Letter to Region V Members:

Your chapter is part of Region V. Eighteen Regional Representatives and ten chapter presidents met in Louisville, Kentucky on October 14, 2000. We had a thorough, thoughtful exchange of views on the proposed changes to the MAI and SRA admissions requirements.

The consensus of the Region was as follows:
III-A Alternative to the General Demonstration Report
         Research Paper - Opposed "as is." Conceptually in favor with modifications.
         Work Reports - Opposed "as is" and in concept.
III-B Types of Work product experience
         Opposed "as is." Conceptually in favor with modifications to retain the requirement for a basis of 600 hours valuation experience.
III-C Equivalency for Designated Members of Other Organizations.
         Excluded from consideration for the time being by GC.
III-D Education Alternative
         Approved "as is."

The proposed changes to the residential admissions changes (IV A-F) were generally approved. There have been numerous questions concerning the implementation of the SRA proposed changes since the Regional meeting and it is expected RC will clarify the content and grading of the modules and request Education to incorporate the Core Competencies Categories as educational content in the current level 1 courses and determine the best approach for the electives (either pre-designation or as re-certification).

The proposed changes have created a healthy debate throughout the Appraisal Institute. We are determined to maintain the quality of the designation.

At the same time we are faced with changing market forces. Over the past few years, the Appraisal Institute has transformed itself into a cutting edge trade association. This means that we have the opportunity to remain viable to our membership and our publics within the changing economy.

Our sense of the membership's opinion is that the demonstration report remains a significant learning process that is not duplicated by course work, day-to-day business practices, the comprehensive examination and the peer review process. However, if the same learning experience can be more user friendly, why not make it so? Rest assured that we will scrutinize any proposal for specificity so that the quality of the learning process is retained. A summary of the proposed changes in the MAI designation has been sent to all members from the AI Information Center. Please review these comments carefully as they will play a big part of the decision process your Directors will make in November.

In general terms, this was the sense of your representatives in Louisville.

As your elected representatives to the national Board of Directors, we feel the weight of your concerns. We are charged with decision-making responsibility on this matter and will be voting on the future of the Institute on November 14th and 15th in Chicago. We ask for your continued input. We also ask you to recognize that the Institute must change in order to remain viable to you and our clientele.

Sincerely,