I hope that all of the members, associates and affiliates have kept abreast of the major proposed changes relative to the requirements for achieving both the MAI and SRA designations. The proposed changes have been disseminated by National AI through different publications, and most recently with the 45 day material which will be voted on at the upcoming meeting in Chicago. The hot topic items which have created a large amount of consternation for existing designees relates to options regarding both the MAI and SRA demonstration appraisal report required.
The origin of many of the changes relates back to the General and Residential white papers that were formulated in early 2000, and presented to the Regional representative at the Regional Meetings in June 2000. The white papers addressed issues regarding how the General and Residential appraisers have functioned historically, where and how we function in today's market, how our clients or users of appraisers perceive us currently, and what can the Appraisal Institute do to help us prepare for changes anticipated in the future. I had found that the research performed was very thorough, and that some of the proposed changes would eventually be implemented. What I was not prepared for was that some of the structural changes would be proposed, and voted on at the summer meetings in Las Vegas, and other major changes would be passed down through committee for voting at the Chicago meeting in November. (I should have listened to Ken Wilson when he informed me how fast the process might be.)
As some had anticipated, major changes were proposed, and passed by committees, and presented to the membership through the 45 day material which we all recently had a chance to review. We had a record attendance for the fall meeting in Toledo on 10/9/00 by officers and directors, and our Regional representatives were given guidance relative to what was discussed at the meeting.
Some of you may not be familiar with how the governance operates, even though this has been in place for almost 10 years since consolidation. Chapters are allowed to have one regional representative for each 50 designated members, and the Chapter President also has voting power. Region V is made-up of 13 chapters from 6 states, and the executive level for the region consists of our 3 directors. There is a total of 30 regional directors from around the country. Those 30 persons along with the National Executive Committee, including the President is made-up of 41 people. They take the final vote on changes that may be made to our organization. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the organization is large enough to allow for major issues to be approved by numerous committees, then presented to the National directors. If an issue has gotten this far, it actually takes a 60% negative vote to overturn a proposed change. Now you understand why it is so important for our Regional representatives and President to attend the Regional meeting, and give the directors guidance of how the constituency feels about various issues and changes. The most topical items which rose their ugly head, and demanded full attention at both our Chapter and Regional meetings are outlined below.
There were also items regarding equivalency for designated members of other organizations, and other education alternatives, but these were not considered to be major issues.
Your 10 officers and directors at the Toledo meeting were almost equally divided relative to the MAI admission changes. We heard from a member of National General Appraisal Committee, Mr. Gary Wright, that of the 10 people on this committee, the vote for accepting these changes was 4 to 3. We also heard a presentation by Richard Masters, MAI, who is a national demonstration report grader regarding the shortfalls for these changes. Other non voting persons in the room gave comment, many of which were negative. It should also be noted that the President has received numerous e-mails, and letters from both Cardinal Ohio Chapter members and MAI's throughout the country who are opposed to these proposed changes. Only 2 positive responses were tendered to me.
With regards to the SRA proposed changes, there was very little discussion. Many viewed these as making the SRA entrance more realistic since majority of the Residential Appraiser never write narrative format reports.
At the Regional meeting which was held 10/14/00, Mr. Wright again gave presentation relative to the GAC findings. There was an initial discussion regarding all of the 45 day change material, and later in the meeting there were multiple straw votes taken regarding all of the issues. Since the proposed changes for both the MAI, and SRA admissions have to be fully accepted or rejected, it was necessary to cast multiple straw votes. In the first vote, the complete acceptance for all of the MAI changes was unanimously voted down. The next vote was with regard to each individual issue, and the research paper and 3 report options was again defeated. Final votes were taken regarding each of the issues regarding their merit, and whether some modifications would be acceptable. A majority of the votes was again negative.
With regards to the SRA admission changes, similar type votes were taken, and the demonstration report options passed. After the fact, some parties pointed out that these changes may actually make the overall requirements harder, thus defeating the point of making any changes at all.
The membership must realize that the Regional directors will note what was discussed at the meeting, but actually can make it different than the directions we presented. This relates to the fact that they may have additional relevant information presented to them at the National meeting for which they must give consideration. Many parties are wondering why we need to make changes, and what is wrong. With membership declining in the profession, and within our organization and all appraisal organizations, some pundits feel that the Institute is only making the changes to try to grow the ranks. We are facing a dilemma regarding the number of associates and affiliates as compared to the number of designated members, and also the aging of our designated members.
To add more fuel to the fire, or to give you more time to find a big enough tree to hang me in effigy by year end, I might as well come clean on other items that were noted at the Regional meeting. At the June meeting, we heard boastful members of the National Executive Committee talking about the success over the last 2 years, and the fact that we had budget surpluses which were able to be plowed back in to our reserve funds. Conditions were expected to remain stable for the rest of this year, and various programs were implemented to carries us into 2001. At the October Regional meeting, we came to find that there is proposed major deficit for the year. This was attributed to higher attrition than was originally projected, and much lower income from publications and education since development costs for programs and new textbooks were shown on the expense side, but no revenue has been realized yet this year. National will probably implement a dues increase for 2001, and possibly only for the MAI's. At the same time, our Chapter has not had a dues increase in 6 years, and we have been running at a slight deficit, dipping into our reserves, for the last 3 years. The Cardinal Ohio Chapter also suffered from lower membership than was anticipated, and while the course and seminar costs have increased, we have not been able to pass these on to persons taking the courses due to competition from other education sources. At our 10/9/99 meeting, we passed a motion to increase MAI dues by $20/year beginning in 2001.
Close Window and Return to Cardohio Website