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 issues with some of the Policy Statements. Hopefully, 

other regulators and state boards will take the 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 “Temporary Practice” fees from 

$150 to $250, it still eludes us all as to where the authority 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 with 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 more 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 Statement 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 interested 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 jurisdiction. Some states may only see 30 to 40 complaints in year while states 

such as Illinois routinely see 300 to 400. Still, the ASC continues to hold every jurisdiction to the same standard 

Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation 

Division of Professional Regulation 

PAT QUINN 

Governor 

SUSAN GOLD 

Acting Secretary 

 JAY STEWART 

 Director 

 Division of Professional Regulation 
www.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 complaints. Illinois welcomes anonymous submissions. 

 Some states have a three-year statute of limitation, many have a five-year statute, while others have 

none at all. 

How can every jurisdiction be fairly and realistically 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 discovery 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 had 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 every jurisdiction’s enforcement program has never been based in real 

world terms. Rather than offer up the same resolution timeframe 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 Financial and Professional Regulation 

Appraisal Unit 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street – 9th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601-3220