Committee Minutes
PLEASE SUBMIT MEETING MINUTES TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT IAAO HQ WITHIN
30 DAYS OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING
Committee: Professional Designation Sub-Committee
October 19 & 20, 2012 Kansas City, MO
1.
2.
3.
4.
Call to order
Welcome and self introduction of members and guests
Approval of agenda
Approval of minutes
Old Business
a. Email vote for the following new IAAO designees:
1. Nicholas A. Elmore, AAS
2. Abby Arnold, AAS
3. Brent Balduf, AAS
4. David McDowell, AAS
5. Libby Fink, AAS
6. Jerry A. Ward, AAS
7. Clayton G. Rogers, AAS
8. David R. Hanson, AAS
9. Chris Edstrom, RES
10. Michael J. Lorius, RES
11. Lawrence M. Quilty, RES
12. Mike Shoun, RES
13. Shannon M. Winter, RES
14. Tracy Weaver, RES
15. Dale Peterson, RES
16. Jeffrey L. White, RES
17. Kyle McDade, CMS
18. Holly McDonald, CMS
19. Ron Carlson, CMS
20. Teresa M. Purvis, PPS
21. John C. Isbell, AAS
22. Todd Reynolds, AAS
23. Joe Griffin, AAS
24. Lori Reedy, AAS
25. Greg McHenry, AAS
26. Michael Piper, AAS
27. Kim Smith, AAS
28. George Rooker, AAS
29. Christie Smith, RES
30. Danielle Naumann, RES
31. Dale McCrea, RES
32. Scott D. Johnson, RES
33. Kenya M. Allen, RES
34. Nadine Seguin, RES
1
Minute Taker: Wanda Musick
Witthar
Members Present:
Darwin Kanius, CAE, Chairman
Farrah Matthews, CAE
Otho Fraher, CAE
Steve Thomas, CAE, PPS
Jeff Holsapple, CAE, RES
Members Absent:
Dwane Brinson, CAE
Guests Present:
Wanda Musick Witthar
Larry Clark, CAE
Gary McCabe, CAE, Chairman of
Professional Development
Committees
Debra Asbury
Rob Turner
Kim Lauffer, RES
Bruce Woodzell
Lisa Daniels
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
5.
Chad Nunweiler, RES
Aaron Deschene, RES
Paul A. Fornes, RES
Eduardo Giro, RES
Harry Neumann, CAE
Rex Norman, CAE
Tracy Drake, CAE, RES, AAS
Gary Beech, CMS
Jack Smith, CMS
John A. Sullivan, CMS
Charley Jenkins, CMS
Response to RFP for “The Guide”
Letter to UBC
Procedural Rule 10.2.5 (d)
Procedural Rule 10.2.15
New York University Master’s Degree Program
Lifetime Achievement Award/Professional
Development
Designation program fee structure
Project Plans
Discussion for re-instating a designation
Alberta Assessor’s Association
Online recertification – document retention
New Business
a. Provisions for extension requests under new criteria
2014 & 2015
b. Discuss challenges for international members pursuing
a designation
c. Appraisal Foundation ruling for PPS designation
d. Procedural Rule 10.2.15.2 – date of appraisal
e. Procedural Rule 10.2.5 (d) 6 – review wording
f. Retention of candidacy files and designation files (hard
copies)
g. Report on Grader Workshop
h. Fees paid to graders
i. Report on Professional Designation Program
j. Scanning candidacy files
k. Review PDA listing
Summary of items discussed: The Professional Designation Sub-Committee met in Kansas City,
MO on October 19 & 20, 2012.
Darwin Kanius, CAE, called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. Gary McCabe, CAE, wished to
address the sub-committee pertaining to projects plans for the re-write of AAS, CAE, RES case
study examinations and master examinations. The members discussed how many of these types of
examinations are offered each year.
McCabe had discussed the project plans with the Executive Board during their July 2012 meeting.
He stated the sub-committee did not feel they could review the AAS exams, as there are no AAS
designees on the committee. Kanius noted the project plans should include a break-down of
revenues for each examination. McCabe stressed the examinations must have multiple sets of
questions. Kanius stated the sub-committee would work on updated projects plans and submit
them to IAAO headquarters as soon as possible. Otho Fraher, CAE, noted each time an IAAO
2
course or book is updated that could certainly have an impact on the examination questions.
Kanius felt a baseline of questions should be developed and periodic reviews of the examinations
could be made.
McCabe also noted the Executive Board had discussed the removal of the words “single property”
from 10.2.5 (d) in the procedural rules. Some members felt our candidates should still prepare at
least one single property demonstration appraisal report for the CAE designation. Kanius stated
“The Guide to Real Property Demonstration Appraisal Report Writing” must be completed before
these changes could move forward. Kanius also noted there is a developer for the re-write of the
guide.
Kanius asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Jeff Holsapple, CAE, RES, made a motion
and Otho Fraher seconded. Motion carried.
Kanius asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Holsapple made a motion and Fraher
seconded. Motion carried.
Old Business
a. Fraher made a motion to approve the 45 new designees listed on the agenda.
Holsapple seconded. Motion carried.
b. Kanius stated Randy Ripperger, CAE, would be developing the re-write of “The Guide to
Real Property Demonstration Appraisal Report Writing”. Wanda Musick Witthar reported
Ripperger had met the first deadline and delivered an outline of the guide.
c. Kanius drafted a letter to the University of British Columbia on April 5, 2012. The letter
addressed the IAAOs agreement with the UBC. Kanius noted our discussions with the
UBC will continue and would most likely center on their Busi projects.
d. Members discussed the wording of procedural rule 10.2.5 (d). Kanius felt the subcommittee should expand upon their intent of changing the wording. He wondered if “The
Guide” should be completed before forwarding changes in wording to the Executive
Board. Holsapple felt the sub-committee should move forward with the changes.
e. This item will be covered along with new business item d.
f. Members discussed procedural rule 10.2.12.4 which pertains to the New York University
Masters Degree Program. The program no longer includes assessment concentration.
Fraher made a motion to strike 10.2.12.4 from the IAAO procedural rules. Steve
Thomas, CAE, PPS, seconded. Motion carried.
g. The members discussed the Lifetime Achievement Award which was presented at the
annual conference in Kansas City, MO.
h. The members discussed the designation program fee structure. Kanius created different
options concerning IAAO members who hold multiple designations. Holsapple wondered
if the option of $160 for all designations would be the best option. Kanius asked if $160
was a relevant figure. Thomas liked the option of no incremental charge for additional
designations. The sub-committee felt Option B was the best option to address multiple
designation fees. McCabe stated he would present all 3 choices to the Executive Board in
November for their consideration.
i. This item was discussed by the sub-committee and Gary McCabe at the outset of the
meeting.
j. The members discussed the issue of re-instating a designation. They reviewed the
procedural rules 10.3.10.2 thru 10.3.10.6 which pertain to this issue. After a lengthy
discussion the members agreed to strictly adhere to the procedural rules on the issue of re3
instatement.
Larry Clark, CAE, joined the meeting to discuss the project plan for the re-write of the AAS case
study examination and master examination. A round table discussion was held concerning this
plan. McCabe stated he could submit an updated project plan, which includes some monies being
designated for reviewers of the examinations. He noted the Executive Board did not like the idea
of the entire Professional Development Committee serving as reviewers for the examinations.
Clark wanted to address some information he had gained at the AARO Conference. Clark noted
he had spoken with Dave Bunton from the Appraisal Foundation. Mr. Bunton noted our
international members are not required to take USPAP. He further noted the IAAO could waive
that requirement if the members are serving under another standard or no standard. Clark had
assembled some language in the procedural rules which could be changed to accommodate our
international members. McCabe noted the Planning & Rules Committee would like to wrap up all
changes to the procedural rules shortly and present them at the November 2012 Executive Board
meeting.
McCabe wanted to discuss the wording of procedural rule 10.2.5 (d) further. He noted that
members seem to agree the words “single property” should be removed. Thomas made a motion
to redact the word demonstration from the first sentence of the procedural rule and single
property from the second sentence. And 1. (b) should include the word narrative. Holsapple
seconded. Motion carried. Below is the suggested revised PR wording.
“(10.2.5 (d) The candidate must have credit for two (2) appraisal projects, one on residential real
property and one on commercial real property. It is a requirement that at least one (1) of the
projects must be a demonstration narrative appraisal report. (1) b. a real property demonstration
narrative appraisal report, using all recognized approaches to value, on a residential properties,
or…)”
k. Kanius noted the agreement with the Alberta Assessors Association was intended to
waiver demonstration appraisal reports and some educational requirements. He further
noted there were only a certain number of people who qualified for these waivers. The
individuals were considered senior staff members who earned the AMAA designation.
The members reviewed a letter from Arla Pirtle dated October 2, 2012. They also
reviewed minutes from the February 19 & 29, 2010 Professional Designation SubCommittee meeting, a letter to the AAA from the IAAO dated July 28, 1998, and a letter to
Laurie Hodge of the AAA dated December 29, 2011.
Members expressed concerns that certain requirements had not been met, which were
outlined in the agreement. A lengthy discussion ensued pertaining to those items. Thomas
made a motion that the Alberta Agreement has expired without review according to
Item 3 (c). The IAAO would welcome the opportunity for a review to construct a new
agreement. Holsapple seconded. Motion carried.
l. The members discussed the possibility of online recertification. Witthar asked committee
members if they wanted to be involved in decisions concerning document retention. The
sub-committee members felt these decisions should be made by IAAO staff.
The IAAO Executive Committee joined the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Friday afternoon. Kanius noted
the sub-committee wished to discuss two topics with the Executive Committee – project plans and
the wording for a demonstration appraisal report. McCabe noted the sub-committee intended to
4
eliminate the words “single property” so a mass appraisal report could be substituted. Kanius
stated the sub-committee had already discussed the matter and planned to submit updated
language for the procedural rules. Kanius further noted the re-write of “The Guide” is moving
forward and will include an expanded section for mass appraisal reports. McCabe stated the subcommittee wanted to have the proper tools in place for candidates to write these types of reports.
He also noted the re-write of “The Guide” should be completed shortly after the first of 2013.
McCabe stated he still felt some Executive Board members supported the completion of a single
property demonstration appraisal report toward the CAE designation. Rob Turner asked if the
entire guide was being re-written. Kanius answered yes. Turner further noted the idea of
dropping the single property demonstration appraisal report requirement might still meet
resistance at the Executive Board level. Kanius felt if assessment professional can defend their
values before tribunals they should be fine with a mass appraisal approach. Holsapple noted when
he defends values they are defended as mass appraisal. Thomas stated he views a designee as
being able to communicate values and that measures persistence. A narrative of any kind
measures that persistence. Turner noted Florida values in mass appraisal but must defend values
as a single property.
Kanius addressed the AAS case study examination and master examination project plan. He
wondered “if” the sub-committee could break down the amount approved to pay reviewers. The
Executive Committee indicated the project plan could be revised to shift monies for reviewers.
McCabe noted those items would be addressed and the project plans would expand upon the
revenues expected. Turner asked if the exams would relate to our new textbooks. McCabe
answered yes. McCabe further noted that multiple exams should be in place if the candidate is
unsuccessful on their first attempt.
New Business
a. Sub-Committee members discussed extensions for candidates under new criteria in 2014
and 2015. Fraher made a motion that the extension should be granted as it would to
any candidate in the designation program. Thomas seconded. Motion carried.
b. Witthar explained some of the challenges facing international members seeking a
designation. She noted mailing letters, books, and student reference manuals to candidates
can take an extremely long time. The sub-committee members discussed copyright issues
and how to best protect intellectual properties. Fraher made a motion to accept the
updates to the IAAO procedural rules concerning USPAP for international members
provided by Larry Clark, CAE. Thomas seconded. Motion carried.
c. Thomas led the discussion about proposed changes from the Appraisal Foundation
concerning the PPS designation. Thomas felt a 4 year degree should be required. He
noted that personal property valuation is much less uniform than other valuation
disciplines. Thomas wondered if the three prong test should be mentioned. He further
noted in 1995 no IAAO PPSs were included in AF discussions. McCabe wondered if
individual comments should be submitted or comments from the sub-committee as a
whole. Fraher felt the comments should come from the sub-committee. Thomas offered
to compile comments and submit them to the sub-committee for review. He felt those
comments could be completed in one month.
d. Fraher stated “if” a candidate would produce sales that are older than five years – they
would certainly be outdated and not reflect the current market. Kanius noted five years is
standard for comparable sales. Thomas added an appraiser must be able to produce values
even in a volatile market. Fraher made a motion to leave procedural rule 10.2.15.2 as
currently stated. Thomas seconded. Motion carried.
5
e. The sub-committee members reviewed the wording of procedural rule 10.2.5 (d) 6 and felt
the current wording was sufficient.
f. The sub-committee discussed retention of candidacy files and designation files. Witthar
explained staff members are beginning to scan these files into PDF files. The subcommittee members felt the retention policy should be decided by IAAO staff.
g. Witthar reported the attendance for the Demonstration Appraisal Writing/Grader’s
Workshop was 58 for the first session. In 2011 there were 25 attendees. Witthar noted a
policy of pre-registration may be needed as she had not anticipated 58 attendees. The subcommittee members agreed that policy should be implemented in the future.
h. The members discussed the current amounts IAAO pays our graders. Witthar noted the
grader is paid $100 and the chair grader is paid $75. The current fee for grading a report is
$200. The sub-committee members felt the amount should be raised due to the time and
effort expended by our graders. Fraher made a motion to recommend to the Executive
Board a fee of $350 for grading a demonstration appraisal report. Thomas seconded.
Motion carried. Sub-committee members felt the grader should be paid $200 and the
grading chairman should be paid $100.
i. Witthar reported that the Professional Designation Program continues to be successful. To
date she has accepted 124 new candidates in 2012. Witthar further noted there are 25 new
designees for the 2013 Virginia Cup. This number is outpacing the numbers from last
year, which was also quite successful.
j. Witthar noted the process of scanning candidacy files has begun and this item was
discussed at length in New Business Item (f).
k. The sub-committee reviewed the Professional Designation Advisor listing. No additions
or deletions were made.
The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. on October 20, 2012
Meeting adjourned: 2:50 p.m.
Next Meeting Date: To be announced
Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting: To be announced
Motions & Assignments: See bolded
items
Committee Chair: Darwin Kanius, CAE
Committee Chair Signature:
Date Signed: 10-22-12
6