Title Xi 2004 Georgia's Board Was Correct!

[Bob Ipock]

I have no problem with individuals fighting TAF, ASC or FIRREA. My problem is with state appraisals who claim they have no money and not enough time.
If the governors and Legislators want to fight let them do so. It simply is not the role of state appraisal board members. Again, they need to follow their mission statements and not dreams of glory fighting the government.

Appraisal fraud, incompetence and dishonesty are far greater problems than who gets to issue the rules the glory.

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

I have no problem with individuals fighting TAF, ASC or FIRREA. My problem is with state appraisals who claim they have no money and not enough time.

Are you referring to State Appraisal Regulatory Boards? Other than your home state board, to which are you referring?

If the governors and Legislators want to fight let them do so. It simply is not the role of state appraisal board members. Again, they need to follow their mission statements and not dreams of glory fighting the government.

An example of an oath of office has previously been provided. By what standard, law or rule is the claim made that state regulatory boards should not work to protect the rights of the states (and those of individual appraiser licensees)? Are you aware of a mission statement, law or rule precluding activism on the part of a board, board staff or individual members?

Projecting your idea of "glory" as motivation is amusing. How many involved individuals have you interviewed to discern their motivation? Have you ever talked or communicated with Charles Clark? Have you ever asked about his motivation to seek changes to Title XI? Are you aware that the Georgia Board received STERLING Field Reviews while Charles was the real estate commissioner? How does that fit with your claims that strict compliance with Title XI and their Policy Statements prevents mortgage fraud and wayward appraisers?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Have you ever asked about his motivation to seek changes to Title XI?



BINGO.

 

[George Hatch]

Like it or not, the federal government has an economic interest in a functioning appraisal profession and that interest crosses state lines. Pick up a newspaper and read about what happens when impact players on the due diligence side of the mortgage business (including appraisers) are left unsupervised or undersupervised. What happens at the state level can and does affect our economy on a national scale.

As far as I'm concerned, by the time the FBI or U.S. Attorney gets around to investigating the actions of an appraiser, they should be following a paper trail left by a state appraisal board, who should have already come and gone. The fact that it's often the other way around kinda speaks for itself.

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

Like it or not, the federal government has an economic interest in a functioning appraisal profession and that interest crosses state lines. Pick up a newspaper and read about what happens when impact players on the due diligence side of the mortgage business (including appraisers) are left unsupervised or undersupervised. What happens at the state level can and does affect our economy on a national scale.

As far as I'm concerned, by the time the FBI or U.S. Attorney gets around to investigating the actions of an appraiser, they should be following a paper trail left by a state appraisal board, who should have already come and gone. The fact that it's often the other way around kinda speaks for itself.

Yes, and state regulatory boards are charged with the responsibility of providing discipline to wayward appraisers. Here's some numbers from the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board, lest folks believe regulators spend too much time on things other than their "MISSION".

For the fiscal years 2002 - 2007, the FREAB received a total of 2467 complaints. Of those, 1554 were found to be legally sufficient. (Yes, some, maybe many, are frivolous. Of those found to be legally sufficient, Probable Cause was found in 534. Probable Cause means the allegations are a violation of Florida License Law or Rules and Regulations of the FREAB. The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board assessed discipline in 552 cases over the 2002 - 2007 time period. The apparent discrepancy between probable cause and discipline is due to cases being carried over between fiscal years.

There was a total of 12,430 active Florida appraisal licensees left at the end of the 2006 -2007 reporting period and another 4,526 inactive.

The number of complaints in the 2002 - 2003 fiscal year was 220. For the 2006 - 2007 fiscal year it was up to 681.

In the 2002 - 2003 fiscal year, the FREAB assessed discipline in 60 instances. It was up to 170 for the 2006 -2007 fiscal year.

From all of those cases, I can recall only a handful (less than a dozen) that may have interested the FBI or US Justice Department. If the Feds have a case, they DO NOT share their investigation with the FREAB until they prosecute the offender or cut him loose.

There is no reason to believe the experiences of other state regulatory boards are any different.

While Boards are dealing with the increasing number of complaints, whittling down their backlog to please the ASC, finalizing their actions within 1 year of the complaint to comply with ASC Policy Statements, they have also been getting legislation passed and rules promulgated to implement the 2008 AQB Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria.

To some, it may appear that boards are sitting on their behinds. The reality is, many are working their behinds off. And many of us still have the time and energy to strive for more effective appraisal regulation and less concentration on meaningless, ineffective ASC and AQB minutiae

 

[George Hatch]

Frank,

If your assertion that "There is no reason to believe the experiences of other state regulatory boards are any different" were true this topic would probably have not come up for discussion. It's pretty apparent which state boards have been active, which have been hyperactive and which have been underactive.

An appraisal prepared in South Dakota or Wisconsin should be standardized enough for a user in Florida to be able to place the same trust in it that they have for appraisals prepared in their own state. Hence the utility of the "minutiae" that contributes towards that standardization.

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

Frank,

If your assertion that "There is no reason to believe the experiences of other state regulatory boards are any different" were true this topic would probably have not come up for discussion. It's pretty apparent which state boards have been active, which have been hyperactive and which have been underactive.

An appraisal prepared in South Dakota or Wisconsin should be standardized enough for a user in Florida to be able to place the same trust in it that they have for appraisals prepared in their own state. Hence the utility of the "minutiae" that contributes towards that standardization.

George,

My fault for not being specific as to what I consider to be minutiae. I refer to the AQB getting involved in continuing education for partial years, continuing education requirements for active duty military, interpretations controlling continuing education credit for attending regulatory board meetings, making last minute changes to examination procedures which preclude my state from administering their own certification examination, and the like.

My responsibility is not to defend every regulator in the country, but if board members from other states were to post here, I believe they could provide evidence of their similar experiences. As it stands, we Wayne's World Regulars hear only one side of the story. Wouldn't you agree that appraisers should attempt to get the full story before developing an opinion?

Are their effective and ineffective boards? Sure, you will get no argument from me. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely!! Do most boards spend their time fighting the ASB, AQB and the ASC? Nope. At AARO meetings I am in the minority. Most attendees want the AQB and ASB to take care of everything and are willing to go along with just about every decision.

 

[George Hatch]

Frank,

With respect, you have enough experience in government to know that unless something is spelled out, bolded, highlighted and underlined there are individuals who will seek out the loophole for personal gain. You also know that the more specific the regs are the greater the number of collateral casualties. We can't get the standardized omlette without breaking the occasional egg. Some eggs, like California's 1,000 hour broker exemption towards minimum experience requirements for State Licensed Appraiser, are long overdue for disposal. Others are far more minor but detract from uniformity nonetheless.

Virtually all the changes you are referring to were in response to questions and issues raised at several levels. Possibly the most common point of origin is from the various state boards. We could probably call it an example of the law of unintended consequences to calls for the ASC and AQB to be more responsive to the interests of the states and other constituencies.

Most attendees want the AQB and ASB to take care of everything and are willing to go along with just about every decision.

Maybe that's why a 2004 letter from Georgia stands out.

 

[Bob Ipock]

The NCAB was excusing all appraiser/legislators from continuing education requirements.....untill they were caught (twice) and convinced by the ASC this was not a good idea.

Loopholes are not just for individuals, they can easily be taken advantage of by boards and politicians.

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

The NCAB was excusing all appraiser/legislators from continuing education requirements.....untill they were caught (twice) and convinced by the ASC this was not a good idea.

Loopholes are not just for individuals, they can easily be taken advantage of by boards and politicians.

Bob,

Once again, thanks for answering with completeness, all the questions posed in my earlier posts. Your attention to detail and support of opinion is without equal.

From what I read, the NCAB was following the law in your fine state.

Section 93E-1-7 of North Carolina’s statute provides that members of the General Assembly are exempt from continuing education requirements during their term of office.​

​

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it the legislature in North Carolina that writes and amends the law? What would you do if you were a board member? Would you violate the state law (which you probably swore to uphold when taking office) or would you follow the fiat of a non-elected, answerable to no one, appointed board?

Without a doubt, as with my prior questions, a prompt and complete answer will be provided. THANKS! in advance.