Appraisers' Free Forum

Okay, in the Ethics Rule, Confidentiality section there is the verbiage regarding not disclosing confidential information or assignment results but allowance for "duly authorized professional peer review committee...", my question is, what exactly constitutes this "duly authorized professional" committee? Is it restricted to membership organizations such as the AI or NAIFA for example, or does it extend to an informal group that is trying to better themselves with feedback from other appraisers? Where is the line drawn?

Discussion please, I really want to hear opinions other than my own thoughts rattling around in my brain

(Consult a lawyer, because I'm not one.) I think the general rule is that unless something is defined at law (that includes rules and regulations too) then it has its ordinary meaning.

And I don't know whether there are any cases dealing with "due authorization" or what "duly" really means. Is there an "unduly authorized" anything? Can something be done in an "unduly" manner?

Given the above uncertainty, I've duly authorized certain of our APO members to review reports for other members. If it'll help, I'll have a picture taken of me in a Ray-Ban decorated Banana Republic Dictator's uniform, complete with the gold fringe Tracy's using on her curtains.

I would ask if an informal group could be considered a professional organization which could create an "authorized" peer review committee? What might be the group's responsibilities should it identify any misleading information and/or errors which create a report which lacks credibility?

The question would be moot if the appraisal to be reviewed for feedback was cleansed of subject and client specific identifying information. Would lack of this information adversely affect the quality of the review by an informal group? And without specific identifying information, would the assignment results continue to be considered confidential?

Maybe this could be a question for an upcoming months USPAP Q&A?

I had thought the same thing Kenneth, re redacting all confidential information. I like the idea of this, but think it crosses or blurs some lines, so really want to get others opinions.

Also, what about review in terms of oral versus written, as one does for the Advisory Review on experience review through the AI. From my limited understanding that allows for not having to retain a work file, in particular if one steers away from criticism and sticks with questions which let the person who is being reviewed think (ask questions which make them put their thinking cap on). I would be very leery of doing a written review on something like this, in particular if the participant didn't like what was communicated.

Is the review voluntary? In other words, is the person being reviewed an active participant in the review process to the point that they purposefully submitted the report for critical review by their peers? Like the AI Advisory Review, is the purpose of the review intended to be an open communication process wherein questions are asked of the appraiser about aspects of the report under review? What would there be to "like" or dislike? An open discussion should be just that. It is possible that appraiser and reviewer both could learn something from the conversation. If the appraiser became "emotional" about the review results, well, their loss and no need to continue with the process, eh?

If there is no client, per se, USPAP does not require a workfile as the review would be required to comply with Std 3. I think some written documentation would be advantageous for all parties in the event of future discussion of the appraisal and review. I think an oral discussion between appraiser and reviewer/review panel would be more appropriate and personal given the indicated informal nature and intended purpose of the process.

If the appraisal under review has not been specifically submitted for review by the engaged appraiser, there may be some liability issues if an appropriate entity/authorized user has not requested the review.

It is purely voluntary and the idea is to help each other. As to not liking or liking; well it depends how something is written and people can and do often get emotional about any perceived criticism. There is no client, but an instructor in a course has to abide by USPAP, and to that end this almost becomes instructional. I am not sure there is a line being crossed or not, which is why I am posting this as I really want input. As I said, I love the idea of appraisers helping each other get better at what they do, but am maybe too cautious by nature.

USPAP has contained due diligence, due care and due authorization. In my opinion, where “due” starts and ends on any of these is a matter of due process. That is, duly authorized means subpoena power.

I notice you posted the same question elsewhere. One of the posts you got, from someone claiming to be a USPAP instructor, said this would make a good topic for a QA. I believe it already is. FAQ 42 addresses the point and, in liue of client authorization, refers to “required by law” and no other benchmark You might find that FAQs 40, 43 and 44 contain related, but less relevant responses.

Questions to the participants - should this be moved to the "Peer Discussion' section?

Corporate Lackey wrote:I had thought the same thing Kenneth, re redacting all confidential information. I like the idea of this, but think it crosses or blurs some lines, so really want to get others opinions.

IMHO, USPAP requires more than just redacting so-called confidential information. USPAP's CR holds as confidential "assignment results," which the document defines as "opinions and conclusions." IMHO, that means every, any and all opinions and conclusions developed, not just value conclusions. The include, but are not limited to: opinion of HBU (and all sub-opionions re feasible etc), opinions about subject physical condition (effective age, whether subject is "average" etc for the neighborhood, or any other relative ranking of any subject feature, indivdually or in the aggregate with other features), the opinion of whether the market is rising or falling, opinion/conclusion of neighborhood boundaries, the opinion of marketing time, the opinion/conclusions of square footage, the site value, everything in the income approach (market rent, expenses, multipliers). Etc, so on and so forth - basically everything in the report that isn't a fact.

Every once in a while, I see someone post that you can cross out the client's name, and perhaps subject address. I don't see how that cuts it. Even if you black those things out, you still revealed every assignment result - IMHO - but then not everyone reads documents the same way Antonin Scalia does.

PC,
Revealing assignment results to someone not an appraiser is very different from soliciting significant (or insignificant) professional assistance. And I think your take on "due" is misplaced, too. The threshold requirements of due process are notice and opportunity to defend. If there's no charge, there's no need for notice, and nothing to defend against. I believe that what we'd be doing here is soliciting professional assistance, and I don't think that'd be against USPAP. If it were otherwise, I would be unable to accept an assignment, discover it to be beyond my level of licensure, and engage a General Appraiser to help out. Yet that's done every day. Sometimes the CG does most of the report; sometimes he just reviews the work. Why should it make any difference whether he reads my report looking over my shoulder, or by reading an e-mailed PDF.

"Duly authorized" not "due diligence" was my question. I don't believe an informal group of my peers is a "duly authorized" peer review committee as described in the Ethics Rule.

Pina, thanks for the FAQ direction, but the only one that addresses peer review committees is 43 and it again still refers to "duly authorized". I guess I am going to stick with my gut on this and not participate in the group. Actually I have other concerns for it, since the group has gotten large and isn't just a handful of respected "peers". I wonder if the different appraisal organizations could allow for ongoing peer review at the request of a member who wants to hone up on skills?

Thanks again folks!

Pina, thanks for the FAQ direction, but the only one that addresses peer review committees is 43 and it again still refers to "duly authorized".

I realize the question already included the phrase "duly authorized" making the whole QA akin to a true/false question contianing both "Columbus" and "1492."

PC,
Revealing assignment results to someone not an appraiser is very different from soliciting significant (or insignificant) professional assistance.

Maybe different, but can overlap when talking about real assignments, because the assitance can involve dealing with processing the (confidential) sub opinions and sub conclusions in broader and final opinions and conclusions.

If this is to be "review" before the report goes to the client, I see no logical basis to argue that the second appraiser has not been made privvy to something USPAP holds as "confidential."

Don't worry, as someone usually points out in this type of thread, it is whatever rules your state board feels like making up in the name of USPAP that really count.

Within every office there is (or should be) someone who reviews what is going out the door. Checking for spelling, grammar, content, continuity, consistency, logic, reasoning, etc. I do not see the confidentiality rules prohibiting that kind of appraisal review.........even if the reviewer has access to the entire work file, I see no breech of the confidentiality rules. Consequently, I do not see any difference between me and Annemieke checking each others reports and me and Otis checking each others reports. I do think a disclosure statement indicating that Otis contributed to the report is in order, but I do not see his reviewing the report a violation.

Once the report has been submitted to the client, though, only those who worked on the report (including the proofreader/reviewer) should have access to it and simply because someone says they received a copy of it and therefore they need additional information does not meet the duly authorized peer review standard.

Goodpasture wrote:Within every office there is (or should be) someone who reviews what is going out the door. Checking for spelling, grammar, content, continuity, consistency, logic, reasoning, etc. I do not see the confidentiality rules prohibiting that kind of appraisal review.........even if the reviewer has access to the entire work file, I see no breech of the confidentiality rules. Consequently, I do not see any difference between me and Annemieke checking each others reports and me and Otis checking each others reports.

That depends on whether the terms of engagement are with Greenspoon or Greenspoon and Associates.