Appraisers' Free Forum

Steve Owen · by **Steve Owen** on Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:01 am

Annemieke Roell wrote:I don't see why. The report itself accompanied by the Board's reviewer's report should be sufficient.

Do you really not understand the power-brokers in the bureaucratic government agencies any better than that? The complaining appraiser will become part of the process because they can. There doesn't have to be a logical reason for it.

Annemieke Roell · by **Annemieke Roell** on Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:31 am

Steve Owen wrote:
Annemieke Roell wrote:I don't see why. The report itself accompanied by the Board's reviewer's report should be sufficient.

Do you really not understand the power-brokers in the bureaucratic government agencies any better than that? The complaining appraiser will become part of the process because they can. There doesn't have to be a logical reason for it.

As a former lobbyist in DC and Ottawa I am painfully aware of those games.

I also know the way the OK board works and they have always have been upfront, fair and objective. They are not like the board in other states.

Steve Owen · by **Steve Owen** on Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:15 pm

Annemieke Roell wrote:I also know the way the OK board works and they have always have been upfront, fair and objective. They are not like the board in other states.

A lot of states boards fit that criteria... I believe Missouri's does. But, the point is, once a rule is set, then whatever people come along in the future interpret and follow it.

MREAB wanted to get rid of due process in dealing with appraisal complaints as a way to streamline it. I would really not have too much problem with the members at that time having some kind of streamlined process... but, I was against the proposal... without due process, the appraiser has no protection against some future board that might have an ax to grind.

Like I said before. I can see both sides of this, but I am in favor of allowing anonymous complaints, with the caveat that if the complaint is not self-evidently true, then the board should err on the side of the appraiser when dealing with them.

Mako · by **Mako** on Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:26 pm

Annemieke Roell wrote:Mako --- anybody who reviews and sends in reports in order to get rid of the competition should not only, in my opinion, be a review appraiser but should also be suspended for unprofessional behaviour.

All the arguments above, while I am still against the anonymous filing of complaints, causes me to think that the process should be as follows:

A person (be it an appraiser or a member of the public) sends a a report or inquiry in to the board, with their name attached, at which [point it is a grievance. It then goes through the system and if the Probably Cause Committee determines there is indeed a problem with the report, it then becomes a complaint, which is filed by the board against the appraiser. This way the board and procecuting attorney have a contact name for further questions and the filer remains unknown in the records.

Indeed, the lenders should be the ones filing these reports. But they don't.

Sounds reasonable.

However, some appraisers don't understand they're trying to get rid of the competition...it's subconscious.

I'm tellin ya...I've had some horrendous reviews over the years. If you could come up with an answer to keep the petty Pete's from turning in appraisals in which they say - turned in a competitor over methodology (one example), especially when they agree with their opinion of value...then you'd have something. :tumbsup:

Maybe say, turn in 2 or 3 reports in which the board finds trivial & you have to attend review classes & be placed on probation (of course they should receive a warning 1st). Don't know about your region, but around here people are just at each others throats. :shrug:

Appraisers' Free Forum

Oklahoma SB 1185 -- Question

Who is online