Idaho Real Estate Appraiser Board
Minutes of February 14, 2005
ROLL CALL: R. Doyle Pugmire-Chair
Henri Le Moyne, Board Member
Paul J Morgan, Board Member
BUREAU PRESENT: Rayola Jacobsen, Bureau Chief
Budd Hetrick, Deputy Bureau Chief
Roger Hales, Administrative Attorney
Stephanie Guyon, Deputy Attorney General
Patti Fanckboner, Office Specialist II
Sandee Hitesman, Office Specialist II
OTHER’S PRESENT: David Simanetl, Applicant
Mary Ball,
Applicant
The meeting was called to order at 8:15 a.m. by Chair, R. Doyle Pugmire.
The board reviewed the minutes from the 12-20-2004 board meeting.
Motion was made by Mr. Morgan to approve the minutes from the 12-20-2004 board meeting as written. Seconded by Mr. Le Moyne, carried.
Ms. Jacobsen gave the legislative report. Both houses accepted the rules. These rule changes will put the board in compliance with federal regulations. Renewal forms are currently being revised to meet with federal guidelines.
Ms. Jacobsen gave the financial report. As of 1-31-2005, the board had $88,541.66 in appropriation with a cash balance of $73, 201.78. Changing to birth date renewals has helped the Bureau’s workload immensely.
Motion was made by Mr. Le Moyne to approve the financial report. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried.
The Board was advised that the Bureau’s Northern Idaho Investigator has resigned. Ms. Jacobsen explained that each investigator is primarily responsible for a certain area of Idaho. Complaints are investigated by the area the complaint is from.
Board reviewed correspondence sent by an applicant. The applicant felt that the Promissor test answers were compromised. Promissor is approved by the AQB and the Foundation. The applicant asked for board approval to take a different examination. The board noted that Promissor gives the ASC examination. This examination is scored electronically.
Motion by Mr. Le Moyne to have chairman, Mr. Pugmire, draft a letter to applicant, suggesting applicant file a complaint with the Foundation. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried. Mr. Pugmire will E-mail this letter to Mr. Le Moyne and Mr. Morgan for approval before sending.
The board discussed continuing education instructor qualifications. It was noted that pre-licensure is different from continuing education. Continuing Education courses do not require a licensed instructor; however, pre-licensure courses do require a licensed instructor. These courses will need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Hetrick gave the investigative report. For fiscal year 2005, there have been 25 complaints. 24 of those complaints are under investigation. One complaint has been referred for formal action. There were 38 complaints for fiscal year 2004. Four of those complaints are closed, four have been referred for formal action, and thirty are under investigation or up for pro-review. For fiscal year 2003 there were 32 complaints. Nineteen of those are closed, eight are under investigation or pro-review, and five are up for formal action. There were 31 complaints for fiscal year 2002. Eighteen of those complaints are closed, four are under investigation or pro-review, and nine are referred for formal action. Five complaints are pending disciplinary action.
The board discussed the Appraisal Sub-Committee letter, dated 1-3-2005. The Bureau responded to the Sub-Committee’s last letter regarding continuing education audits. The Sub-Committee still remains concerned with the continuing education process. It was noted that the Investigative complaint process does not follow regulations. Regulations state that complaints should be handled within one year. Mr. Hetrick noted that requirements do not mandate that complaints be handled within one year. The Sub-Committee would like a report for the last quarter of 2004. The Bureau is currently working on this. The Bureau has altered the continuing education audit process to satisfy the Sub-Committee. Continuing Education audits will be done after the renewal of the license. If the continuing education requirement has not been met, then a formal process will be initiated. The board felt that the licensee’s should be notified of this process change. The board decided that notification of this process change will be put on the board’s website. Mr. Hetrick will draft a letter to respond to the Sub-Committee. A draft of this letter will be sent to the board for approval.
Applicant, Mary Ball, addressed the board. Ms. Ball did an appraisal in 1998 on a home. When the home foreclosed, there was significant damage to the home, and the home appraised for far less than her appraisal in 1998. Ms. Ball noted that disciplinary action was taken against her regarding this appraisal. Ms. Ball has met all the requirements in the stipulation, and is waiting for the investigative unit to close her case. She stated it has been 18 months, and she has been unable to get confirmation that her case is closed. Ms. Ball stated that she felt that she was not in the wrong. The appraisal was done in 1998, and the complaint was not filed until 2002. USPAP reviewer found her in violation. Ms. Ball feels that the USPAP reviewer was wrong in the findings of the violation. Ms. Ball stated that she would like to defend her case and have the board review her file. Ms. Ball stated that she never had the opportunity to speak with another Real Estate Appraiser about the complaint, and defend her case. Ms. Ball did sign a stipulation stating she was in violation. Ms. Ball noted that she was warned not to contact the board or the hearing officer.
Motion was made by Mr. Morgan to go into executive session to discuss legal matters exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code. Seconded by Mr. Le Moyne, carried.
Motion was made by Mr. Morgan to come out of executive session. Seconded by Mr. Le Moyne, carried.
The board asked the chairman to assign one board member to review Ms. Ball’s file, and bring back to the board a summary of the case. Ms. Ball will be notified of this summary. The board noted that disciplinary cases couldn’t be re-opened. Chairman, Mr. Pugmire, assigned Mr. Morgan to review Ms. Ball’s disciplinary file.
Ms. Guyon presented a consent agreement for case number REA-2005-2 to the board. A licensee had received a felony conviction in 2004.
Motion was made by Mr. Le Moyne to accept the recommendations of the Attorney Generals office. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried.
Mr. Hales reviewed the federal requirements on posting disciplinary actions. Mr. Hales was unable to find a federal law requiring disciplinary actions be posted. It was noted that the Public Records Act requires the posting of a yearly statistical summary. The board does have a disciplinary page on their website. It was noted that licensee’s with disciplinary action remain on this web page forever. Mr. Pugmire contacted other states on the duration of licensees posted on their disciplinary pages. It was noted that the idea of listing licensees with disciplinary action on a web page was to protect the public by having this information readily available.
Motion was made by Mr. Le Moyne to direct attorney, Roger Hales, to draft a letter to the respondent stating that the board reviewed the request, and due to the board’s need to inform the public, and consistent with the rules, the board is unable to change their policy regarding posting disciplinary actions on their web page. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried.
Mr. Morgan stated a concern regarding a continuing education course that was approved at a previous board meeting. This course is given by Mckissock and is entitled, “Appraising for the Secondary Market, Getting Along with Fannie and Freddie.” and Limited Appraisals & the Scope of Work Decision, and was from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The board approved this course for 8 hours of continuing education, but actual classroom time is 7 hours.
The board directed Ms. Fanckboner to send a letter to Mckissock, stating that the approval for eight hours was in error, and all future classes must be held in the actual classroom for eight hours, as stated in law and rule.
Motion was made by Mr. Le Moyne to have Mr. Morgan attend the AARO conference and give a report to the board. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried.
The board asked Ms. Hitesman to have registration fee and form sent for this conference.
The board reviewed the continuing education course, “100 Principles of Land Acquisition”. Thirty-two hours are designated for this class. The board noted there are seven topics listed. All topics do not seem to relate to Real Estate Appraising.
Motion was made by Mr. Le Moyne to approve the continuing education course, “100 Principles of Land Acquisition”, for 16 hours of continuing education credits. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried.
The board reviewed and approved the continuing education courses, “Appraising Convenience Stores” for 7 hours; “Appraisal Review-General” for 7 hours; “Appraisal Review-Single-Family Residential” for 7 hours; “Environmental Pollution” for 3 hours; “Mold & Air Quality, NADA” for 3 hours; and “Appraisal Guidelines, and Limited Appraisal and the Scope of Work Decisions” for 3 hours.
The board reviewed a request from an applicant who is asking for reciprocity from the State of California. The board noted that Idaho does not have reciprocity with the State of California. Mr. Pugmire asked applicant to address some issues on the 2-4 complex demo and then send in another 2-4 complex demo for review. It is the recommendation of the chair that applicant re-apply and submit a new demonstration report, along with new fee’s.
The board reviewed a continuing education request for approval by IREAS.
Motion was made by Mr. Morgan to approve the IREAS for continuing education. Seconded by Mr. Le Moyne, carried.
The board adjourned for lunch at 12:00 p.m.
Meeting called back to order at 12:55 p.m. by chair.
Motion was made by Mr. Le Moyne to go into executive session to discuss applications exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried.
Motion was made by Mr. Morgan to come out of executive session. Seconded by Mr. Le Moyne, carried.
The board asked that a list of what the board is looking for in the demo reports be added to the website. Mr. Le Moyne has this list.
The following applicants were approved for licensure:
Michael L. Bellows for LRA.
Justin Lee Merrill for LRA.
Tiffany T. McCarty for LRA.
David G. Simantel for CRA.
Motion was made by Mr. Le Moyne to adjourn at 2:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Morgan, carried.
Return to Idaho Real Estate Appraiser Board Home Page
Return to Bureau of Occupational Licenses Home Page
Last Modified - August 02, 2006