www.idfpr.com October 26, 2012

Appraisal Subcommittee

Lori Schuster

1401 H Street NW

Suite 760 Washington DC 20005

Ladies & Gentlemen;

We appreciate the opportunity to address long standing issu es with some of the Policy Statements. Hopefully, other regulators and state boards will take t he opportunity to address their own concerns.

Policy Statement 2A :

This statement still fails to address the number of assignments covered under a Temporary Practice Permit. If it is more than 1 yet less than 10 , we’d really like to know.

Policy Statement 2B :

While I’m certain that the jurisdictions appreciate a green light to increase the “Tempor ary Practice” fees from $150 to $250, it still eludes us all as to where the author ity came from to impose ANY jurisdictional processing fee upon a jurisdiction when neither the FFIEC nor the ASC ever had a hand in the actual process.

This has always been and continues to be a classic unfunded mandate.

Policy Statement 3D :

“ States should establish routine ways to communicate wi th each other regarding matters of mutual interest, including the activities and status of persons who are certified or licensed in multiple states .” To this end, the National Registry should be able to collate that data mo re efficiently. The ASC has the resource; use it more effectively. Don’t make the jurisdictions invent another wheel.

Policy Statement 7 :

Timely Enforcement, as defined in the current Policy St atement goes back to a time when caseloads were a fraction of what they are today and what they will be in the future. For some reason the FFIEC & the ASC labor under the profound misconception that “ investigation and prosecution ” co-exist on the same timeline like an episode of TV’s Law & Order.

While there is an emphasis in fair and equitable treatment for appraisers, such treatment is impossible given the impractical rush to judgment that is required under an unrealistic twelve month resolution.

As to the twelve month resolution standard, we’d be inte rested to know from where such a standard originated. We can’t think of a single legal model that serves as the template.

Interestingly, we find that even proposed Policy Statement 8 – Interim Sanctions ...will not be a twelve-month

endeavor.

Caseloads vary from jurisdiction to juri sdiction. Some states may only see 30 to 40 complaints in year while states such as Illinois routinely see 300 to 400. Still, the ASC c ontinues to hold every jurisdiction to the same standard 

## Illinois Department of Financia l and Professional Regulation

Division of Professional Regulation

PAT QUINN

Governor SUSAN GOLD

Acting Secretary

JAY STEWART

Director Division of Professional Regulationwww.idfpr.com without regard to what or how complaints are fielded. We can’t even tell how many complaints are actually received by each jurisdiction. The ASC has been compiling this information for decades yet it doesn’t appear to be relevant enough to be shared with the public.

 Eleven states require notarized complaints. Illinois does not.

 A number of states will not consider anonymous co mplaints. Illinois welcomes anonymous submissions.

 Some states have a three-year statute of limitati on, many have a five-year st atute, while others have

none at all.

How can every jurisdiction be fairly and realis tically held to such a rigid standard?

Once a case enters the administrative court system any control that a jurisdiction may have had during the investigation phase evaporates.

Due process makes the respondent appraiser a participant in the resolution phase. In many cases the respondent

is an unwilling and uncooperative participant. They may or may not have legal counsel. They may ask the court

for extensions in which to answer. There are disc overy deadlines. There can be amended complaints. New information may emerge. Experts on both sides may need to be engaged. Trial dates are mutually established. Testimony may take a number of days. Judicial delays are a fact of life and in many instances the delays originate with the respondent. Even after a case is sent to the Board for deliberation there can be delays. Delays can emerge in drafting the final order.

For twenty years the ASC has considered a case that has slogged its way through an administrative hearing process over a period of years no better than if the case ha d languished in an investigation file without any activity

at all.

Should a jurisdiction finds itself facing an Interim Sanction or a non-recognition over unsatisfactory enforcement as defined by the ASC, it will be in large measure due to respondent appraisers clogging the state’s administrative legal system.

The one-size-fits-all standard to grading ev ery jurisdiction’s enforcement program has never been based in real world terms. Rather than offer up the same resolution time frame that it has for the past 20 years, the ASC should directly engage each jurisdiction to learn how cases actually proceed; not how they imagine that they should proceed.

Investigation should be given a timeline separate from when a case enters a state’s administrative court system.

Respectfully,

Brian Weaver – Appraisal Coordinator Brian.Weaver@illinois.gov Illinois Department of Financi al and Professional Regulation Appraisal Unit James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph Street – 9 th Floor Chicago, IL 60601-3220