+
Up to the present, USPAP has defined bias as a preference or inclination used in the development or communication of an appraisal, appraisal review or appraisal consulting assignment that precludes an appraiser’s impartiality. The current version abandons this limited view of covering only these three types of assignments and proposes a new definition. It says, “ An appraiser must perform assignments with impartiality, objectivity, and independence, and without accommodation of personal interests.”
Thus in this change, all assignments are included, including teaching and instructing assignments. Non-Impartial instructors violate USPAP. Since you can't turn in instructors for bad jokes, now you have a tool to hold over the biased and super-opinionated.
Since we're quoting the USPAP about assignments, howsabout we quote the USPAP definition for "Assignment":
Assignment - A valuation service provided as a consequence of an agreement between and appraiser and a client.
Assignment Results - An appraiser's opinions and conclusions developed specific to an assignment.
Comment: Assignment results include an appraiser's:
- Opinions or conclusions developed in an appraisal assignment, such as value;
- Opinions of adequacy, relevancy, or reasonableness developed in an appraisal review assignment; or
- Opinions, conclusions, or recommendations developed in an appraisal consulting assignment.
And since the term "valuation service" is used as part of the definition for "Assignment", we might as well bring that definition is as well:
Valuation Services: services pertaining to aspects of property value.
Now, I don't disagree that an appraiser who is so arrogant that they can stand up in front of a room full of their peers (also a very arrogant group, as a whole) and basically tell them what to do or otherwise instruct them in the finer points of appraisal practice had better really know what they're talking about. I also sympathize with appraisers who, while fulfilling their respective prison sentences at a mandated USPAP course are forced to bear the additional burden of an instructor who is blindered and/or blinded by their personal biases. But let's get real here - trying to bend the definition of "Assignment" and "Valuation Services" to apply to course instruction? I'm not feeling that one.
As an appraiser, I always try to anticipate opposing viewpoints and deal with them while I'm writing my reports. As an instructor, I try to do the same thing with a classroom full of appraisers by presenting both sides of an argument and the reasoning behind them. Obviously, I'm going to give more attention to the side of the argument that I think is most appropriate given the goals of the course, but I try not to pretend that there is only one way for each person to act in all situations. I also try not to pretend that any appraiser is going to significantly change their methods and practices just because they heard some other appraiser espouse it. Credibility as a course instructor for appraisers can only be earned and is never bestowed. Once lost or even seriously damaged, it's tough to regain. You cannot develop a rappor with a roomful of appraisers by being dogmatic or blindered, nor by bluffing your way through areas that you're not familiar with. It's a tough group.
Are we really that worried about opinionated people in the appraisal business, or for that matter, in the education of appraisers business? 'Cause if we are, we're in big trouble. All good appraisers are very opinionated people by nature; we have to be because it's part of the job description. Develop and communicate opinions and conclusions.
Now, the biggest question Lee Ann's post brings up is the effect an instructor has on other appraisers when he/she departs from the party line. I agree, the qualifications process was supposed to eliminate, or at the very least, reduce the frequency of these detours by teaching and rigorously testing for the one true path. Best laid plans of mice and men, right? If anything, it sounds to me like the presentation of this apparent contradiction is at least a big a problem as the contradiction itself. Just as it requires a very specific set of skills to be a good appraiser, course instruction also requires a very specific set of skills; skills different from those required for appraising. Not everyone is cut out to appraise, and not every appraiser is cut out to instruct their peers. Becoming competent first requires acknowledgement of any known deficiencies. Same thing here.
I would say that if a course participant has a legitimate question about an instructor's presentation, they should be able to resolve it at all levels of the process - with the instructor on a one-one basis; with the school or sponsoring entity of the course; with the state board who has approved the course and authorized its instruction; and in the case of the USPAP courses, with the Appraisal Qualifications Board who has certified the instructor. I wold even go so far as to say that as professionals we have an obligation to our profession to prevent further contamination by bad presentations to future classes. Face it, none of us want to have to deal with some review appraiser who has been brainwashed into following one of these detours.
When it comes to CE or advanced appraisal education, it's like anything else we do: Trust, but verify. There's no need to accept anyone's word on blind faith, and a good instructor in any discipline would never expect you to.
