Chapter President's Message

A Message from 2017 Chapter President, Lin Schulze, MAI, AI-GRS, MBA

Hello fellow members,

I recently attended the Appraisal Institute Regional Meetings along with our current chapter Treasurer (and Education Chairman) Matt Speer, MAI. The meetings were held as a joint regional meeting with our region (Region II), along with Regions I and VII. The location was in scenic Lake Tahoe and it is stunningly beautiful, a postcard photo in every direction.

The national Appraisal Institute Immediate Past President Scott Robinson, MAI, SRA, AI- GRS, gave an overview on the Institute finances, membership and initiatives. Scott, along with two members from our regional leadership team, Chairman Craig Steinley, SRA, AI- RRS, and Vice-Chairman Rodman Schley, MAI, fielded questions for a good period of time that dealt with many issues, most significantly the Governance Structure Team recommendations. Both Craig and Rodman were members of the project team that put together those recommendations. It was reiterated that those are, at this point, just recommendations and not a formal plan. The national leadership will, however, be carefully considering various items brought forth by this team. Again, the project team was tasked with projecting how the Institute’s organization structure would look if the Institute were to be designed today. Leadership is stressing that everyone should take the time to look at these recommendations and provide comments on these recommendations as there will very likely be structural changes over the next couple of years and your input is very important. To review the Appraisal Institute Governance Structure Project Team Recommendations and FAQ, simply go to the AI website, and type Governance in the search bar at the top right.  

I do not expect the reorganization to include the provision for state chapters. I do consider it very likely that education will be structurally re-organized and enveloped at the national level, so that educational offerings will be coordinated by national across chapters based on a regional scope of educational needs. As such, education resources and planning will likely become more of a national agenda, with chapters getting some educational earnings allocated back to them. Local chapter offerings will then be limited more to seminars, both of a national scale and chapter-generated types. These are my expectations at this time relayed both in the larger context of the Q&A at the joint and individual region meetings, as well as from my conversations with national and regional leaders. Again, please take the time to review these recommendations and provide your own comments and suggestions as change can be expected.

One other significant item discussed in the recommendations was the elimination of regions, as they now exist. There was discussion, particularly in our Region II meetings, about the relative costs and benefits of the regions. Regions better facilitate the ability of local chapters to discuss various issues and express concerns to national leaders, and also provide a mechanism to expose, identify, and train future leaders of the organization. They also provide a forum for various chapter leaders to network with other chapter leaders and to share ideas and perspectives. There are costs associated with the regional structure, however, that include various meetings throughout the year. At this time I believe national is leaning towards the elimination of regions as they move forward because the project team received a strong indication from respondents on a survey that indicated members did not consider regions to be a valued part of the organization structure. Whatever your feelings, please take the time to review the recommendations and provide your thoughts, comments and suggestions.    

The proposed Chapter Financial Management Administration Policy is being beta-tested by 17 chapters at this time. There were several others that submitted for inclusion in the beta test but, to date, only 17 are being included. In our chapter we have opted to wait until beta-testing has been furthered to allow time for other chapters to “work out the bugs”, and to determine if we would like to request inclusion.

The regional Education Chairs each discussed educational offerings, including classes, seminars and meetings that were working within their respective regions. Expect to see more of a shift to more seminars going forward within our own chapter as membership currently dictates fewer qualifying class offerings. We are planning further discussions on this as we move forward.    

National Government Relations Chairman, Justin Slack, MAI, SRA, AI- RRS, AI- GRS, discussed the potential raising of the appraisal thresholds for lending institutions, and the AI’s letter opposing those limit increases. Justin also mentioned the AI’s recent policy on evaluations among other recent regulatory and AI items. Regional Government Relations Chairpersons also spoke about items such as Statutes of Repose that prohibit litigation of an appraiser after a specific time. It was also noted that South Dakota and Iowa, among others, allow candidates to submit experience credits half-way through the process to allow the candidate to receive additional guidance rather than waiting to submit all of their experience at the end of the process. These are other legislative items we may wish to review and consider going forward.

Scott DiBiasio, Director of State and Industry Affairs for the AI, was also present at the meetings. Scott recently attended a meeting of the Appraisal Standards Board. In that meeting, the ASB discussed potential USPAP changes to be considered over the next few years. The items discussed represent somewhat of a shift in the approach to USPAP that Scott found encouraging. That meeting included discussion about: the potential for a restricted appraisal to have more than one intended user; creating only a single report type with the remainder of the report to be defined in each report’s Scope of Work; creating a “skinny” USPAP that incorporated a more basic level of standards with additional modules to be employed dependent upon the type of job being prepared i.e. lending work, evaluations, international, etc.; and bifurcation of USPAP into mortgage lending and everything else. Again, these are all items that were just being discussed at the ASB meetings so Scott wouldn’t expect that any of these items would be forthcoming within the next USPAP offering but he was encouraged by the direction and openness to consider potential significant USPAP changes. Of particular interest to Scott, consistent with the AI’s recent position, would be the potential for a “skinny” USPAP with additional modules that would incorporate the various job types. We will all want to keep an eye out for future ASB 45 day drafts for comments so that we can help influence the direction of any potential changes.    

As you recall, the Kansas City Chapter has been active, and is working with the St. Louis Chapter, in trying to enact state legislation in Kansas and Missouri to allow appraisers to prepare evaluations and other non-federally-related-transaction work to standards other than USPAP. That legislation in Kansas is identified as HB24-14, and was introduced 3/24/17. That should be under discussion when the next legislative session convenes.    

Please place December 13th on your calendars. That is the date of the next scheduled chapter meeting, the Holiday Party and Installation Banquet. National AI President and current acting CEO, Jim Amorin, MAI, SRA, AI- GRS is expected to attend this meeting. Further details will be forthcoming. We look forward to seeing you all there.

As always, let the Chapter Leadership know if there are any questions or issues you would like to put forth or discuss.



Lin Schulze, MAI, AI- GRS

President, 2017, Appraisal Institute- Kansas City Chapter