Perhaps the minimum grade to be on the list i.e. 70% is a typo? Those possibly subject to "investigation" by the "Investigator/Appraiser", whose lives and careers are on the line, should demand 90% and at least 10 years of demonstrated/reviewed appraisal experience.
Mike:
I've been fortunate to meet and talk with a number of the investigators at BREA as well as the new director (in my role as a conference lead for the AI or in setting up a presentation with the REAA).
While no organization is perfect, I have to tell you that I'm very comfortable with the level of experience and (more importantly) the "even keel" attitude of each investigator I've met.
These aren't zealots, nor do they act like petty bureaucrats who let their power go to their heads.
They are not looking to hang an appraiser (unless that appraiser is guilty of significant ethics violations).
They understand the pressures that many appraisers face (turn-time pressure, as well as the shift in appraiser-client interface created by the AMCs).
My impression: They want to determine if an issue is significant or trivial; trivial, they may call you. Significant, they'll take some action.
Depending on the issue, the action may be counseling (private), or may be additional education. The education isn't thought of as a "punishment" but as an opportunity to re-train, and a chance for the appraiser to understand what was wrong before, and how to do it right going forward.
And, of course, if the appraiser violates an ethical standard, that appraiser should be prepared for serious consequences.
All in all, based on my readings of the activities of other Boards in other states, I think we in California are extremely lucky to have the organizational structure (civil service employees) that we do.
Again, no organization is perfect, and there are some decisions I've read or heard about which I don't agree with. But those seem to be the exception, and definitely not the rule.
:new_smile-l:
