One Appraisal Body

[Restrain]

The ASA has taken a step towards the unification of the appraisal bodies. According to ASA past president and current PAPT chair John Bakken and NAIFA National President Edward Liggins whospoke with Appraisal Intelligence about what's next, the Appraisal Instute, which rejected the proposal, is going to pulled kicking and screaming into the merger or become an outsider with limited participation.

Once again the AI is blinded by its myopia as to the appraisal profession. As an aside, I took a cross-section of the membership. Of the members, approximately 70-75% hold commercial designations, showing the direction that the Instutue is heading.

Roger Strahan, SRA

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Roger

I understand your concerns and have divided emotions regarding the concept "one body speaks for all".

There is no question that the divided voices hurt the political clout of the practicing appraisers. On the other hand, the body of appraisers is very disparate. As an active (well formely I was active before my wife and I decided to go cruising on a sailboat one year ago) but non designated member of ASA, I saw early on there is little consensus among the real property appraisers and the other appraisal disciplines (personal property, machinery & equipement, and business valuation). Further, just as you note, some singular differences exist between those real property folks who work primarily in the residential lending field and the commercial guys who think they know everything about all types of work (lending and litigation). Each discipline and each specialized area requires a different mindset, and getting consensus among the different individuals and egos is next to impossible.

Personally, I would welcome a merger of the organizations, if we could get the major organizations (AI and ASA primarily) away from the concept that only designated members can have votes on ethics and education issues.

But frankly, the leaders of these organizations do not want to give up their leadership roles to what they consider "the uninformed rank and file". I would be willing to bet that the majority of the rank in file in ASA do not support the merger concept. Two years ago, the ASA would not merge with NAIFA, the sitcky issue was who pays for whose debt, and who controls the vote and the organizational strucutre, leadership wanted it but it was voted down by the members. Similar problems were present in the proposed merger of AI and and the NAR Appraisal Section several years ago. The AI was not willing to concede the issue that one dues paid member equals equals one vote, they wanted one dues paid designated member equals one vote.

I admire the leadership of NAIFA and ASA for revisiting the issues, and maybe they have a better plan worked out now, but two years ago, they had no plan, just a vision.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[Paul Ness MAI]

I can tell you my local AI chapter is wholeheartedly opposed to any type of merger. Why do you folks who harbor such disdain for AI care if it joins in the merger or becomes "the outsider"?

 

[George W Dodd]

Paul,

Aye and there's the rub. The AI is too concerned with its own self interest to ever work for a unitified appraisal organization. The concept is "brand" approval in that their designation is better than everyone else's.

The AI's policy is one of exclusion. I often wonder why other professions (accountants, lawyers, doctors), have been able to form a single organization with a single designation for an inclusive membership; even though the individual's talents/speciality within these organizations are so far apart.

 

[bradellis]

Tom Hildebrandt,

On that failed ASA/NAIFA consolidation (we did not call it a "merger"), I think you will find that it was scuttled by the ASA board and not by the members- most of whom did not even know about it and fewer still who commented.

You may hear quite a bit about the reasons, but from a PNP of the ASA, I was told that this was due to the ASA board not wanting to have anyone tell them how to spend their money.

Since I am on the NAIFA board, I know a bit about it. You can be faced with a few board members who, at ages 65+, consider whether or not they want to keep working at all, and if you try to take away their free trips to Hawaii, they will object. All organizations can face that kind of stuff, and pretty much all do.

I'll just say that I think the ASA is a fine organization. I believe they missed the boat when they had the chance to consolidate with NAIFA. I am pleased to see that they are now revisiting the question of consolidations/mergers/whatever towards the ultimate goal of a single organization that represents appraisers- whatever the discipline. I know Ed Liggins is interested as is the NAIFA board. Frankly, every association board should be thinking this way.

It is important to the future of our profession.

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA

 

[wyecoyote]

just my thoughts on the issue. I am still somewhat of a newbee (5+ years) as an appraiser.

I would truly like to see the appraiser profesion have one umbrela group. I would think that this would go along way to actually gaining acceptance as a proffesion. This would also provide us with better lobbying ability at the congressional level. And yes just for anyone's concern I am an associate member of the AI. Although sometimes I wonder why. The meetings that I have been to I feel like an outcast because I am a Residential Appraiser not a Commercial like most at the meetings. But, that is for a different thread that has been hashed over alot in this forum.

Ryan

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Brad

The consolidation/merger was a hot topic at our local chapter, and we told our governor that we did not want it, our board voted what we told them to vote.

Part of the problem was that it was a consolidation, not a merger. While the technical differences between these two methods, the laymans cut is that a consolidation is sort of worked out as you go along, without any real plan, a merger is a more defined process with each party having an understanding about how and what is to take palace. Further, the action as presented to take place in a very short time frame, as I recall, within six months, and after that had happened, we were to work out the details of how the two organizations would blend. There were also serious concerns about NAIFA finances at the time, and no one had any answers regarding the debt or even how many members there were. Not surprisingly, many in ASA felt that ASA was being asked to bring in a sick child but was being told to treat it as a healthy adult.

The primary objection was that nobody had answers to any of the questions, and they were asking the rank and file to accept on blind faith that the secret and back door negotiations had everything worked out or would be satisfactorily worked out down the the way. Maybe you were comfortable with the knowledge that you had as an insider, but the membership of my chapter was not comfortable. Many of the real property side of the house were resentful about the same kind of behind the doors stuff that went on during the merger of the Society and Institute, and they felt the members were closed out of the loop in the decision making. To my way of thinking, and that of almost every member in our chapter, the idea of "trust us the leadership, we know what we are doing and we don't need your input" is not an acceptable leadership process in a voluntary organization.

Having said that, the idea of the organizations to get together is a good one, and I am not opposed to the concept. Get a plan in place, one that answers all of the organizational, financial and professional questions, explain it to the members and I am sure such a plan will pass. It is good that leadership has grand visions, they also need concrete plans to enable the vision.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[bradellis]

Tom,

Thanks for the reply post. Naturally, I cannot know what went on in your chapter- my info came from members who are cross designated along with some of the former higher ups.

Just to clear the air. There were, indeed, concerns about NAIFA finances. We had lost money the previous year. But NAIFA had, and still does have, assets well in excess of all accumulated debt. I believe the ASA auditors were given all that data. But never mind, it is water under the bridge.

It is interesting that your members had concerns about the details having not all been worked out so a merger vs. consolidation could take place. I had heard it the other way around- that most wanted to go the consolidation route.

Similar concerns existed in NAIFA. For example, how could we be certain that the new group would serve the R.E. appraisal profession when the bulk of its membership was not involved in real estate at all? And, I was truly left wondering about whether or not the non R.E. folks felt threatened by the addition of so many R.E. people. I do not know, but was told that by someone.

Anyway, if the ASA thinks it can truly get this under way, most of us are all for it. I think it is the perfect group to do this as it has never held itself out to be the be all and end all for the profession- just quiet competence. I like that. We shall see what transpires.

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA

 

[Tom Hildebrandt]

Brad

Regarding the concerns of the non-realty side of the ASA, it would be a valid concern of NAIFA and should be addressed. Professional jealousies exist there between the various disciplines. It is a legitimate concern.

Regarding finances, maybe the higher ups had the information, the folks at the chapter level did not have the information and the timing was such we could not run it down before we had to make a vote. But as you say, water under the bridge.

Regards

Tom Hildebrandt GAA

 

[larryhaskell]

The decision to form one association for appraisers seems clear to me. Consider some of the following groups. The Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Realtors, American Bar Association. And there are many others. Diverse memberships but powerful lobbies and they usually get what they want. On the other hand, multiple appraisal groups focusing on their own specific wants and needs, unable to see the big picture. The end result, no power and maybe our extinction some day.