Just to add my 2 cents, I'm an educator, user of education services, and develop course material. I also happen to know Wayne for many years, and while I do not disagree that he may have said the things you have quoted, I might point out that he is the Chairperson of the AQB and not the final word. Knowing him and the other members of the AQB I would suspect he is just being the mouthpiece of the board, as it is his job to do so. I say this because most of the rants on this thread are directed personally at Wayne and not the bigger group he represents and speaks on behalf of.
As someone who has put on courses all over the country, each state has its own crazy complicated way of approving courses, requirements for verifying attendance, and fees. If the AQB were to implement a new delivery mechanism, they would also have to address requirements for compliance, make-up attendance, technological delivery, student questions during
I appreciate you wanting to stick up for Mr. Wayne R. Miller. I have kept my statements here civil. You indicated that he is not the "final word". If he put the matter in front of the AQB (Board) and received proper feedback as expected, I will be the first to eat crow and apologize. He did not indicate the people that he got feedback from. I doubt he had time to confer with each state. I don't know if his position is agreeable by all the other members of the board. It was contingent on him to provide those details and which three of the board members affirmed the final position. The fact that he leaves questions unanswered is a testament to his way of doing business. I did not pressure him to move quickly, and indicated that I have months to have a proper dialog about the matter.
So that it is clear to anyone reading, my only question to the board was to find out the proper procedure to have the issue addressed. [The Chair shall be responsible for establishing operating and administrative procedures for the Qualifications Board, task forces, and other committees groups, and for implementing and directing their broad operating processes.]
I was offered a teleconference. I instead indicated that I opted to put everything into writing. Rather than give me the details about how the process for consideration works, he wrote the letter (referenced above) saying that the Board was going to leave the issue alone (because nothing needed to be changed.)
His two letters to me were dismissive and neither actually addressed what I was asking for. He did not fully consider the actual issues at hand, nor did he put the matter in front of the Board (at least to my understanding, although I have requested supporting documentation about the Quorum that might have met together.)
While he might be a professional, his "shrugged" Brush-off of the matter was not what I expected. As someone who has a very important position in the oversight of professional appraisers, I anticipated an actual discussion before the Board would make a hasty decision. Mr. Wayne R. Miller did not seek input from me. He never asked me a single question before formulating his (Board's) position. He sent me two letters, neither of which actually addressed the particulars that I submitted to him. I actually asked to have the matter put in front of the Board and put out for discussion to the appropriate stakeholders.
I am not a big fan of the way the AQB simply pushes the responsibility for "distance education" to IDECC (a private enterprise). But what I am asking is not rocket science.
Mr. Wayne R. Miller has pointed out that the (individual) states "and their regulatory agencies" expect the education provider to be able to prove each student has attended the entire course offering. He did not address the fact that the states are actually forced to follow the 1994 decision. It is not a free-will choice at each state board. By pointing his finger at the states to support his board's position, he is being disingenuous.
He then talked about the cost for IDECC certification as not being "prohibitive given the typical course offering volume and the revenue earned by most providers from student registration fees." Again, his dismissive attitude and misdirection does not address my concerns. I am not sure how the profit of an educational provider is even something that should be on the mind of the AQB. It is not part of the mission of the AQB to worry about such things.
He finished his most current letter saying that the AQB would consider changes to the educational criteria. While it reads like he is willing to listen, the fact is that the multiple messages that I sent in advance were not actually considered at all. As mentioned by two other people in this thread, the issue has been put in front of him in the past, with the same "do-nothing" results. I am not certain what the AQB is working on that is so important and time-consuming that they cannot address the concerns I have put in front of them.
My understanding is that, when issues arise, the AQB would obtain input from stakeholders. The Board By-Laws anticipate a deliberative period that might include public hearings, research, or discussion. It is unfortunate that I have to start such discussion on a message board, since this should be taking place under the purview of the AQB.
I presume that if there are three people in this single thread who have been "ignored" by Mr. Wayne R. Miller (or his predecessors), that there probably have been others who have had the same concerns. Like I said, I have almost two years to push this matter, and while I do not mean to disparage Mr. Miller or the AQB, I would not be requesting feedback in this forum if he was performing his professional duties in a proper manner.
