Below is a brief series of Q&A designed to reflect The Appraisal Foundation’s position with respect to the September 7, 2010 decision by the Appraisal Institute to withdraw as a Sponsor of The Appraisal Foundation.
Question: Why did the Appraisal Institute choose to withdraw as a Sponsoring Organization of The Appraisal Foundation?
Answer: Obviously, only the Appraisal Institute can provide their full reasoning for this decision. However, the simple response to this question is the Appraisal Institute was unwilling to accept sanctions imposed by The Appraisal Foundation as a result of their conduct as a Sponsoring Organization.
Question: What did the Appraisal Institute do or not do that The Appraisal Foundation objected to?
Read it all HEREAnswer: In simplest terms, The Appraisal Foundation expects its Sponsoring Organizations to communicate with it first regarding any matters that have a direct or indirect impact on our organization. The Appraisal Institute failed to comply with this expectation.
My only comment: Do you find the format of communications from the Appraisal Foundation as annoying as I?
Posts
5 comments:
NO!
And quite to the contrary I find the attitude and comments of the AI to be irritating, juvenile, self serving and extremely counter productive.
This is about the AI monopolizing what appraiser education should be. A function that clearly belongs to TAF. I have to admit the AI does a pretty good job with some of the stuff they do, but they cannot standardize what appraisers need to know, unless every licensed or certified appraiser has to belong to the AI. Come to think of it, maybe that is the goal.
The AI simply does not seem to know how to act like it is the part of something bigger than itself. It's similar to narcissism in an individual. The AI is a collective narcissism and this temper tantrum has convinced me the AI lacks the leadership the profession needs. I can't afford to pay my dues anyway. Appraisers need both organizations. too bad for us the AI doesn't know that, or doesn't care.
Edd,
As a private, professional association, I can't see how the Appraisal Institute can monopolize appraiser education. Of course, I'm speaking from my perspective in a state with several appraisal education providers and plenty of competition.
The Appraisal Foundation, on the other hand, IS in a position to monopolize education, among other things. By congressional mandate, The Appraisal Foundation already monopolizes Appraisal Standards and Appraiser Qualification Criteria. By their own mission creep, The Appraisal Foundation monopolizes USPAP instruction and qualification of USPAP instructors.
The Appraisal Foundation has consumed over $12,500,000 of "appraiser tax", extracted from appraisers involuntarily over the years, and will consume millions more in the next couple of years. The Appraisal Institute, on the other hand, operates on dues paid voluntarily, and income from education and sales oif publications.
First, I can't see how standards can meaningful if you don't teach appraisers how to adhere to them. Many seem confused about the difference between fact and gossip and they are certified already.
Second, $12 mil is too darned much money. No wonder they change USPAP so much. Give some of it back to the states.
Third, AI may be voluntary, but unless I can be part of the Denver crowd I will forever be a treated as conscript. There just isn't much going on for an associate.
What ever happened to freedom of speech? How would anything ever change (TAF, AI, laws, regulations, etc.) if everything every appraiser said or did had to get "approval" from someone/somewhere?
Monopolies are not a good thing.
Open debate, open to scrutiny, open to disagreement, open to input, open to change.
THAT is what is acceptable.
"In simplest terms, The Appraisal Foundation expects its Sponsoring Organizations to communicate with it first regarding any matters that have a direct or indirect impact on our organization. The Appraisal Institute failed to comply with this expectation."
Where does it say anything must be approved? Common decency and human relations dictate that if you want to take a position in opposition to a "friend" (ie. sponsored/supported organization)you first explain your position to that "friend". As I read the background, that did not happen and this is a habit of AI as stated by Edd.
Post a Comment