do so. Under its bylaws, The Appraisal Foundation can also require Sponsors to make financial contributions at any time. And as recently as January 30, The Appraisal Foundation publicly committed to creating a mechanism that will allow organizations to support The Appraisal Foundation financially and gave no indication that Partners would be barred from using this mechanism.

 

[George Hatch]

And the alleged pay-to-play has affected the actions of the ASB or AQB in what way? Show us on the doll where the alleged pay-to-play to TAF has resulted in any benefits to these sponsors at the expense of any of the fundamentals which are inherent in professional appraisal practice. Or at the expense of fee appraisers. What changes to standards or qualifications has TAF made that can be considered an unethical expression of sponsor-advocacy?

Bueller?​

Bueller?​

Bueller?​

 

[djd09]

March 1, 2024 11:44AM

OSHA Is Unconstitutional​

By Thomas A. Berry and Nathaniel Lawson

---

The Framers of the Constitution understood that the separation of powers is “essential to the preservation of liberty.” In line with this understanding, the Constitution was designed to ensure that no single branch of government could accumulate too much undivided power. The Constitution thus vests “all legislative Powers” in Congress, vests the executive power in the president, and vests the judicial power in the federal courts. Critical to this design is the “nondelegation doctrine,” which prohibits Congress from blurring these lines by delegating its legislative power to the executive branch.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (the OSHA Act) violates the nondelegation doctrine by granting the executive branch virtually unlimited policymaking authority. The OSHA Act grants the secretary of labor the authority to impose any “occupational safety and health standard” so long as it is “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.” The secretary has delegated this power to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Through this statutory language, the OSHA Act grants the executive branch regulatory authority over essentially every American business. The only restriction on this regulatory discretion is that OSHA must deem its regulation to be “reasonable,” but in practice that is no restriction at all. No other statute grants an agency such a broad authority with such complete discretion.
For these reasons, an Ohio business has challenged the OSHA Act as an unconstitutional violation of the nondelegation doctrine. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected that challenge, but the business has petitioned the US Supreme Court for review. And Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting that petition.
Our brief recounts that for most of the last century, the Supreme Court has held that a delegation of authority complies with the nondelegation doctrine so long as it provides the executive branch with an “intelligible principle” to guide its discretion. But there is serious reason to doubt whether this lenient standard adequately protects against Congress delegating its legislative power. Before the New Deal era, the traditional standard in nondelegation cases was more strict, requiring Congress to decide major questions of policy and permitting the executive only to “fill up the details.”
But even under the lenient “intelligible principle” standard, the OSHA Act violates the nondelegation doctrine. In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), the Supreme Court provided a two‐part test to determine whether a statute violates the nondelegation doctrine: “(1) ‘whether the Congress has required any finding by the President in the exercise of the authority,’ and (2) ‘whether the Congress has set up a standard for the President’s action.’”

https://www.cato.org/blog/osha-unconstitutional

ansi...

 

[Zoe]

General election for people on TAF and BOT would pass licensed appraisers with flying colors as long as they could vote.

Vote from licensed appraisers would have been nice on AMCs too.

No way that law would have been changed at last minute without much rebuttal from the vote (Few were controlling the mass).

On general vote, the mass majority of appraisers would have voted against commingling of fees between AMCs and APPRAISERS.

10-1 maybe. I would guess that. Maybe 100-1 of licensed appraisers would have voted against commingling to fees.

Didn't happen.

 

[Zoe]

Okay, let's go back. It changed the market structure for the worst.

Ask me what you want on market structure.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Govt didn't care. TAF didn't care. Nobody cared that law got changed at last minute except majority of licensed appraisers.