Last week I wrote a post on Matrix called [Shortsighted] Appraisal Institute Decides To Leave Appraisal Foundation where I expressed my frustration at the rift between The Appraisal Foundation and one of its sponsoring organizations, The Appraisal Institute. I thought high drama was the purview of real estate brokers and economists. The situation seemed to have morphed into a he-said, she-said type debate. I am concerned that in a time of unprecedented housing market turmoil we are left with no leadership as an industry and no ability to participate in the debate to shape our future.
To my surprise David C. Wilkes, Esq., CRE, FRICS, Chairman of The Appraisal Foundation commented:
Well balanced views and comments on the matter, Jonathan. I’m seeing quite a lot of misinformation and misstatements of the facts (in some cases amazingly far from the truth) among the online discussions and emails out there. I am happy to speak directly to any appraiser groups that may have concerns or questions and clear up any confusion.
Not able to let a podcast guest opportunity to pass me by, I reached out to David to have a conversation. He agreed and I very much appreciated his candor and clarity. Among his many accomplishments, David is
I will be extending an offer to the Appraisal Institute to present their views on this issue as well.
Tags: The Appraisal Foundation, Appraisal Institute, David C. Wilkes
As one of those unaffiliated appraisers (although our firm has an MAI and is licensed), I share the discouragement at the fall-out. It seems that the Institute has a reasonable grievance that the Foundation is sanctioning it for a proposed policy that was never formerly pursued. At the same time, the Foundation has legitimate grounds for claiming that the spirit of the by-laws has been broken and that sanctions are justified on this basis.
The conflict raises a legitimate question: At what point should the Foundation be formerly notified by a sponsor of a potential conflict that sponsor’s activities that might conflict with the Foundation’s principals? Also, when is a sanction hearing in order? That the Institute floated an idea internally for a legislative cure to a perceived issue is not necessarily the problem. Instead, the problem might be that it selectively sought support for its legislation from other sponsors, thereby opening itself up to review by the Foundation.
I propose that the Foundation consider lightening (even further) its sanction in return for the AI’s participation in a debate on instituting a new rule intended to clarify when the Foundation can bring a case against a sponsor.
The rule might establish that when a policy that might conflict with the Foundation is formerly approved by any one sponsor, then a hearing is warranted. It might also establish that when one sponsor seeks to enlist another sponsor in support of a proposed (but not yet approved) policy that might conflict with the Foundation, a sanction hearing is warranted.
(My personal interest is in seeing the embroglio resolved so that I can get my MAI and state license without having to take a whole new series of courses. The MAI has approved my coursework from my MS in RE (Appraisal Concentration) for pursuit of the desigation. But the State requires that AF sanctioned courses must be completed for the license, which would mean taking a whole bunch of new classes that repeat what I have already learned. I want the Institute to stop trying to re-enact Dangerous Liasons, get back into the Foundation and press the Foundation to grant recognition to curricula and coursework it approves in its sole discretion as a sponsor. Provided, of course, that the Foundation have the right to review and comment on the criteria for approving such coursework and curricula.)