- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
- Professional Status
- General Public
- State
- North Carolina
Wayne, Don and others
I am sorry that I did not have a chance to post in thread entitled Improving the Profession - Really before the thread was locked.
First, let me compliment Wayne for his suggestions and excellent moderation of the entire Forum and this sub forum. I think his guidelines are pertinent and I for one will do what I can to follow them.
I do have some concern that on some topics, such as those surrounding my case, that the threads do become unbearably long. This is not a fault of any one or the system, just the nature of the topic and the interest that it generates. My case before the NCAB has been ongoing for 27 months, there are over 1,400 pages of documentary evidence of record to date and it appears that if the NCAB follows through with its plan of action to attempt to win at all cost, it will be another 4 years before the NC Supreme Court makes a final decision. Given the quantity of data, the complexity of issues, it is not surprising such threads tend to go on forever.
It is unrealistic to expect an appraiser following this case to go to the end of an old thread and pick up the new information, and it is unrealistic to expect a new reader to just sit down and read the entire thread from start to finish. What I have attempted to do, when there has been a significant time lapse, was provide a summary, with references and links to past threads so that readers (new and old) could catch up on the latest information without un due delay, but that if they wanted the detail they knew where to go to get it.
Wayne, please tell me if this is inappropriate so that I will not violate your posting rules.
The major item that I wish to address is the assumption that was expressed by several that this forum is just negative and unwarranted bashing of regulators and in particular the NCAB.
This forum is intended to facilitate to both improve the profession and address political issues. Regulatory agencies are political entities, and discussions of these agencies policies and activities belongs in this forum.
I am of the opinion that this forum (and the general forum and others as well) has become a resource for those who wish to debate issues of concern to the profession. Many topics have been discussed at length by appraisers (and other concerned members of the public) at length, and over time a consensus as to what is the appropriate way to treat USPAP, or handle a given topic, or the appropriate course of action for an appraiser may be. In thoses cases where consensus can not be reached, at least the substantive areas of disagreement are known with the relevant issues clarified.
The very nature of debate is centered around protagonists and antagonists each expressing their point of view. Individuals, both pro and con, who debate their respective positions with clarity and incisiveness allow the discussions, over time, to become focussed on the real issues and allow for solutions to be achieved. This is the essence of the democratic process.
Since debate has a negative or antagonistic side, those being criticised, such as members of regulatory agencies, can be expected to view such discourse as negative rather than as constructive. This is an endemic problem of constructive criticism. Those who do not want input and believe they have all the answers and are not willing to change, these agencies will percieve these discussions as negative and will characterize the discussions as counter productive.
For those who think that these discussions have not had a positive impact on our profession, I would note that members of AF, AQB, ASB, ASC
and state regulatory agencies regularly read these forums although they seldom post. The topics, and solutions suggested by forumites, often appear as topics in the agencies for discussion and are often taken as solutions.
This is not a chance occurrence. The AQB and the ASB have both taken information from this forum and incorporated it into their decision making. Topics that I know first hand that derived on this forum which were utilized by agencies were our discussions regarding changes to the property history section and reconciliation of USPAP, the education requirements proposed by the AQB and the numerous Frequently Asked Questions. The issue of investigators who are appraisers not doing standard three reviews is no longer a issue just with the NCAB, but it is a matter being addressed at all national levels. The problems with mortgage lending (many considered this just grousing) evolved into a petition for change to laws which have subsequently been enacted. The awareness of the dangers of a purely political nature of appointments to boards was developed after the discussions of the disciplinary cases and it too has resulted in a petion for change and, at least in the State of North Carolina, these discussions did their part in impacting the recent group of appointments.
I have had sitting members of state boards, and the staff of state boards say that they read these posts and find them informative. Some regulators actually post here to actually post here to either get support for their ideas or as a sounding boards. So not even all regulators find these post objectionable.
To those who would be critical of this forum for being constently negative of agencies, I would say that in fact not all dialogue has been negative. There are posters who have strong beliefs that the ASB and the AQB are doing a good job and we post that opinion. I believe the NCAB has been a leader in AARO and in getting other states to take action against fraudulent lending practices.
The reason this forum works is that it is a forum, a site that allows appraisers a place to discuss issues on a national basis without being locked into the bias of trade organization politics or the poiltics of regulatory agencies and without the expense of creating a mass mailing or other venue to engage in dialogue. There is no other venue that provides this opportunity.
The representative of those agencies who have voiced the opinion that this forum does not promote professionalism are just flat out wrong. These people do not want dialogue, they believe that since they were appointed or hired to these boards, that discussion is no longer needed; it is there way or the highway. Hence their attitude, Get it right or Get Out!.
As a final note, I share the opinion of Don that NC is discussed too much. Yet no one else, except perhaps Steve Vertin, presents current ongoing information relating to the conduct of business regarding their state agencies. If these issues were being presented regularly, we would see more common issues, both pro and con, but currently it would appear that readers of this forum only have feedback from the NC and Illinois boards on a regular basis. Hence, the discussions are going to be skewed in the direction of those agencies, or those larger national entities such as the ASB, AQB etc.
Regards
Tom Hildebrandt GAA
I am sorry that I did not have a chance to post in thread entitled Improving the Profession - Really before the thread was locked.
First, let me compliment Wayne for his suggestions and excellent moderation of the entire Forum and this sub forum. I think his guidelines are pertinent and I for one will do what I can to follow them.
I do have some concern that on some topics, such as those surrounding my case, that the threads do become unbearably long. This is not a fault of any one or the system, just the nature of the topic and the interest that it generates. My case before the NCAB has been ongoing for 27 months, there are over 1,400 pages of documentary evidence of record to date and it appears that if the NCAB follows through with its plan of action to attempt to win at all cost, it will be another 4 years before the NC Supreme Court makes a final decision. Given the quantity of data, the complexity of issues, it is not surprising such threads tend to go on forever.
It is unrealistic to expect an appraiser following this case to go to the end of an old thread and pick up the new information, and it is unrealistic to expect a new reader to just sit down and read the entire thread from start to finish. What I have attempted to do, when there has been a significant time lapse, was provide a summary, with references and links to past threads so that readers (new and old) could catch up on the latest information without un due delay, but that if they wanted the detail they knew where to go to get it.
Wayne, please tell me if this is inappropriate so that I will not violate your posting rules.
The major item that I wish to address is the assumption that was expressed by several that this forum is just negative and unwarranted bashing of regulators and in particular the NCAB.
This forum is intended to facilitate to both improve the profession and address political issues. Regulatory agencies are political entities, and discussions of these agencies policies and activities belongs in this forum.
I am of the opinion that this forum (and the general forum and others as well) has become a resource for those who wish to debate issues of concern to the profession. Many topics have been discussed at length by appraisers (and other concerned members of the public) at length, and over time a consensus as to what is the appropriate way to treat USPAP, or handle a given topic, or the appropriate course of action for an appraiser may be. In thoses cases where consensus can not be reached, at least the substantive areas of disagreement are known with the relevant issues clarified.
The very nature of debate is centered around protagonists and antagonists each expressing their point of view. Individuals, both pro and con, who debate their respective positions with clarity and incisiveness allow the discussions, over time, to become focussed on the real issues and allow for solutions to be achieved. This is the essence of the democratic process.
Since debate has a negative or antagonistic side, those being criticised, such as members of regulatory agencies, can be expected to view such discourse as negative rather than as constructive. This is an endemic problem of constructive criticism. Those who do not want input and believe they have all the answers and are not willing to change, these agencies will percieve these discussions as negative and will characterize the discussions as counter productive.
For those who think that these discussions have not had a positive impact on our profession, I would note that members of AF, AQB, ASB, ASC
and state regulatory agencies regularly read these forums although they seldom post. The topics, and solutions suggested by forumites, often appear as topics in the agencies for discussion and are often taken as solutions.
This is not a chance occurrence. The AQB and the ASB have both taken information from this forum and incorporated it into their decision making. Topics that I know first hand that derived on this forum which were utilized by agencies were our discussions regarding changes to the property history section and reconciliation of USPAP, the education requirements proposed by the AQB and the numerous Frequently Asked Questions. The issue of investigators who are appraisers not doing standard three reviews is no longer a issue just with the NCAB, but it is a matter being addressed at all national levels. The problems with mortgage lending (many considered this just grousing) evolved into a petition for change to laws which have subsequently been enacted. The awareness of the dangers of a purely political nature of appointments to boards was developed after the discussions of the disciplinary cases and it too has resulted in a petion for change and, at least in the State of North Carolina, these discussions did their part in impacting the recent group of appointments.
I have had sitting members of state boards, and the staff of state boards say that they read these posts and find them informative. Some regulators actually post here to actually post here to either get support for their ideas or as a sounding boards. So not even all regulators find these post objectionable.
To those who would be critical of this forum for being constently negative of agencies, I would say that in fact not all dialogue has been negative. There are posters who have strong beliefs that the ASB and the AQB are doing a good job and we post that opinion. I believe the NCAB has been a leader in AARO and in getting other states to take action against fraudulent lending practices.
The reason this forum works is that it is a forum, a site that allows appraisers a place to discuss issues on a national basis without being locked into the bias of trade organization politics or the poiltics of regulatory agencies and without the expense of creating a mass mailing or other venue to engage in dialogue. There is no other venue that provides this opportunity.
The representative of those agencies who have voiced the opinion that this forum does not promote professionalism are just flat out wrong. These people do not want dialogue, they believe that since they were appointed or hired to these boards, that discussion is no longer needed; it is there way or the highway. Hence their attitude, Get it right or Get Out!.
As a final note, I share the opinion of Don that NC is discussed too much. Yet no one else, except perhaps Steve Vertin, presents current ongoing information relating to the conduct of business regarding their state agencies. If these issues were being presented regularly, we would see more common issues, both pro and con, but currently it would appear that readers of this forum only have feedback from the NC and Illinois boards on a regular basis. Hence, the discussions are going to be skewed in the direction of those agencies, or those larger national entities such as the ASB, AQB etc.
Regards
Tom Hildebrandt GAA
