For those of us who posted in this thread.....
Have you perhaps gone to the DORA site >> Scheduled Meetings >> M B Rules Making Task Force >> Minutes of Jan. 22nd ?
Read input on pages 4 and 5, the 10:15 to 10:50 slot, and the 10 minutes to follow until 11:00am. What was the outcome ?.....Nothing more than a clear revelation that there may be a movement to allow the fox to guard the henhouse....at least as to any profound "Rules" that might regard "coercion or intimidating of a real estate appraiser".
Of the 9 names you might see in those minutes let me point out a few :
Cary Whitaker - Overseer of the MB reg./lic. program
Jan Zavislan -- he is Dep. Att. Gen. for Consumer Protection
Zachary Urban -- one of the current state Apprs. Board members
The other six names you will notice -- if I have found the correct one due to nicknames being shown for some here....all six are Lic. MB's in Denver-metro. Only one, Anita Padilla, showed the guts to cast a "vote" on prohibiting MB's from "providing a value". I would very much like to know how the group defined "providing" ! The WHEN part....would be critical to their discussion.
I have printed pages 4/5 and scribbled info and remarks upon it and along the margins. I have underlined several key words and short phrasing in those minutes that absolutely show.....that there are misunderstandings about 1)general standards for us, 2) about the concept of truly being INdependant to go about our process, 3) about no bias meaning --we do NOT need to have any "value provided", 4) about the fact that a MB and their homeowner/borrower CAN DISCUSS value before any appraiser is contracted to provide an UNbiased opinion, and 5) about the fact that there are MANY sources of free valuation insight, calculations and projections that ARE AVAILABLE for MB and h/o to access.
What clearly seems to lack is their group's understanding of the expected and appropriate mechanism and protocol by which, and through which, an appraiser might receive a request to independantly provide an unbiased opinion of value.......withOUT receiving "help".
Here, we have a member of the AG's office intent on fully "protecting the public" and he abstains from "voting". Likewise, our representative from the Apprs. Board DID express a proper vote, along with 1-of-6 MB's there.....but such a profound imbalance of total opinion makes one wonder whether there was a lost opportunity for the APPRAISAL BOARD member.....to tell those other brokers the "way it is supposed to be" !
I doubt that contracted, paid-for, and fully-USPAP-compliant Desktop Reports were ever described as one alternative way for MB's to approach their needs for a value hunch.
I WILL BE sending photocopies of pages 4/5 with my notes written upon them to Mr. Urban on the Apprs. Board, as well as to Mr. Zavislan. Both should have before the next Apprs. Board meeting......and the next MB Rules Task Force pow-wow in the following week. (Mike, I think Gary E. may have told me that Mr. Zavislan was one of our speakers in March. (?) )
You have MB's "casting votes" about the possible rules that define how they do business, rather than the AG, Ms.Toll and the App. Brd. Chairman.....stating what the rules are going to be ! When do WE get to make up our own rules.....that might trump USPAP, so long as we perfrom our services within the boundaries of the state ?