• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

State Courses

Status
Not open for further replies.

Terry Russell

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Professional Status
Appraiser Trainee
State
Montana
Question?

With the seemingly endless changes in the individual states rules and regulations, does any of the states offer any courses or seminars, etc. on the amendments and interpretations that the state boards adopt?
I am sure it is the responsibility of the individual appraiser to keep up on his or her board’s standards, but it would seem that general meetings or seminars would be the professional action to implement.
When the federal standards board change the national guidelines, all the courses reflect these changes and emphasize the importance of staying up to date with the ebb and flow of the administrative tide of rule.
Apart from vague newsletters has anyone had any experience or have knowledge of any such policy by an individual state?
Thanks, Terry
 

George Hatch

Elite Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
California
Terry,

In California, (other states have similar requirements) appraisers are required to take a 4-hour update on state and federal laws every 4 years in order to maintain their licenses. A couple years ago, they inserted a loophole that now allows appraisers to sign a waiver that they have read and understand the laws, so that they don't have to take the course.

From what I've seen in teaching the class over the years, most appraisers should take the course.


George Hatch
 

bradellis

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Terry,

Illinois puts on a couple or three yearly. They are called "A Day with the Committee". Typically, at least half a day is spent on how the board moves into action under specific circumstances and then an instructor from our ransk typicaly does a half day of content on some specific topic, like how to best do a drive-by. and the like.

Normally this is sponsored by ICAP- IL Coalition of Appraisal Professionals, a consotrium of AF assoications who choose to praticipate and profits go to to ICAP to reduce the cost of maintaining the org.

If you want more info to try to get something similar in your state, contact ICAP or the OBRE in IL and I'm sure they would be happy to provide info.

Usually, one is held in the Chicago area each summer. So, you could take a short vacation- Chi-town is great in the summer and the restaurants are equal to any in the country, as is the shopping. Take the wife!

All the best,

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA
 

Francois K. Gregoire

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Professional Status
Certified Residential Appraiser
State
Florida
Terry,

Florida requires three hours of State Law update every two years. Normally CE providers combine it with the 7 hours of USPAP required every two years for a ten hour class day.

Can't speak for the other states, but in Florida there are not usually a vast array of changes. For instance the only major change we have had in the last two years is to allow Distance Learning for Appraiser CE.
 

Terry Russell

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Professional Status
Appraiser Trainee
State
Montana
Thanks for the responses.

The courses I have taken here in Montana have never strayed from the national. All the instructor(s) would elaborate on was that Montana may have additional regs. So I would note that and check it out.
My interest in this topic is primarily developing a scope and range of uniformity among the state boards.
Terry
 

David C. Johnson

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
<span style='color:darkblue'>Terry,

Historically, few have viewed the past North Carolina Appraisal Board (p-NCAB) as being particularly exemplary regarding the propriety of their rule changes, which includes: the substance of their rule changes, the methods of their rule changes, the frequency of their rule changes, or the communication of their rule changes. They have left much to be desired.

With more enlightened members either now in place or soon to be in place, we anticipate significant improvement all the way around. However, perhaps ironically but not surprisingly, some of this improvement may include a small flurry of necessary rule changes to "undo" several ill-conceived or inadequate rule changes accumulated over the half decade or so during the period this state board has been so poorly operated and managed.

Actually, the very last noxious crock of unfettered Good-Ol'-Boy (GOB) Rule Changes have just recently cleared the pipeline, and were aired at last month's NCAB board meeting at a public "Rule Change Hearing" prior to their being slam dunked as official state law (anticipated later this month).

The uninitiated my assume such proposed rules, subject to the pubic hearing as mandated by state law, might have been made public by way of the p-NCAB's website at:

http://ncappraisalboard.org

Fat chance. The initiated know much better. If I have missed it anywhere on the site, I hope someone will let me know. I did not look long for it on their site as I know that to be a waste of time. If this post on AppraisersForum now encourages the posting of the proposed rules for the state's appraisers for the first time, please note the date and time of this posting here to determine which came first. I may post them myself on Boardwatch later on, and also the Written Submitted Comments from the North Carolina Chapter of the National Association of Realtors' Appraisal Section as authored by their chairman, David Reitzel. His written comment letter is mentioned to follow but is not immediately available to me for posting here. (Of course, the Appraisal Section of the NC NAR was very much NOT in favor of the proposed changes.)

I digitally recorded the public speakers at that public meeting and also transcribed the recording. You will see that all speakers, except for the representative of the NCAB staff, were very much against most or all of the proposed changes -- and for real good reasons as have been cited recently in other threads on the NCAB in this sub-forum.

Here is the Wave File if you have speakers on your computer. If not, a pair of head phones plugged into your computer often works even better. Give it time to download as it is almost 12 minutes long and could take as much as 20 to 30 minutes depending on your connection speed. You can then minimize the player and read the transcription as you listen to the speakers. (Microsoft's free player is pretty hard to beat and can be downloaded for free from their website.)

www.boardwatch.org/RuleChangeSpeakers.wav

Here is my transcription of this recent event. As yet, to my knowledge, there have been no decision by the Board regarding the proposed changes:

________________________________

RECENT NCAB RULE CHANGE HEARING SPEAKERS</span>

Tom Hildebrandt (first few words of speech missing from recording):

<span style='color:darkblue'>...Specific problems with that except that I would like for the board rather than having the national USPAP fifteen hour course be part of R-3, I would prefer to see that be a separate requirement and have the fifteen hours that would be part of the R-3 course be devoted to additional instruction.

I think most of the board members will agree that many of our students / our trainees need additional time in constructive concepts. Since there is already course work in place for the fifteen hour course, that's the national school, the national course, that will give the instructor at the R-3 level additional time to devote to methods, techniques, [for] those types of issues.

I think it would also have a second effect, it would also make the scheduling for the students to get the certified instructors to teach those courses -- it would be better received and make for better scheduling for those folks.

The other issues, I would like to sort of mirror what Mr. Reitzel's comments were. The requirement for instructors to provide sample reports, I see serving no real useful purpose.

An instructor's goal is not writing a report, or his ability to write the reports, would not necessarily have a reflection on his ability to teach. The board already has the right to review any appraiser's work files.

If they choose to want to look at the work product for a given instructor, they already have that right. I see this as a rule that is just superfluous.

On the issue of "Letters of Inquiry" from either board counsel or from a staff investigator or originated from the board, and again, at the moment you have the right to go to look at the work file of an appraiser whose been subject to a complaint, you have the right to investigate any issues that involve issues of character, you already have that right.

The requirement to impose on the appraiser, the licensee, to respond in fourteen days is, I think, a little bit disingenuous. It is very possible that an appraiser could be out of country or taking a vacation for more than fourteen days, and this would be one more on a list of violations of your rules, and in theory it could be argued by an aggressive counsel that his license should be taken for failure to respond.

I grant you that in that case, it could be argued with some discretion, it would not come to pass, but I am not so certain that would be the case. It's just not a rule I think that needs to be enacted. And the follow on to that is where the staff can request any documents that they wish is clearly an over stretch of the authority of the board.

You have a right to come and look at work files as you may wish but to request any document that the board may feel to be a subject of inquiry is a matter to be determined by law, and not by the arbitrary desecration of some board or staff member.

So I would urge you to specifically strike that. You already have sufficient authority to ask for a response. And that concludes my comments. Thank you.</span>

Acting Chairman Vance Thompson:

Thank you, Mr. Hildebrandt. Someone else wish to speak?

David C. Johnson:

Yes, What I'd like to do -- David Johnson--

Acting Chairman Vance Thompson:

Excuse me. State your --

David C. Johnson:

-- sure, North Carolina state-certified general real estate appraiser -- is second Mr. Hildebrandt's comments and David Reitzel's comments. That will be it.

Acting Chairman Vance Thompson:

Thank you. Someone else wish to speak?

Doug Winner:

<span style='color:darkblue'>I'm Doug Winner, I am a real estate instructor, appraiser instructor as well, licensing and certification. Fortunately, I'm a now an AQB instructor as well. Proud of that.

The thing about having the instructor put forth a copy of his reports to be reviewed by the board for approval as an instructor, one of the problems we have now -- I'm not in favor of that at all -- because one of the problems we have now is that we don't have enough instructors. Its very difficult to get "G" instructors as it is. "G" appraisers [instructors] can't afford to teach.

Another problem with it that I see is you are going to reduce your pool of qualified instructors. It puts the instructor in the position of saying "why should I bother with this?" It's hard enough to get them motivated to do it as it is. You have the control over the instructor to begin with.

You're going to review his credentials, you are going to review his work, you have already approved him as a general appraiser in order to teach general for instance, you have already qualified him, and its almost insulting to the instructor to say: "OK, yes, you are good enough to be a general appraiser, but to be an instructor, let's go look at that thing again.

And it gets politics into what should be an educational process. The end in this case is what's important. You look at the pass/fail ratio of the students of the particular instructor, you judge that instructor as well as the school or the venue in which he's teaching. And so you already have a control over the quality of the instruction.

And the student himself, for him to pass that state exam and to move forward in the appraisal profession has to get the knowledge, has to learn the material, and he needs qualified instructors to do that. You have provisions to approve "G" courses and "R" courses by the Institute.

Are you now going to require that the Institute instructors send you copy of their reports before you are going to approve the Institute and their corresponding courses, or is it just to North Carolina appraisers that have to meet this level of instructors, but it's OK for instructors teaching for the Institute and for other venues to do it anyway they want to and you will just accept them under a blanket thing.

So I think it's kind of an onerous provision and I am very strongly against that. Most of your "G" instructors are this close to saying "Not any more." And I think you are going to tip the balance as far as having sufficient instructors.

We are now going to AQB instructors required in order to do the R-3 courses, of course, you've got to have AQB instructors in order to do the Continuing Ed courses for the requirement every two years. Many of you attended the AQB course.

Not all of you, not all of those that attended that course passed the AQB exam. It's very hard to get, it's going to be very difficult for you to get qualified instructors. And I think you are just piling it on a little strong.

I do not think you gain any benefit or increase the quality of the instructor at all. You can measure the quality by the results. By the pass/fail ratio by the school or the instructor and the performance of those students in the field. Thank you.</span>

Acting Chairman Vance Thompson:

Thank you. Anyone else like to address this issue, these issues? Somebody else from the general public who would like to speak? OK, does the staff have any comments.

NCAB Executive Director Mel Black:

<span style='color:darkblue'>Mr. Chairman and members of the board, Mel Black, executive director of the North Carolina appraisal board. I am here to deliver the staff's comments on the proposed changes to the board's administrative rules.

The staff has thoroughly reviewed these changes over the last several weeks and we have reviewed them again in light of the written comments that have been received, and in addition today, we have heard comments on the particular rule of .0306, part "G" that adds the board's ability to request appraiser samples of instructors.

I am not prepared to present information on this but I will now that it seems that it is an issue. The reason that this is a good idea for the board is to help the board evaluate applicants who wish to be instructors.

If you'll look at part A-2 of the rules, there's a fraction in there that says that an individual must have at least one-third of their experience in income property appraising, and very often the board staff receives applications and its very difficult to look at an individual's experience without having a chance to see a copy of a report, or look at an experience log.

In addition the rule does grant the board some discretion in finding equivalent approval, and I know that there was some discussion earlier on comment about there not being enough instructors. I think this board has tried to fairly evaluate applicants and try to approve applicants where there is enough qualification criteria there.

We would like to be able to get reports in an effort to find the equivalents to the particular rules in parts A1, 2, and 3. And that's the purpose of that part of the rule. In closing, the staff recommends that the board adopt the changes as published. Thank you.</span>

Acting Chairman Vance Thompson:

Thank you for your remarks from each of you. And thank you, Mr. Black for your summation for the staff. If approved by the board, the proposed rules will become effective on July 1, 2003.

The record of this proceedings will be available for public inspections at the board's offices during regular business hours. The board will consider the comments made today as well as written comments and will in due time render a decision on the proposed rule making action.

Members of the board and I would like to thank all of you for your attendance at this proceeding. This hearing is now concluded.
 

Terry Russell

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Professional Status
Appraiser Trainee
State
Montana
David,

I don't have time at the moment to go thru your posts.
But did you mean the rules are now laws or the rules have been ratified in effect.
There is a difference.
Gotta run, Bruss is after me.

tr
 

David C. Johnson

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
<span style='color:darkblue'>Terry,

I don't know the distinction enough between "the rules are now laws or the rules have been ratified in effect" in NC to answer your question. Please comment further.

dcj
____________________

PS. Yep, gotta watch the Bruss guy. I know I wouldn't appraise for him. Beyond just getting stiffed for the fee, it's that "guilt by association factor" George Hatch alludes to in his post in that recent Bruss thread:

"...If the only appraisers he deals with are unethical enough
to negotiate their appraisal methods and conclusions in ad-
vance of the engagement, then it's no wonder that he thinks
we are all idiots and unprofessional..."</span>
 

Terry Russell

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Professional Status
Appraiser Trainee
State
Montana
David,

The following is probably all too familar, but it is pasted from the NCAB Administrative Rules.
These are not laws.
The board can and does make rules.
The board can not make or enforce laws.

Most states follow something like this:

Statutes, Code, or Acts (LAWS)

Administrative Code, Rules, Procedure, (NOT LAWS)
to enforce the violation of the immediate above, a board must be empowered by law to take a case to a court of law to be settled.

I think I knew what you were saying I was just getting picky.
You can break the rules and the result is administrative justice.
You can break the laws and the result is juduciuary justice.

------------------------
§ 93E-1-10. Rule-making authority.

The Board may adopt rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter and the General Statutes of North Carolina which may be reasonably necessary to implement, administer, and enforce the provisions of this Chapter, including, but not limited to, the authority to:
(1) Prescribe forms and procedures for submitting information to the Board;

(2) Prescribe standards of practice for persons registered as a trainee, licensed or certified under this Chapter; and

(3) Prescribe standards for the operation of real estate appraiser education programs.

"§ 93E-1-13. Penalty for violation of this Chapter.

(a)Any person who acts as, or holds himself or herself out to be, a registered trainee or a State-licensed or State-certified real estate appraiser without first obtaining a registration, license, or certificate as provided in this Chapter, or who willfully performs the acts specified in G.S. 93E-1- 12(a) shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

EXAMPLE: ABOVE it states a rule which is also a law. Even with the law in place, the board would be required to go thru the judiciary process as John Q. Public.
------------------------------------------

(b) The Board may appear in its own name in superior court in actions for injunctive relief to prevent any person from violating the provisions of this Chapter or the rules promulgated by the Board. The superior court shall have the power to grant these injunctions whether or not criminal prosecution has been or may be instituted as a result of the violations, and whether or not the person is the holder of a registration, license, or certificate issued by the Board under this Chapter."

THE COURT HAS THE POWER NOT THE BOARD.

Enough of that.

Later, Terry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Top

AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks