working with the Board

[JoTetherow]

Hi all

as i continue my research into the Board and DOLS, i am understand more how the system works. While i am not a fan of the fact that the reality of the board does go against the laws, the reasoning behind it has merit. The merit is that the people on the Board have political connections. These connections allow them a better chance of getting rules and regs passed than joe blow off the street (you and me)would have. Without these connections, you can hardly get anyone to answer the phone let alone talk to you, let alone LISTEN to you.

now this does not mean i think we should stop what we are doing. I am just saying that we can get a lot further if we are all on the same side and not in an advisarial position.

we still need to let the Board know our concerns (which they may very well have as well) and let them know we are there to let them know that if they listen to us, and if they agree with us (hopefully) that we have a better chace of improving the profession if we ALL work together.

when i attend the next board meeting, the most important thing i will try and put across is that i am willing to help in anyway to help them make our profession better.

so let us go on in a positive manner. the new rules of 1/1/08 will certainly help, what we need to do is to try and do what we can to help them take care of the skippies out there that got their certifications before the new rules. The supervisor/trainee registration is a good one and the special courses for supervisory appraisers is a good one. i think trying to create another licence for supervisory appraisers might take way too long but having a registration and a course to get on that registration just might be doable.

what ya all think?
jo

 

[Tony V]

I think that the last thing needed is another licence type....I do strongly beleive that regestration and "marrage" of the trainee to the supervisor is important.....along with extra classes for the super....

It would also seem to me that the reasoning behind the way the board operates is bougus and that the Stae is in VIOLATION of there own Laws...What the HELL is wrong with them....My God.....The don't rock the boat went out in the 50's....
The board needs to understand their own powers and be held accountable for the current situation....and the legeslature needs to be kicked in thge butt if the board needs to be 'connected' to get somewhere.....

Not jumping at you Jo....however I do find the entire situation a joke....

 

[Tony V]

RANT Over...

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I concur with some of Tony's points. A new license position for sups is probably a bit much, and I doubt it will happen. I think registering them is a good idea. That info should be made readily available so that clients can check to make sure that the trainee is indeed working under a registered individual. Otherwise anyone can simply play the odds and hope they don't get caught.

I also agree with Tony on the point about the Board's make-up...it is the law, for gosh sake. It's being violated so obviously it's a joke. It might not be a good idea to point that out directly to the Board, but it might be a good idea to do that with the persons doing the appointing.

Would the board makeup be an issue with the ASB? I assume it's only a state issue that the ASB has no jurisdiction over, but the NY Board violating their own rules can't be good.

 

[JoTetherow]

you are right

yes, it is law. and they know the laws. i know because i spoke to the vice chair about it. he did not seem to know that the new guy wasnt qualified but then again the vice chair has not turned out to be very communicative.

this week i hope to have a good conversation with the chair.

now, for speaking with the people who appoint them? good luck, i tried it and ran into brick wall, stock replies and calls not returned. the legislators do not care. and i have decided that the boards legality is not the hill we should die on.

our hill is slowly coming together and it it supervisors and trainees and their regulation. I think Tony and Dave have it right, REGISTRY and SUPERVISOR CLASSES. now there is a hill that a stand should be made from. we need to have the current people who are certified and "training" reigned in.

so, if everyone agrees that this is a key point that we want to bring to the Board, then it is time to start collecting the documents, orders, advertisements, etc that will prove to the board (and DOLS..they are always at the meeting) that a registry and classes would benefit everyone...except skippy.

what say everyone? we need you to chime in, give your opinions on this and suggestions on finding the proof.

jo

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"getting rules and regs passed"

pls review "POWERS OF THE BOARD" - no new legislative "passing" or approval is required. the Board is already empowered to create and implement regulations and rules THEY deem necessary to uphold Existing State Appraisal Law (i.e. including USPAP).

The notion that, for some reason, they must petition the Legislature for Additional Laws......... is rendered moot by the specific language already contained in the "POWERS OF THE BOARD".

The core essential "hurdle" is .......unless $$$$$$$ are generated, and isolated, specifically to enforce the existing Law and Regs and Rules..... creating "new" regs n rules - ala educational criteria for NEW appraisers and UPGRADES, trainee registration or supervisory classes .......only...... will NOT accomplish a thing. Same ol Same ol with STILL no enforcement.

7500 licensees, $300. regular renewal, $150. Designated/ non-siphonable/ Enforcement surcharge = total $450. renewal fees.
-$1.12million each 2 year cycle for Enforcement. TRIPLE the number of Regional "Advisors" / Investigators.

End the charade..........NOW!

Cost to Appraiser (addtl) $75 per year. TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

 

[JoTetherow]

Mike,

the points you bring up are good but not all are handled by the board. According to the State Certified and Licenced Real Estate Appraisers Licence Laws, DOLS is the one who sets the fees for for licenses, and DOLS approves courses and seminars "that are consistant with the standards extablished by the board"

as for increasing the number of RA's. That again is up to DOLS. As far as I can tell,(but my info is limited) there are sufficient RA's out there. The problem is with the industry tuning in bad reports. I know that you send things in, i send things in, and i know the vice chair gave Ernest a huge stack of reports at the last board meeting. But we are just a drop in the bucket. At the informal appraisers breakfast i went to last week, 3 reviewer were laughing about the crap they reviewed but NONE of them would turn them into the state. If complaints are not made then there is nothing to review.

jo

 

[KenRossman]

I agree that out of control supervisory appraisers is problem #1 and another license level is unnecessary.

More requirements on supervisory appraisers is ok, but the existing rules are not being enforced, so what difference will more rules make without enforcement???

The key in my mind is finding a way to catch the errant supervisory appraisers misrepresenting their having inspected the interior along with the trainee.

I agree with MK about finding more money to fund enforcement.

I still think an online trainee log identifying the supervisory appraiser and if they inspected the interior is viable and could be implemented with minimal cost.

I am finding lenders much more insistant lately that trainees inspecting alone is unacceptable.

 

[Claude From NY]

You know what I would like to see for skippy farms. Random compliance investigations from beginning to end. From the order to the work file. Full field review with interior inspection and interviews (or examination under oath) with the pertinent parties: the borrower, the owner, the assistant appraiser and the supervisory appraiser.

Personally, the threat alone would be enough to keep me in line and if the results of a few investigations were published it would work wonders to reel in the others. JMO of course.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

§160-e. Powers of the department
The department shall have the following powers and duties:

1. To receive applications for certification and licensing;
2. To establish the administrative procedures for processing applications for certification and licensing;
3. To approve or disapprove applications for certification or license and issue certificates or licenses;
4. To maintain a registry of the names and addresses of people certified or licensed under this article;
5. To retain records and all application materials submitted to it;
6. To approve courses and seminars for original certification or licensing and continuing education to ensure that the same are consistent with the standards established by the board, or equivalent to those required by such standards;
7. To assist the board in such other manner as the board may request;
8. To establish administrative procedures for disciplinary proceedings conducted pursuant to the provisions of this article; and
9. To suspend and revoke certificates or licenses pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings provided for in this article.

§160-f. Fees

1. The department shall charge and collect fees not in excess of the following:
   1. An application fee for certification and licensing of $250.
   2. An examination fee of $50.
   3. A reexamination fee of $50.
   4. A fee for recertification or renewal of license of $250.
   5. A delinquent renewal fee of $200.
2. Notwithstanding any other law, the department may transmit an annual registry fee of not more than $25 from such individuals who perform or seek to perform appraisals in federally related transactions and to transmit a roster of such individuals to the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council as required by Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
3. All fees collected under this section shall be paid into the licensing examinations services account pursuant to §97-aa of the State Finance Law.

** they forgot?? to split it 50/50 with dedicated fund exclusively for Enforcement....... ?? or was it Intentional....h34r: