Arlen C. Mills, Chair
Appraisal Qualifications Board
The Appraisal Foundation
1029 Vermont Ave., NW - Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005-3517

RE: Opposition to adoption of Parts A through F of the AQB's May 10, Draft on USPAP Education and Instructors


Dear Mr. Mills:

The Georgia Board opposes the adoption of Parts A through F of the AQB's May 10, 2000 Exposure DrafL In fact, we are dumfounded at these proposals.

You have used federal tax funds to propose criteria:

1. for which the AQB has no statutory authority. Tide I I does not authorize the AQB to establish minimuin requirements for continuing competency for appraisers nor to regulate or establish minunum requirements for instructors.

2. that seek to usurp the role and responsibility of state regulatory agencies in regulating the appraisal industry. States should determine whether or how to regulate instructors. In addition, what continuing competency education appraisers may need is a matter for state regulators to determine, if so authorized by their state statutes. (We understand that the AQB believes some regulators have requested its involvement If so, the AQB should remind them that they may not defer or cede their responsibility to a private group such as the AQB.)

3. that will stifle the beneficial effect of the free market in education. The AQB proposes that the only instruction that will be approved for instructors is that the AQB provides or approves. (In the real world that is known as a monopoly.) The AQB offers no proof (probably because there is none) that it is the only entity competent to train, or oversee the training of, USPAP instructors. Viewed in a light most favorable to the AQB, its proposals create a conflict of interest.

4. that only presumes deficiency in the application of USPAP. The AQB offers no reliable empirical studies that demonstrate appraiser deficiency in applying USPAP. Our investigations of complaints about appraisals reveal generally sound implementation of USPAP by Georgia appraisers. When one of our investigations uncovers serious non-compliance with USPAP, it almost always involves dishonesty (e. g. false comparables) as opposed to failure to understand how to use USPAP. (Crooks can be stopped only by revocation, not education.) When our appraisers assert others appraisers are misapplying USPAP, we most often find that they really disagree on how to approach a problem~ not really a misapplication of USPAP. The AQB has offered no rationale that would even justify state regulatory intervention on this issue. Is the AQB relying on anecdotal evidence of appraisers misunderstanding or misapplying USPAP?

5. that reflect a lack of respect for appraiser professionals. Our experience suggests that Georgia appraisers are competent to determine any individual deficiencies they may have in understanding and applying USPAP. After all they get constant feed back from clients and review appraisers. They are also competent to select good education providers. They do not need mandates from ivory towers. Even assuming that some other state's appraisers may not have the competency Georgia's appraisers have, is it the AQB's intent to punish the competent in order to get to the incompetent?

6. that only presumes a deficiency of USPAP instructional quality. Again the AQB cites no empirical study even to justify its illegal intervention in this area. Does the AQB have anything more than anecdotal evidence of widespread, poor instruction?

7. that creates a profit center for your organization's self perpetuation and aggrandizement. Only the naive could presume that your proposals arise only from a desire to improve the quality of appraisal education or appraisers' work product.

Such profligate use of tax payer money has often led to criminal investigations and congressional hearings. Even if the AQB refuses to accept our arguments above, that fact alone is a strong rationale for the AQB to drop these unnecessary proposals now.

For the Board




Charles Clark
Real Estate Commissioner
CC:cg

cc: Appraisal Subcommittee
Association of Appraiser Regulatory Officials