TEXAS APPRAISER LICENSING & CERTIFICATION BOARD

 

P.O. Box 12188 Austin, Texas 78711-2188 ● 512-936-3001 ● www.talcb.texas.gov

TALCB Board Members 

Luis F. De La Garza, Jr 

Chair

Walker Beard

Vice Chair

Sheryl R. Swift

Secretary 

Keith Kidd

Laurie C. Fontana

Mark A. McAnally

Shannon K. McClendon

Donna J. Walz

Jamie S. Wickliffe 

Douglas E. Oldmixon

Commissioner

Comments to ASC Revised Policy Statements [Docket No. AS12–16]:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Texas Appraiser Licensing & Certification Board 

(TALCB):

 In Policy Statement 1. A, in the second paragraph, after the first sentence talking about avoiding 

conflicts of interests with other real estate related professions, TALCB requests that the 

following two sentences from the current ASC Policy Statement 1 be added back in:

“A State, however, may choose to locate its State agency within an existing regulatory body. Any 

State with its appraiser regulatory function in a department that regulates realty related 

activities must ensure that adequate safeguards exist to protect the independence of the 

appraiser regulatory function.” Given the current constrained fiscal environment of many state 

governments, the future consolidation of state agencies is likely to continue. We think that 

keeping this current language in the proposed policy statement offers important ongoing 

guidance to states and reassures them of the acceptable nature of such a structure while 

preserving the associated key safeguard instruction language. 

 In Policy Statement 1. I., TALCB agrees that not allowing ASC staff to attend closed sessions of 

State Board meetings for “quasi-judicial” proceedings is appropriate as proposed, but believes 

that consideration is too narrowly expressed. We request that the text be expanded to exclude 

attendance of ASC staff any time a State Board convenes in closed session “to receive advice of 

counsel” specifically authorized by State statute or regulation. Allowing ASC staff to be present 

when the Board is receiving advice of counsel would waive the Board’s attorney-client privilege 

for any matters discussed in the presence of ASC staff and/or will prevent such privileged 

communication from taking place. ASC attendance during such sessions would also be 

considered a violation of current relevant provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 

 In Policy Statement 7.B.2, TALCB suggests that ASC provide clarification to the language 

requiring a state to analyze each complaint “...whether additional violations, especially those 

related to USPAP, should be added to the complaint.” When reviewing reports for USPAP 

compliance, it is more important that the focus be on the significant characteristics of the 

subject and comparable properties and the essential elements of the transactions that may have 

a material impact on the value conclusion. Automated systems currently exist which purport to 

provide a “USPAP Compliance Review” of a report, but these are generally limited to ensuring 

that there are no missing requirements in the report form, that certain measurable aspects of 

the scope of work were adhered to and that there are not mathematical errors, among other 

similar administrative matters. Such compliance checks are insufficient to render an opinion as 

to whether the appraiser used acceptable methodologies and applied them appropriately. For 

complaints, review of these “administrative” details should not generally be required if the 
Page 2

Comments

agency’s report review is focused on the more important significant characteristics of the 

subject and comparable properties and the essential elements of the transactions that may have 

a material impact on the value conclusion. Minor technical USPAP violations should not be the 

focus of the efforts of an agency’s enforcement review. Much time and effort is currently 

expended in reviewing reports for ANY USPAP related violation under the assumption that this is 

required by ASC policy. Clarifying the focus of this requirement will greatly assist state agencies 

in allocating resources appropriately and could help reduce overall complaint processing times. 

 Also in Policy Statement 7.B.2, TALCB objects to the statement that appears to eliminate the use 

of any statute of limitations for dismissing complaints. This policy is inconsistent with wellestablished state and federal public policy allowing the use of statutes of limitation in criminal, 

civil and administrative cases. We respectfully request that ASC define the parameters of what 

they consider an acceptable statute of limitations for administrative appraiser cases, including 

the important distinction between “occurrence” based statutes of limitation and “discovery” 

based statutes of limitation. It appears from prior state review reports that “occurrence” based 

statutes of limitations shorter than 4 years are unacceptable to ASC; and no comments were 

discovered that considered “discovery” based statutes of limitation to be a problem for ASC. We 

think that guidance regarding this period should certainly not require any state to exceed the 

ten year statute of limitations for taking civil action against an appraiser as currently set forth in 

FIRREA (12 U. S. C. §1833a). 

 In Policy Statement 8. A & B, TALCB objects to the use of the interim sanction of removing a 

State licensed or certified appraiser from the National Registry for up to 90 days when a state 

receives an ASC rating of “poor” on an ASC compliance report. While §1118(a) of FIRREA does 

specifically grant ASC the authority to remove a state licensed or certified appraiser from the 

National Registry for up to 90 days, there is certainly an implied link to a pending state agency 

disciplinary or licensing action against the appraiser. This section of FIRREA also grants ASC the 

authority to impose interim sanctions against a state agency as an alternative to derecognition. 

TALCB does not see the connection between the proposed interim sanction against an appraiser 

and the “poor” rating earned by the agency. It is unclear from proposed Policy Statement 8 how 

suspending a licensee will translate into better compliance by the state agency. Furthermore, 

the removal of a state licensed or certified appraiser from the National Registry for the sole 

purpose of encouraging compliance of a State agency raises serious questions regarding the 

constitutionality of that action, particularly the takings clause of the 5th Amendment. 

Kerri T. Galvin

General Counsel & Deputy Commissioner