NCAB says they don't need any oversight....

[USPAP Compliant]

The entire article may be viewed at http://www.appraisalintelligence.com/pub/h...ines/681-1.html

North Carolina Appraisal Board tells Appraisal Foundation state regulator advisory board “not in the best interest of continued cooperation”

November 26, 2002

In a letter dated November 20, 2002, Mel Black, executive director of the North Carolina Appraisal Board, asked the Appraisal Foundation to “reconsider its decision to form a State Regulator Advisory Group.”

Noting that through the Association of Appraiser Regulatory Officials (AARO), of which Black is the immediate past president, the states have been represented on a large number of the Foundation’s task forces, working groups, advisory councils and other committees, the letter expressed full support for “the participation of state regulators in any appropriate federal initiative,” but argued that “the advisory group is not the way to go.”

At its meeting on November 19, the North Carolina Appraisal Board discussed the proposal to form the new group, concluding that “at best, the Foundation will be perceived as unnecessarily appropriating resources to establish an unneeded advisory group that parallels” AARO, and “at worst, some may perceive this act as a bad faith attempt to circumvent” that organization and “to stack the advisory group with Foundation sympathizers.”

“When the Foundation needs input from the states, it should contact the current AARO president,” the letter said. “This advisory group is not in the best interest of continued cooperation between the states and the Foundation.”

“With the AARO-Foundation relationship strained, now is not the time to further damage that relationship by forming a separate advisory group,” the letter said. “There is more to be done by both AARO and the Foundation, but let’s go about that work with respect for the respective structures” of the organizations.

The letter requested a written response that addresses the Board’s concerns and the particular arguments the Foundation has for proposing the advisory group.

Copyright © 2002 October Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[David C. Johnson]

<span style='color:darkblue'>Interesting.

Information omitted in the NCAB letter is the fact that AARO does not "speak for" all state appraisal boards. Not all "recognize" or participate with this organization.

My guess is that some state boards may not be very interested in being associated with AARO, and that they might appreciate the existence of such an advisory group at The Foundation.

dcj</span>

 

[George Hatch]

The Appraisal Foundation is organized and includes in it's structure the stated goal of soliciting and accepting feedback from and interacting with the various appraisal regulatory boards. The only reason The Appraisal Foundation would seek to establish a separate State Regulatory Advisory Group is because the input from AARO is either not productive (all negative with no constructive suggestions); or more likely, is altogether insufficient in regularity, quantity and quality.

It may well be that the functions and goals of the proposed advisory group and AARO are different. I'm sure that if AARO could get the kind of participation to qualify it as truly representing all of the regulatory boards, and if they develop and execute a program that actually calls for regular and substantiative advisory contribution to The Appraisal Foundation's efforts in developing and maintaining appraiser qualification criteria and the USPAP, then there would be no need for a duplicated effort.

As for The Appraisal Foundation trying to 'load' the advisory group with sympathizers, it would seem that no matter how the members were chosen, they would have to come from the body of regulatory agencies. That's a pretty small group of people. Saying that the Foundation's advisory group might be loaded with pro-Foundation sympathizers would be like saying that AARO is loaded with anti-Foundation sympathizers, and who would believe that? What would even make Mr. Black suspicious of such an action? A truly cynical mind might ask if it could be a fear of history repeating, only in reverse.

A truly cynical mind would also conclude that the most likely reason some of the members of AARO oppose a separate advisory group is because they like the current, inadequate setup. One that allows them enough plausible deniability to complain about The Appraisal Foundation being unresponsive to the state boards while at the same time deliberately ignoring their own responsibilities to contribute in a meaningful way.

If AARO is truly interested in assuming this role, let's see them do something about it. Let's see them organize themselves enough so that they can speak with one coherent voice. Let's see them develop their own standards of ethics and conduct in performing their regulatory responsibilities, one that is comprehensive in scope and compatible in intent with the USPAP. Let's see them develop their own training courses so that their members will be knowledgable about and adhere to a common regulatory standard. C'mon, it can't be that tough. The appraisal profession has already set the example by coming together enough to develop and adopt the USPAP. If the different appraisal organizations (which is like a herd of cats) can do that, surely the state boards can do it too.

George Hatch

 

[Don Clark]

I support everything George has said. I would also encourage everyone who is interested to e-mail the AF and give your support or disagreement if such is the case. Go to www.appraisalfoundation.org
Click on their staff directory and send a note to Jim Park. He will see that it gets into the right hands. Yes, I have sent my support.

Don Clark

 

[Austin]

As my father once told me: “No where in history is there a record of any monument ever having been erected in honor of a committee.” Just what the world needs, another committee. Why don’t we appoint a committee to look into this committee situation. But first, we much incorporate the committee to be in IRS compliance. Then we will need a set of by-laws before we get the state charter for our corporation. To do all of that we need a lawyer which requires funding which brings us back to the reason we are incorporating in the 1st place, and that is to account for the funds we need to pay the lawyer to form the corporation to satisfy the IRS in the handling of the funds that we raised to pay the lawyer.
Why don’t we form a sub-committee to look into the forming of the corporation and they can report back in two weeks. Unless of course they need funds which…….well you know the rest of the story.
I would take the job myself, but I have been so busy lately.

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

That the NCAB would not want another organization speaking to regulatory issues does not suprise me.

First, the NCAB does not want anyone looking at how they do business. Second, they own AARO. At one of the board meetings I attended last spring, the NCAB members all bemoaned the fact that many states did not want to or could not participate in AARO, then these same board members went on to say it was good that they were leading this organization and could control all the votes.

As I recall, Mr. Smith was quite vocal about the issue. At that time he wanted the NCAB to pay membership fees to the AF to become a sponsor so that he (Mr. Smith) could be appointed a trustee so that he could direct the AF on the right path. Fortunately, Henry Faircloth, among others, did not like the idea of spending several hundreds of thousand dollars just so Mr. Smith could have an even more inflated ego.

What the NCAB wants is to set policy for the nation but not have anyone looking over their shoulder. It is a pretty sorry group of power hungry politicians.

Thanks for posting the article Bob.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA