Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Workbox]

Don't let one person stir things so much to be unprofessional in your responses folks, as you can see it is past time to stand up and fight back with Pam and the VA Board.

 

[DWiley]

I find it interesting that one who claims to have no financial interests in the outcome of this decision has, from the very beginning, been quite vociferous in the defense of AIReady, FNC, etc.

My defense has not been for the benefit of FNC. It has been for those wronged by state boards (and others) that twist USPAP to defend a biased position.

Just last week a state board in my region found an appraiser guilty of violating USPAP because he did not have a Scope of Work section in his report; he spread the scope of work disclosure over several sections of the report rather than putting it in a single section.

The board took action against the appraiser despite the appraiser producing several written statements by the body that actually writes USPAP that there was no requirement for a report to have a specific Scope of Work section.

To those encouraging boards to ignore the words in USPAP and enforce based on personal beliefs, be careful what you wish for. You may be the next victim whose reporting style they do not like.

 

[Ken B]

That hat sure has some interesting timing. It has become a bit farcical if you ask me. With all due respect and all that.

 

[DWiley]

If anyone found my post offensive or believes it violated Forum rules, then I offer my apology. Since it was a moderator who started the dog analogy I did not see how responding in kind would be inapproriate.

I believe the die is cast. All that is left is to watch the fallout.

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

We are now back to any any and all posts that are not on topic will be removed and the poster banned from this thread. This will include posts made that are obviously only added to instigate temper flares.

 

[George W Dodd]

These questions may be relevant to an appraiser making a business decision regarding use of AIReady, but they are not relevant to the claim that its use violates USPAP.

Whatever the VA Board decides to do in this matter, the fallout will be highly entertaining. This will be especially true if the Board declares that using AIReady and/or Lighthouse violates USPAP. Either way, it will be interesting to watch the relevant parties squirm. I have the cigars and adult beverages ready for the show.

Mr. Wiley,

USPAP is a set of minimum standards that set the lowest level of work product. The VA Appraisal Board and every other State Board has the authority to set higher standards. I believe we should encourage Boards to act in situations were the Appraiser is being compromised and/or coerced by others.

I don't see anything different in your comments or letter than what you've said over and over and over again. I did wonder why it was necessary to trumpet your former appointment to the ASB in making your case. I did not notice any reference to your participation in developing AIReady, or work with AIRD, or FNC.

AIReady is a software dinosaur and its time has passed.

I noticed your "examples" consisted of skeleton reports devoid of any significant data or analysis. If a software program works well it should work for all examples otherwise it's flawed. A PDF file prints out every page of the report in its exact order, style, formate, and presentation as created. An example made at the VA Board meeting of a more complex property reveled numerous faults with AIReady software.
I encourage you to attend the next meeting.

 

[DWiley]

I did not notice any reference to your participation in developing AIReady, or work with AIRD, or FNC.

There was no mention of my role in developing AIReady because I had no role in its development. I am sure if one were willing to dig hard enough the names of those who developed AIReady could be found. You will not find me listed there.

There was no mention of working for FNC because I have never worked for FNC.

My involvement with AIRD was as an SRA member of the AI, not as an FNC employee. Besides, AIRD was a database. It was not a portal or report format. If the issue were databases, I would have disclosed that experience. However, that is not the issue.

Some in this thread have stated that they are not terribly familiar with USPAP, even though they have made quite specific claims about USPAP violations. I mentioned my ASB experience to make clear that, unlike those folks, I am very familiar with USPAP.

It is interesting that you question my lack of disclosure, but do not question lack of disclosure from those affiliated with FNC competitors. What's good for the goose...

I don't see anything different in your comments or letter than what you've said over and over and over again.

Some have said the same to me about your comments. Of course, comments made here are not the same as comments made to the body making the decision. I suppose that is the reason we both chose to provide input to the VA Board.

An example made at the VA Board meeting of a more complex property reveled numerous faults with AIReady software.

My letter specifically mentioned that AIReady has limitations. That is not a matter of dispute. The disagreement is over whether or not those limitations force an appraiser to violate USPAP.

Most residential forms appraislaware has some version of those "reveled numerous faults" in AIReady. I suppose we will just have to shut down the whole appraisal software industry.
____________

Razors are sharp, but some just won't believe it until they bleed. Sometimes a flesh wound is good in the long run, because it teaches one to handle sharp instruments with care.

 

[Fred]

Mr. Wiley,

USPAP is a set of minimum standards that set the lowest level of work product.

That's not true. Many intended uses require more than the "lowest level" of work for credible results.

AIReady is a software dinosaur and its time has passed.

And the alleged vintage of software is releated to USPAP in some way?

 

[Workbox]

What I am ready sounds like the plantation owner(s) telling his slaves to behave if they know what is good for them...................... A very sad day it is indeed.

But really, does one have be an USPAP guru to know better? Wiley, if you are so animate about this, you had since 05/29/2008 to make arrangements to make it with your side of the story at the meeting. You just opted out. Come on Man, Mr Olson could of used some help, he was stumbling all over the place.

As Henry Ford once mentioned. " I may not know every thing, but I have the power to get someone to give me the answer". (paraphrasing)

As for the answer from Mr Olson, of "Can the lenders do the conversion on their end, yes or no?" his answer was; "it would confuse them".......... Gee, that is how it has been for years for appraisers with these conversions programs.

 

[Fred]

Just last week a state board in my region found an appraiser guilty of violating USPAP because he did not have a Scope of Work section in his report; he spread the scope of work disclosure over several sections of the report rather than putting it in a single section.

The board took action against the appraiser despite the appraiser producing several written statements by the body that actually writes USPAP that there was no requirement for a report to have a specific Scope of Work section.

One of the documents is USPAP itself. No wonder they can't catch Skippy. Too busy enforcing imaginary rules and cracking down on software companies.