[0:02] Good morning. I've just started the
[0:03] recording for y'all.
[0:06] >> Thank you.
[0:08] Can you hear me? Okay.
[0:10] >> Yes.
[0:12] >> New computer, so I was just checking.
[0:27] » Michael, do we have a quorum?
[0:35] Yes, chair. I think you've got at least
[0:37] four here.
[0:39] >> Okay.
[0:46] All right. Listening on a jack. We could
[0:49] we can begin. Um,
[0:55] welcome. This is the
[0:58] July 29th at 9:00 a.m. for the appraisal
[1:03] division of real estate board meeting.
[1:06] Um, we're going to call it to order.
[1:11] Uh, first uh consideration on the agenda
[1:13] is for the approval of the minutes from
[1:16] the board meeting on June 24th, 2026.
[1:20] Have the board members had an
[1:21] opportunity to review the minutes? And
[1:25] if so, I'll look for a motion.
[1:30] >> I put forward a motion to approve the
[1:32] minutes.
[1:35] >> Second.
[1:36] >> There's been a motion to approve and
[1:38] second. All in favor say I.
[1:40] >> I.
[1:44] >> Any naysay?
[1:46] Uh the minutes pass.
[1:49] Uh, moving on to item agenda number two,
[1:52] public comment. Uh, it is now open for
[1:57] public comment. Is there anyone in the
[1:59] public that would like to make a comment
[2:00] at this point?
[2:12] I don't see a hand or an indicator.
[2:16] Is that correct? Anyone else see
[2:18] anything?
[2:20] >> I don't.
[2:20] >> I do not.
[2:22] >> Okay.
[2:24] All right. Well, we'll close public
[2:26] comment and we'll move on to item agenda
[2:30] number three, division real estate
[2:32] reports. And we'll begin with the
[2:33] director's report. Uh, director Viea.
[2:38] >> Thank you, Chair. Um, the first thing I
[2:40] wanted to note is we're joined today by
[2:43] the board's new council, Assistant
[2:45] Attorney General Elliot Clark. So, uh,
[2:49] Elliott is here with us on the call. Um,
[2:52] previous to this, Elliot um had started
[2:55] representing the real estate commission
[2:57] as the commission's council um and has
[3:00] been an incredible resource for them so
[3:02] that they have their own legal counsel
[3:04] when they have any questions arise, any
[3:07] legal questions or need for legal
[3:08] advice. Um, and so I'm really excited
[3:11] for y'all to have him uh as a resource
[3:13] for you moving forward. Um, I wanted to
[3:17] touch on something that um, we received
[3:21] from the appraisal subcommittee recently
[3:24] that we're very excited about. Um so I
[3:27] think last time you met um we discussed
[3:32] that the appraisal subcommittee was uh
[3:35] conducting its routine 2-year compliance
[3:39] review of the division's appraiser and
[3:41] appraisal management company regulatory
[3:44] programs.
[3:45] um that consists of um a a transfer of
[3:50] documents and answering questionnaires
[3:52] and then um program managers from the
[3:55] ASC come on site with us and um review
[3:59] more files and ask questions. Um they
[4:03] then issue a preliminary finding uh and
[4:06] report to which we can respond. um those
[4:09] are not public documents but then they
[4:10] issue their final report and finding
[4:13] which we now have and I'm happy to
[4:16] report that the division's appraiser and
[4:19] AMC regulatory programs both received a
[4:22] rating of good which is the second
[4:24] highest rating and I will share with you
[4:27] right now
[4:29] um my screen
[4:32] if I can let's see
[4:36] um sorry about that actually I don't
[4:40] think I can share this um I was going to
[4:42] share with you the um ASC finding levels
[4:46] you have excellent good then needs
[4:49] improvement
[4:51] not satisfactory and then poor and they
[4:55] all come with different levels of
[4:56] monitoring and if a state um if their
[5:00] programs are rated poor it can have some
[5:02] serious consequences in terms of the
[5:04] validity validity excuse me of that
[5:06] state's credential and the reciprocity
[5:09] of those credentials and things like
[5:10] that. But um we've been rated good. I
[5:13] checked the ASC website this morning and
[5:16] our um final reports have not yet made
[5:19] it to their website, but I think they
[5:21] should be there soon. But I'll circulate
[5:23] these two board members following this
[5:26] meeting so that you can read it for
[5:27] yourself. But um I want to shout out um
[5:31] the division staff on this. They
[5:34] literally did everything here. not only
[5:36] the leg work in the past couple years to
[5:39] um make sure that we were really um
[5:42] paying attention to our compliance to
[5:44] the ASC policy statements, but even
[5:47] during the compliance review, I mean um
[5:49] our our staff, especially Bin Kalin, and
[5:52] Michael Jenko, um I really didn't do
[5:56] much when it came to this compliance
[5:57] review. They kind of ran the whole show.
[5:59] So, um, and also they're they're, uh,
[6:02] our head of licensing and education,
[6:04] Laurel North. Have to shout shout her
[6:06] out as well, um, for for her work. So,
[6:10] um, yeah, something we're really excited
[6:11] about, excited to be able to, um, to
[6:14] report to you. So, um, moving on to, um,
[6:19] board member Jensen is, um, has
[6:22] continued to serve with us, um, until we
[6:25] find a replacement. Uh Mike Jenko is
[6:28] actively working on that. We are looking
[6:30] for a representative of a registered
[6:33] AMC. So the AMC does need to be
[6:35] registered in Utah under our AMC law. Um
[6:40] uh Jenko is going to send out a
[6:43] communication to registered AMC's and
[6:45] then we think the application window is
[6:47] going to be about 2 weeks. Um and folks
[6:50] can apply just as you all did on the
[6:53] state boards and commissions website. Um
[6:55] technically the application window
[6:57] they're able to apply right now. So if
[6:59] you know someone from an AMC who you
[7:01] think would be a great addition to the
[7:03] board um please encourage them to apply
[7:06] and then we're going to follow the same
[7:07] process we did with most of y'all. Hold
[7:10] some interviews and then make a
[7:11] recommendation um up the chain. Um so I
[7:15] want to thank board member Jensen for
[7:17] his patience and continued service with
[7:19] us. We will certainly miss you when we
[7:21] do find a replacement. Um but that is is
[7:24] the update on that process. Um I
[7:27] received notice yesterday that they have
[7:30] extended the comment period on the
[7:34] second exposure draft of proposed
[7:37] changes to the real property appraiser
[7:39] qualification criteria until August 30th
[7:44] of 2026. So I did want to let the board
[7:47] know about that. Let anyone joining us
[7:49] from the public know about that. Like I
[7:51] said, I just received notice of this
[7:52] yesterday. I think the previous
[7:55] deadline. I'm not sure. Brien, you might
[7:57] need to remind me. I think it was the
[7:59] end of this month potentially.
[8:02] >> It was Monday.
[8:03] >> Monday. Monday. So, I think this is good
[8:05] news.
[8:06] >> Past Monday.
[8:08] >> Perfect. So, um I I think that's a good
[8:12] thing. It It sounds like um they're
[8:15] wanting more comments. So, I just wanted
[8:17] to put that out there. Um and then at
[8:21] our last meeting we were talking about
[8:22] kind of the function of an alternate
[8:24] member. So we are very fortunate to have
[8:26] an alternate member on this board, board
[8:28] member Frost. And um I did a little
[8:33] research into kind of how other
[8:35] licensing and certification boards um
[8:38] handle alternate members and if they
[8:40] have any rules or statutes kind of
[8:43] providing some guidance on the role of
[8:45] an alternate member. So,
[8:48] um, using one of our, um, amazing AI
[8:52] tools here that we have access to, I was
[8:55] able to, uh, have it sweep all 50
[8:59] states, but it ultimately honed in on 27
[9:01] licensing boards across 17 states. So, I
[9:05] started here with Doppel. They didn't
[9:07] uh, have any alternates. Um, and it's
[9:12] interesting the the question of the
[9:16] function or duties of an alternate
[9:18] member are rarely addressed in different
[9:21] states. Usually, it's like our law where
[9:23] it talks about when the alternate member
[9:25] votes in the basically in the event of a
[9:27] failure to achieve quorum. Um, but they
[9:30] don't really talk about the laws don't
[9:32] really talk about their function
[9:33] otherwise. Um, but a few states do.
[9:38] Um, so for example in New Jersey, um,
[9:41] their I think it's one of their
[9:43] construction their construction board of
[9:46] appeal, construction boards of appeals.
[9:50] Um, provides that
[9:54] I apologize, I've got, per usual, way
[9:56] too many tabs going at once. Um their
[10:00] law provides that alternate members
[10:01] shall have the right to participate in
[10:03] all board deliberations but shall not
[10:05] vote unless serving in the place of a
[10:07] regular member. Um Oregon has some
[10:10] similar they have have two different
[10:13] public bodies that talk about that where
[10:15] alternate members can participate in all
[10:17] capacities except for voting. um and um
[10:21] talking about that they can attend
[10:24] meetings, that they can participate in
[10:26] discussions and deliberations.
[10:28] Um there are some states strangely that
[10:32] restrict even the attendance of an
[10:35] alternate at a meeting. Um which I
[10:38] thought was interesting that the
[10:39] alternate doesn't technically attend the
[10:42] meeting unless they're voting. Um, and
[10:45] so
[10:46] I would say kind of if if you can let me
[10:50] know kind of what your feelings are and if you're interested in outlining um
[10:55] an alternate member for the appraiser
[10:57] board's function and duties in your
[10:59] administrative rule. um we can work to
[11:02] have some rule language options for you
[11:04] at your next meeting and then um you
[11:08] could um either either move to have us
[11:13] file a proposed rule or kind of send us
[11:16] back to the drawing board. Um I guess I
[11:19] should go over so rule making when it
[11:22] comes to uh the appraisal and AMC realms
[11:26] is kind of a collaborative effort
[11:28] between the division and the board. Um
[11:31] so unlike some boards that um have an
[11:34] advis an advisory function, you all are
[11:36] advisory but also policymaking. So the
[11:40] division and the board have to concur or
[11:43] agree for a rule to be made. um if the
[11:47] law provides that if if we cannot agree,
[11:49] the division um division has the final
[11:52] say, but typically um we're we're
[11:55] looking for that agreement before an
[11:57] administrative rule can be made. So um
[12:00] it's it's a little bit unique, but a
[12:02] really awesome uh feature of of the work
[12:06] we get to do together. So, um, that is
[12:09] why, um, I think I'd suggest if you are
[12:12] interested in putting this in rule and what you'd be interested in putting
[12:17] in rule, we can have some some drafts
[12:20] for you to review um, and for you to
[12:22] possibly take action on in your next
[12:24] meeting. So, um, how how do you all feel
[12:27] about that?
[12:30] Maybe I should mention Elliot Clark sent
[12:34] out an email I believe all the board
[12:35] members received
[12:38] and so
[12:40] I that probably should be part of the
[12:43] conversation also.
[12:44] >> Awesome.
[12:45] >> Um if you don't mind u director I'd like
[12:49] to recognize Elliot Clark um just for a
[12:53] for
[12:54] well whatever Elliot Clark would like to
[12:56] add to this topic.
[12:58] >> Absolutely. Elliot.
[13:00] >> Thanks. No, nice to meet everyone. So,
[13:02] as Director Veette said, um I also
[13:04] represent the real estate commission and
[13:05] so I'm I'm looking forward to
[13:07] representing you guys as well. Uh this
[13:09] is a good conversation. So, the email I
[13:12] sent just sort of laid out my my
[13:13] thoughts on how to utilize the alternate
[13:15] board member. I think everything you've
[13:18] just heard from Director Veette is spot
[13:20] on. Um it's interesting to hear how
[13:23] other states handle alternate board
[13:25] members because this is sort of a new
[13:27] thing for me. I don't think any of my
[13:28] boards have have had alternate board
[13:30] members. But as far as, you know, sort
[13:34] of formalizing how you want to handle it
[13:36] going forward, you do certainly have the
[13:38] option to do that in an administrative
[13:41] rule. I don't know that you really even
[13:42] have to, though. Um, if you want to just
[13:45] sort of, you know, as you go into closed
[13:48] meetings, if you want to include the
[13:50] board member, you can just specify that
[13:52] the include the alternate board member,
[13:53] you can just specify that in the motion.
[13:56] So, um, you can be as formal as you want
[13:58] or you don't really even have to. As
[14:01] long as we're sort of clear on the
[14:02] record at any given meeting how we're handling it, I think that's
[14:06] fine as well. So,
[14:11] » thank you. Um, we'll open it up to any
[14:15] board members that have any questions at
[14:16] this point.
[14:19] >> So, I I would rather have something
[14:21] formalized. I think um my initial
[14:24] thought is it's a little unfair to the
[14:26] alternate um to not know, you know, to
[14:30] prepare for a meeting, not know whether
[14:32] they're going to go into close um you
[14:35] know, did they get the material? Are
[14:36] they are they being included in the prep
[14:41] um documents?
[14:43] So I while while I appreciate um
[14:48] that we we can make it within the
[14:51] motion, I think maybe having some
[14:54] consistency, having some sort of
[14:57] framework even even on a minimal basis
[15:00] would be ideal. Um and and my other
[15:04] thought also was
[15:06] um we have a an alternate member for the
[15:10] residential appraisal portion but we
[15:14] don't have one for the commercial and um
[15:18] or the AMC.
[15:20] Um
[15:22] I I think commercial and residential are
[15:25] the ones most likely to have some sort
[15:27] of you know if there was an issue that
[15:29] came up commercial from a commercial
[15:31] standpoint and Chris wasn't able to
[15:33] attend. I would really struggle to to
[15:35] say how how should we handle that and I would ask that you know say hey we must you know we probably need to
[15:42] postpone this action. Um, so, so that
[15:47] was one other random thought, not
[15:48] necessarily about the duties of of the
[15:51] alternate, but I I really like the idea,
[15:55] um, of having an alternate, just I think
[15:59] that we ought to probably have something
[16:01] a little bit more formal than just
[16:02] including in a in a minute. I I did
[16:05] appreciate uh, director, all of your searching and and how different um,
[16:12] states handle different things. So,
[16:14] thank you.
[16:18] » I'd be happy to work I'd be happy to
[16:20] work on and maybe even suggest to
[16:23] council uh some sort of framework in the
[16:27] next week or so that we could then
[16:28] present. Um and maybe we want to do that
[16:31] each of us kind of look at some ideas um
[16:34] think about how those are being and I I
[16:36] would certainly ask um
[16:40] Mr. Pro Joel. I'm just going to call you
[16:42] Joel. we're friends.
[16:44] I I was would ask Joel to also, you
[16:47] know, voice in on on his opinion. He's
[16:50] the one in that role and and uh the
[16:53] trailblazer pioneer um as it would be
[16:56] for for this position. So, you know,
[16:59] maybe he can he can help us carve this
[17:02] out as well. Um so, that that would be
[17:05] my my recommendation.
[17:10] » Thank you. Um,
[17:15] we we'll turn some time to Joel Frost if
[17:17] he would like to say anything. I don't
[17:20] see a hand raised, but I know he's
[17:21] present.
[17:22] >> Yeah, I'm here. Can you guys hear me?
[17:24] >> Yeah, you're good.
[17:26] >> Uh, yeah. I I just in doing this, I I
[17:29] I'm planning on showing up to these
[17:31] meetings. If I'm needed, I'll jump in.
[17:34] Um, like it would be hard if I didn't
[17:38] have the prep material. It would be
[17:39] difficult if I
[17:41] needed to jump in like someone lost
[17:43] internet and I had to jump in to a close
[17:46] a closed sec executive session when I
[17:48] hadn't heard the first part of it. I
[17:51] just could create catching me up to
[17:52] speed and I might miss some stuff. So I
[17:54] think like like for me if I'm going to
[17:56] be there and be utilized I would want to
[17:58] just have all of it there have all the
[18:00] information um and not have to try to
[18:03] piece it back together and and and
[18:05] patchwork
[18:07] a quorum. So I and I don't see it's it's
[18:10] not a problem for me to just be there.
[18:13] Um I would, you know, as long as I can
[18:15] ask questions. I don't need I don't need
[18:16] to vote, but I might have some questions
[18:17] along the way just to make sure I if I'm
[18:20] called on could perform the duty. And I I do think
[18:24] any question I might have probably helps
[18:27] everybody out, you know. So I do have a
[18:31] little bit of experience. We all have
[18:32] our own expertise. So anyway, that's my take is I I would like to see
[18:39] that I'm just there. I don't vote ever
[18:41] unless you guys tell me we need you to
[18:44] vote and then I'll vote. That's kind of
[18:45] how I see the process going.
[18:48] Well, well, well, in my perfect world,
[18:50] that's how it would go for me.
[18:54] >> Uh, any other comments from board
[18:55] members?
[18:58] >> I'll say a couple of things. First of
[19:00] all, I I agree with Jared, you know, but
[19:05] we could do it just through motions or
[19:06] whatever. It would be very arbitrary and
[19:09] be very probably different every single
[19:12] time. And it would be like, what are we
[19:14] going to do? And yeah, that's not fair
[19:15] to Joel.
[19:17] And uh for anybody currently, Joel is in
[19:21] this position, but everybody else will
[19:23] be in this position following him. Um,
[19:25] you know, the the if the if the if the
[19:30] position is important enough to create,
[19:32] it's important enough for us to be uh
[19:35] considering his input and um
[19:39] and and to avail him of all of the
[19:42] information that he'll need so that at a
[19:45] moment's notice, he can step in when we
[19:47] need him to or when the situation is is
[19:50] needed. And uh again I I made this
[19:54] comment in the last meeting. Um I kind
[19:57] of view it like as a alternate on a
[20:00] juror. A jury that alternate
[20:04] you know needs to be in deliberation. He
[20:06] needs to hear the evidence. He needs to
[20:09] be availed of all of the all of the
[20:12] information that the entire jury was
[20:14] availed. And if needed then at the end
[20:17] of the trial he can step in. And if he
[20:21] doesn't if he doesn't need to step in
[20:22] and vote so to speak then great. But you
[20:26] know and even in addition to that you
[20:29] know having him in his voice and his
[20:31] perspective his background in our in our
[20:35] board is going to be valuable. So
[20:39] I think
[20:42] I agree. move forward, formalize it,
[20:45] state what the duties are, make it clear
[20:49] and you know and if there needs to be
[20:51] some adjustment down the road on that,
[20:53] you know, we can make that adjustment
[20:54] and then we can be an example to other
[20:56] agencies, you know, on how it works and uh hopefully be of some benefit to
[21:04] other uh groups or agencies.
[21:08] Thank you.
[21:10] >> Thank you. Uh any other comments from
[21:13] any other board members?
[21:19] » Seeing none, I just got one clarifying
[21:21] question. Um rule making, we have the
[21:24] authority for rule making. Typically, we
[21:27] don't make rules unless it's identified
[21:30] as a need in the statute. It usually
[21:33] calls out or per rule per rule. Um,
[21:39] I I believe and I agree with with what's
[21:42] been said, this should be more
[21:44] formalized. Um, that way going forward,
[21:48] um, there's going to be a point when all
[21:50] of us aren't going to be here. So, it
[21:53] would be nice for consistency.
[21:56] Um, but is is that are we are we going
[22:00] to have an issue with rule making if
[22:02] it's not cited in code that this item is
[22:05] open to rule making if that makes sense?
[22:11] » I think I'd have I think uh Justin
[22:13] Barney might be our best. He's our um
[22:16] rule making uh afficionado here at the
[22:20] division.
[22:22] >> Yes. Let let me just address that and
[22:25] certainly I'm happy to review that with
[22:28] Elliot. We can get a response for the
[22:30] board. Uh so Chair Pollson, you're
[22:34] correct. The uh ability to make rules
[22:38] depends on it's an extension of
[22:41] authority from the legislature. And so
[22:44] we can only make rules about uh matters
[22:47] that we are able to do. So, I'm guessing
[22:51] at this point we probably would have
[22:53] authority to do that, but we need to
[22:55] just go through that and I'm happy to do
[22:57] that. Elliot and I can look at that and
[23:00] let the board know. Uh, if there's not,
[23:03] then it would require a legislative
[23:06] action to grant that authority, but I I believe it may be included in there,
[23:11] but we will look at that and get back to
[23:14] you if that's okay.
[23:16] >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Elliot, go ahead,
[23:19] Elliot Clark.
[23:20] >> Sure. Yeah. So, I think Justin's exactly
[23:22] right. Um, we'll connect and we'll
[23:25] decide if the admin rule um is an
[23:28] option. Um, even if it's not, there's no
[23:31] reason you couldn't adopt
[23:33] just a a policy that governs that
[23:36] governs the board's practice. I mean,
[23:37] that would be administrative rules have
[23:40] the force of law. um you know if you if
[23:44] you adopt it pursuant to the authority
[23:46] given to you in statute just a board
[23:48] policy would be a little less
[23:51] enforceable than that but still it would
[23:52] be something it would be a formalized
[23:54] written document that says here's how we
[23:55] handle things going forward and so
[23:57] that's an option too if we decide that
[23:59] admin rulem is not is not an available
[24:02] avenue but we can look at that and we'll
[24:04] be in touch
[24:06] >> thank you thank you Jared you got your
[24:08] hand up
[24:09] >> yeah I was going down that same track um
[24:12] we could have admin we could have a
[24:14] board policy and procedures and um you
[24:17] know how we handle um we could formalize
[24:20] it in that way. I'm
[24:23] as as the conversation's been going, one
[24:25] other thought came to mind that this
[24:28] board
[24:29] I I think above other, you know, above
[24:32] all others, we have ethics rules that we
[24:34] follow as appraisers. We have standards.
[24:36] We don't want to be biased. Um, we want
[24:40] to be objective and and I would hate for
[24:44] uh someone to accuse us in the future of
[24:48] saying, "Well, you didn't let Joel was
[24:50] supportive of my my action or whatever
[24:53] and you didn't let him talk because that
[24:56] day my stuff was coming up or something
[24:58] like that, you know, where where we're
[24:59] so randomized that it opens us up for
[25:02] question. It opens up our integrity,
[25:05] question of our integrity. It opens up
[25:07] um questions of the action. I've heard,
[25:10] you know, other appraisers as I've
[25:12] participated nationally
[25:15] um say, "Oh, my board is always going
[25:17] after one individual or my board is
[25:20] biased against folks from this from from
[25:24] the area that I work or something." And that's very unfortunate that they
[25:28] get that impression that the board um
[25:31] isn't consistent. And so I think at
[25:35] minimum, you know, it'll be really good
[25:37] to see I would love to see some
[25:38] administrative rule, but but minimum we
[25:41] should create some sort of um policy and
[25:44] procedures and and that would be a
[25:46] document that governs and and um you
[25:50] know and we could include other things
[25:51] in there as well, not just the alternate
[25:53] um uh board, the components of an
[25:56] alternate board member, but you know, I
[25:58] think
[25:59] >> um there's there's other just having
[26:01] gone through that training that
[26:03] director, you asked us to go through.
[26:05] There were some things there that, you
[26:07] know, maybe as as a board we recognize
[26:09] and we say that's our policy as well. We
[26:11] adopt that and say this is our policy
[26:13] and procedure. There were some a few
[26:15] items in there that I thought were
[26:17] excellent that uh we could recognize. Um
[26:20] so anyway, that was my thought. Um
[26:23] Elliot went right down the same thought
[26:25] path that I had. So
[26:28] >> good, good. Um I'll
[26:31] to me it it appears I mean we're all on
[26:34] the same page. We we want to make sure
[26:36] that this is done right. Um so that
[26:39] going forward like I said even after we
[26:42] leave there won't be a question. So I'll
[26:45] turn the time back over to the director
[26:48] to continue on with u
[26:50] her part of the part of the meeting.
[26:54] >> Thank you chair. That is actually the
[26:56] end of what I have to report to you, but
[26:58] I'm happy to answer any questions any
[27:00] board members may have.
[27:04] » I've got a question. You mentioned that
[27:06] you're going to be filling the the board
[27:08] position with an member of the AMC and
[27:11] if we had recommendations, let you know
[27:13] about that. Now, does that mean is that
[27:16] like a banker like like a guy a guy at a
[27:20] bank who is an appraiser who orders
[27:23] appraisals?
[27:25] Is that somebody that you're
[27:27] considering? I mean, what what is the
[27:30] definition of an AMC?
[27:32] Is it a bank? Is it a bank's review
[27:35] appra appraisal review department?
[27:37] >> Uh, no. So it would be um an appraisal
[27:42] management company that is registered
[27:44] with the division as an appraisal
[27:47] management company. So unless the entity
[27:50] is registered with us as that um the the person from that entity would not
[27:58] qualify for board member Jensen's seat.
[28:02] >> Okay. All right. So, I have several
[28:04] people that I would maybe recommend, but
[28:07] yeah, they're they're more like in the
[28:08] banking world,
[28:10] appraisal review world of banks and
[28:12] ordering appraisals that way rather
[28:14] than,
[28:16] you know, AMC.
[28:20] >> Board member Frost, I see you have your
[28:21] hand up.
[28:23] >> Yeah. So, I ju just to clarify a little
[28:24] bit more on Chris. So, so essentially
[28:26] you have banks that decide to use AMC's
[28:29] and you have banks that decide to hire
[28:31] an in-house appraisal management
[28:33] department. And we're only looking for
[28:35] people who work for AMC's
[28:39] um not like internal employees of banks
[28:42] that work for the risk management
[28:43] department of the bank. Is that right?
[28:48] » I I think it's more are they registered
[28:51] as an AMC with the division or not? All
[28:53] right.
[28:54] >> You got to be registered as name as you
[28:55] can. Cool.
[28:55] >> Yeah. Okay.
[28:58] >> Any other question?
[28:59] >> Part of the reason part of the reason
[29:01] for that distinction is the board has
[29:05] uh rights to discipline slash
[29:10] uh right rules that affect AMC's
[29:13] specifically. They do not affect banks
[29:17] or employees of banks.
[29:19] So that's kind of been my role is to
[29:22] watch for that or bring up anything that
[29:24] might affect the AMC as a organization.
[29:32] » Jared, you you had your hand up, Jared.
[29:34] Sorry, I
[29:36] >> I turned the time over to the director
[29:38] and I keep stomping on it.
[29:40] >> Hey, no, you're good.
[29:42] >> So um so question Ron for director and
[29:45] Ron. Um,
[29:48] does the AMC have to designate a member
[29:51] to be it's it's not an an AMC that's
[29:54] represented on it's an it's a particular
[29:57] person from that AMC is my would be my
[30:01] understanding. And so Ron, is there
[30:03] someone in your company that you would
[30:05] recommend? Um, I I'm very partial like
[30:09] one of my thoughts is it needs to be
[30:11] somebody that's more familiar with Utah.
[30:13] I'd hate to get some national AMC that
[30:16] really doesn't
[30:18] have ties to Utah other than they order
[30:20] a few appraisals um you know every once
[30:23] in a while and you know maybe they
[30:25] broadcast them the wrong way and they do
[30:27] a bunch of other stuff. So so I like I
[30:30] I've really liked having Ron and and um
[30:34] his company
[30:36] as participating in the board because he
[30:38] knows more so what we're dealing with
[30:41] here in Utah. Um, and so could it be
[30:44] somebody that is, you know, in your in
[30:47] your company, Ron? Do you have somebody
[30:49] that would that would be recommended to
[30:51] take your spot or are there other AMC's
[30:54] in Utah that you that you think would fill that spot? Um, as well, um,
[31:01] I do have two sons that work for me. One
[31:05] is a certified residential appraiser and
[31:09] the other does all of our customer
[31:11] service work. Jay and if it I didn't
[31:15] realize it would be
[31:17] I thought you were looking for a
[31:18] separate other AMC but I would sure
[31:22] proposed uh one of my sons to fill that
[31:25] role if you're okay with staying with
[31:28] the same
[31:30] >> I don't think we have to switch
[31:32] companies. I I think if it's an
[31:34] individual, at least that's my my
[31:36] thought director is that, you know, um
[31:39] Ron's AMC is very well respected within
[31:42] the state from appraisers. Um my
[31:45] interaction with him has been on a very
[31:47] professional level throughout the the
[31:48] years and I think his input and
[31:50] understanding of state law, uh how
[31:53] things are. He gets as frustrated with
[31:55] AMC's that don't follow state law as
[31:57] anybody does. Um, and we've had those
[32:00] discussions before. And so, um, to me,
[32:04] that's kind of I would say don't
[32:07] exclude,
[32:09] you know, his company out of that
[32:11] consideration, someone from his company
[32:12] out of that consideration. So, that that
[32:14] would be a recommendation that I would
[32:15] have.
[32:17] >> Thank you. That's that's really helpful
[32:19] for us to um keep in mind as we're
[32:22] entering this process the the importance
[32:25] to the board of the AMC members. um
[32:29] awareness and and participation in the
[32:31] appraisal community here in Utah. I'll
[32:34] have to double check. I don't think
[32:36] there is anything in law that would
[32:37] prohibit um a representative from the
[32:41] same AMC um from becoming the next board
[32:44] member. Like I said, I'll have to double
[32:46] check, but I don't um I don't think
[32:49] there's anything that would prevent
[32:50] that. So, I would say um you know uh
[32:54] board member Jensen or anyone else who's
[32:57] on the call if if you've got folks who
[32:59] are interested and who you think would
[33:01] be great and we can certainly take this
[33:04] recommendation um board member Pricer or
[33:07] excuse me, Vice Chair Pricer um into consideration as part of that
[33:12] process.
[33:16] every every board member is defined by
[33:18] code as to how that board seat is
[33:20] filled. And I don't believe there's
[33:22] anything in code that would prohibit
[33:24] what has just been talked about. So
[33:27] the other thing we can do is we can slow
[33:29] down the process and then Ron will be
[33:31] around for a couple more years. So
[33:35] >> we could always
[33:39] » happy to stay. I'm pretty sure I'll be
[33:41] retired, but if you're okay with a
[33:43] retired
[33:48] anyway, uh, anything else, director,
[33:52] >> that is it for me. Thank you.
[33:54] >> Thank you.
[33:56] Um, moving on to licensing and
[33:59] education. Uh, Laurel North.
[34:02] >> Hi. Thank you, Chair Pollson.
[34:05] Now that caravan is in our rearview
[34:07] mirror, IDW planning
[34:11] is upon us. We've um been thinking about
[34:14] this, but we are proposing to modernize
[34:17] Utah's two-year instructure instructor
[34:19] development workshop requirement for
[34:21] pre-licicensing instructors. The current
[34:24] rules are the strictest in our region.
[34:26] or nearby states don't require IDW at
[34:29] all, which creates unnecessary
[34:31] administrative burdens and stops top
[34:33] national instructors, of which we have
[34:36] many in the appraisal arena from
[34:38] teaching in Utah due to the cost of
[34:40] attendance. To fix this, we want to give
[34:44] instructors flexible, modern ways to
[34:47] keep their credentials such as holding
[34:49] national teaching designations or
[34:51] attending approved educator conferences.
[34:54] That's kind of open for discussion. what
[34:56] the requirement would be, but I want to
[34:58] make it easier and more flexible and
[35:01] still maintain our high quality of
[35:02] educators. If the board approves this
[35:05] concept, we will collect feedback um
[35:09] from whomever you especially
[35:13] uh the ne until the next board meeting.
[35:15] And if that's okay with you, I presented
[35:19] this to the real estate board a couple
[35:20] weeks ago and they were all for it. So,
[35:24] I gave them a longer presentation. This
[35:26] one's shorter. Um, so if you want more
[35:29] details, I can give it to you. But if
[35:31] you want to shoot comments to me or
[35:34] anyone of our management and our
[35:36] division staff, they can get them over
[35:38] to me. We can uh chat about that. If uh
[35:43] it sounds like a great idea and you're
[35:45] for it, we will plan on presenting
[35:47] formal draft rules for your review at
[35:50] the next meeting. Do you have any
[35:52] comments about that idea?
[35:59] » Open it up to the board. Jared,
[36:03] I'm currently an instructor. Um, and I
[36:06] think it's a fantastic idea. Um, I also
[36:08] serve as our education chair for our
[36:12] local for the appraisal institute local
[36:13] chapter and I serve on several of the
[36:16] education committees developing material
[36:19] and uh for the appraisal institute
[36:22] nationally and I would be more than
[36:25] happy to to sit down and visit with you, know, one-on-one. Um, if you want to
[36:30] just reach out to me, you know,
[36:33] block out 30 minutes, an hour, whatever
[36:35] we need. Um I I'd be more than happy to
[36:37] give some national insight some if
[36:41] there's some questions but um I I think
[36:45] my impression is is that there's a lot
[36:46] of of because there's been so much
[36:49] change going through COVID instructors
[36:52] the way we instruct now the institute is
[36:54] actually reooking at how they're they're
[36:57] vetting and um and credentiing their
[37:01] instructors as well to kind of keep up
[37:03] with the times the um
[37:07] you know, so so I'm I'm all for this. I
[37:10] think this is a great um you know, a
[37:13] great move and and very very important
[37:16] topic right now. Very current. So So
[37:19] thank you. But I I I'm all for it.
[37:22] >> Thank you. That's that's very meaningful
[37:24] coming from you, Jared. So I appreciate
[37:25] that and I will reach out so we can
[37:27] discuss that. I want to get it I want to
[37:29] get it right and I want it to be
[37:31] progressive, modern and most of all just
[37:34] helpful to the educators. So, thank you.
[37:39] Anyone else think
[37:42] have any thoughts on that?
[37:45] All right. Uh let me go on. I just have
[37:48] a short little bit here. Uh just the
[37:51] usual.
[37:53] Uh, we did not process any approvals or
[37:56] denials for certified and licensed
[37:58] appraiser exam candidates this past
[38:00] month. Our yes answer spreadsheet is
[38:03] short, just one. We had Peter Pollos was
[38:06] approved to receive two separate
[38:08] temporary certified general permits.
[38:12] And then as we move on to the stats, we
[38:14] have a little bit of bump up. So I'm
[38:15] happy to see across the board growth in
[38:18] appraiser categories. Every single
[38:20] individual appraiser category saw net
[38:22] gains from May to June. Led by certified
[38:25] residential, we have a plus five
[38:27] licensed appraisers plus three.
[38:30] Continuing education instructors
[38:32] increased from 93 to 95. And our AMC
[38:36] growth was also a plus one.
[38:39] We don't have any experience reviews for
[38:42] your consideration today. We don't have
[38:44] experience reviews scheduled for August.
[38:47] And that's all I have for you unless you
[38:48] have questions.
[38:56] » All right, seeing no questions, uh Oh,
[39:00] Jared, you've got a question.
[39:04] >> Sorry. Um I I have lots of questions. Um
[39:08] but only one for you, Laurel. Um
[39:12] part of the um proposed uh change in the
[39:19] licensing
[39:21] uh deals with putting the exam in front
[39:26] of experience and I was just wondering
[39:27] personally if you've had a chance to
[39:29] look at that part on what your thoughts
[39:30] would be. So the idea is that in many
[39:33] industries you do all of your schooling
[39:36] then you take the exam. For example, the
[39:37] bar exam um comes right after law
[39:40] school. My son's a doctor. His his um
[39:44] boards um were right after school and
[39:49] then he goes through a uh an internship.
[39:54] He's in residency is what they call it
[39:56] and then he'll do additional boards
[39:58] after that. And I was just from your
[40:00] perspective as as dealing with education
[40:02] and and everything, is there something
[40:04] that your thoughts on that? Is that a
[40:06] good idea to do the testing more closely
[40:10] to the education side um for entrance
[40:14] into the profession or or are you more
[40:17] in favor of doing it after the
[40:19] experience um like it is currently? And
[40:22] I I hate to put you on the spot. If you
[40:23] haven't had a chance to think about it,
[40:24] then that's okay. But
[40:26] >> well, I have I mean I have thoughts
[40:28] about appraisals in general, right? And
[40:30] making this easier for them and growing
[40:33] the business and getting them paid
[40:34] sooner and all of those kind of things.
[40:37] I haven't specifically thought about
[40:38] when to test. So I am I am open to your
[40:42] thoughts about this if it may I it seems
[40:45] kind of backwards to me about
[40:47] professions like you said with your uh
[40:49] doctor experience and I don't know how
[40:52] much I can change that like how much of
[40:54] this is nationally regulated but if you
[40:57] want to pursue this I want to pursue
[41:00] this so maybe we can chat about that too
[41:03] when we meet up. that would that that
[41:06] would be great and I think for the other
[41:08] board members that's one of those things
[41:10] that are kind of in that change that we
[41:12] can think of but thank you Laurel I we
[41:14] can talk about it when we when we meet
[41:16] together so
[41:17] >> great I look forward to it so
[41:19] >> thank you
[41:21] >> Michael you had your hand up
[41:24] >> I was just going to add something um I
[41:27] was just on a call and this was
[41:29] discussed and a lot of folks felt that
[41:33] um they were okay with doing the exam
[41:35] after their education and I sort of feel
[41:39] both ways. I mean I think you know
[41:41] taking your education getting the
[41:43] experience like that builds upon your
[41:46] knowledge to then pass the exam.
[41:48] However, some appraisers in the call
[41:50] were like, well, you know, some of the
[41:52] things on the test aren't necessarily
[41:55] things that you would, you know, know
[41:58] from doing your everyday practice of
[42:00] like when was FIRA introduced and, you
[42:03] know, sort of stuff like that. Um, I was
[42:06] always in the train of thought of you
[42:07] take your QE, you get your experience,
[42:09] then you take your exam because I would
[42:11] I don't know if this would, you know, be
[42:13] true, but my initial thought was maybe
[42:15] some applicants would be like, well,
[42:17] I've got my QE, I've passed the exam,
[42:20] why can't I just go out and practice?
[42:22] Why do I now have to show experience and
[42:24] then you tell me my reports are and use
[42:26] PAP compliant and whatnot? Um, however,
[42:29] I could see it from both ways. That's
[42:30] just my two cents. Yeah, Michael, I
[42:32] think that's, you know, that's a great
[42:34] perspective, too. So, my son, you know,
[42:36] in residency, even though he'd passed
[42:39] all the exams, he couldn't administer a
[42:42] prescription, for example, until he
[42:45] passed another certain steps. So, he's fourth year now. Well, a third year
[42:50] he could start prescribing. And so,
[42:53] there's these benchmarks along the way
[42:55] just because you've had the education. I
[42:57] mean, that goes back to the days when I
[42:58] became an appraiser and we just had
[43:00] registration. We didn't even have
[43:01] licensing. We I was a registered
[43:03] appraiser. Um and so so I I can see
[43:08] their concern. I you know I have the
[43:12] fortunate misfortune burden of helping
[43:15] write the exam questions for the entry
[43:17] into the exam. And we're always looking
[43:19] at what's the minimum
[43:21] um what's the the minimum
[43:25] viable
[43:26] product that we want. what we're not
[43:29] asking these incredibly tough questions,
[43:31] but if you've had your education two
[43:34] years ago, it's taken you two years to
[43:36] find a supervisor and get the
[43:37] experience. It's almost like you have to
[43:39] go back and relearn some of those
[43:42] things. Um, as a supervisor, I didn't
[43:45] sit and quiz my trainees on certain
[43:48] aspects of USPAP or certain aspects of, you know, fundamentals.
[43:54] um I was just more showing them how we
[43:56] put this in place in practice. And so
[43:59] anyway, it's it's an it is one of those
[44:01] things I think that that the
[44:05] standards
[44:06] uh standards board criteria board, I
[44:09] don't remember which one it is that's
[44:10] doing this, um is is wrestling with. I
[44:14] think that this is where a lot of the
[44:15] comments have come and why they've
[44:16] extended the comment period to be able
[44:18] to get some additional. And so I like
[44:20] that. I I like just getting I think as a
[44:23] board my recommendation later is going
[44:25] to be that we do a formal I had
[44:27] something almost worked up by the
[44:29] deadline but I just ran out of time to
[44:31] present to everyone. Um it's still in
[44:35] extremely draft mode. Um and and I I
[44:40] I'll be prepared in the next day or two
[44:41] to get that out to everybody to review.
[44:44] Um, but this is this is one of those
[44:48] sticky parts in the change uh proposed
[44:51] changes
[44:54] and and sorry Laurel to hijack your
[44:56] agenda item on here, but this is kind of
[44:59] all about licensing and education
[45:01] everything. This is a a good spot, I
[45:04] think, to to put this in. So,
[45:05] >> I think that's great. I'd make to make
[45:07] I'd like to I'd like to make the change,
[45:11] honestly, is my first gut. um thing, but
[45:14] I need guidance from people like you.
[45:16] And I I appreciate uh team member Jenko
[45:20] saying uh you know sharing his thoughts
[45:23] because I I consider those heavily. So
[45:26] let let's talk about it. See what we can
[45:28] do.
[45:32] » I've just got one comment on this.
[45:36] As board members, we receive um
[45:41] appraisals that are supposed to be based
[45:43] on what the applicant has done. Uh in
[45:47] reality, when you're going for a
[45:49] license,
[45:50] it's not your work. Uh we are always
[45:54] critiquing the trainee trainer, not the
[45:57] trainee.
[45:59] And if there was a way that we could
[46:01] require one or two appraisals that are
[46:04] specific to the applicant's work,
[46:08] I think that would be more beneficial
[46:10] because we've we often
[46:14] glean no no true information out of
[46:17] these appraisals other than
[46:19] was the trainer qualified or not
[46:21] qualified, which at that point shouldn't
[46:24] even be a question. But that's really
[46:27] what we're looking at is we're asking
[46:30] questions to the trainee
[46:32] and the trainee a lot of times has not a
[46:37] lot of input into what we're trying to
[46:40] do as criteria or question them on if
[46:43] that makes sense. Yeah,
[46:46] >> Chris, that does like I I think if I I
[46:49] mean I've trained seven
[46:52] um not all of them made it uh past my
[46:55] 90day critique of them. I I start off by
[46:59] saying, "Look, I'm we're going to do
[47:01] this for 90 days and if and if I if
[47:03] you're just not getting the concepts, I
[47:05] am going to recommend that maybe you
[47:07] look at another career." Um, there are
[47:09] some inherent things I think in our
[47:11] career that if you're just not getting
[47:12] it, it you probably never will. Um, but
[47:17] I would love to have had someone come to
[47:20] me and say, "Look, I've done my
[47:21] education. I passed the exam. Can you
[47:24] train me or can you help me with my
[47:26] experience?" that all of a sudden I know
[47:29] now they're getting a certain aspect of
[47:33] the the process and we're not spinning
[47:35] wheels and I'm not rebuilding I'm not
[47:38] rebuilding on concepts because they pass
[47:41] that. Interestingly enough the entry
[47:43] exam the licensed entry exam has a pass
[47:46] ratio of 62%. Nationally 62% the first
[47:50] time and the second time you p the
[47:53] second time takers it doesn't increase
[47:56] very much. It's like I I think it was
[47:59] 15% pass it the second time. Well, that
[48:03] either means that um you know it's been
[48:06] way too long since they they you know
[48:09] they they had the education or they're
[48:11] just not going to make it in the
[48:12] industry. And um and and our goal when
[48:16] we're writing those questions is to
[48:19] minimally test test for minimal
[48:22] competency and not these aren't really
[48:25] super tough questions um that that
[48:28] they're encountering. Um, and so having
[48:32] that in that spot prior to trying to
[48:35] find a supervisor or go down that path,
[48:38] uh, is to me kind of a good from a a
[48:42] supervisor perspective. Um, there's some
[48:45] advantages. There's some advantages to
[48:47] that.
[48:52] » Any other questions from board members?
[48:58] » Thank you. Um, we'll move on.
[49:03] Uh, let's see. Where are we?
[49:06] We're to board and industry issues with
[49:09] Justin Barney.
[49:12] >> Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the
[49:14] opportunity to address the board. The uh
[49:18] the division does not have any proposed
[49:20] rule amendments right now. we've talked
[49:22] about some possible changes that could
[49:25] be upcoming in this meeting and I'm
[49:27] happy to uh be involved in in that
[49:30] process. So, uh, I, as I said, I don't
[49:34] have anything for the board's
[49:36] consideration today, but, uh, we'll look
[49:39] into into these items that have been
[49:42] discussed and, uh, come back to the
[49:44] board at a future time to, uh, discuss
[49:47] whether any changes in the
[49:50] administrative rule can or should be
[49:53] made. So, it's all that I have unless
[49:55] you have some questions for me.
[50:02] Seeing no questions, thank you. Thank
[50:05] you.
[50:06] >> We will move on to
[50:09] enforcement with Brenn Kalin.
[50:13] >> Good morning. Thank you. I'd like to
[50:15] start off uh with the update on our
[50:17] current case management and enforcement
[50:19] activity. Right now, the division is
[50:22] actively maintaining 15 open cases uh
[50:25] appraisal cases. Uh currently we do not
[50:28] have any AMC
[50:30] uh complaints. We received two new
[50:32] appraisal complaints during this
[50:34] reporting period and successfully closed
[50:36] one appraisal complaint. And we
[50:39] currently have two cases pending legal
[50:41] action. Is there any questions on those
[50:44] stats?
[50:48] Okay. Fantastic. Um, I'd like to present
[50:51] to you a stipulation in order for Jesse
[50:54] Palmer for your consideration today. Um,
[50:57] Jesse Palmer is a state certified
[50:59] residential appraiser. And to provide a
[51:02] brief background on this matter, in
[51:04] October 2025, Mr. Palmer was retained to
[51:08] appraise a residential con condominium
[51:11] for a divorce proceeding. He established
[51:13] a value of $535,000
[51:16] for this assignment. Shortly thereafter,
[51:19] a real estate professional reviewed the
[51:21] work, identified potential inflation and
[51:24] misleading conclusions, and submitted a
[51:26] formal complaint to the division. The
[51:29] division conducted a thorough
[51:30] investigation and interview uh which
[51:33] involved both a review appraisal and um
[51:38] the standard investigation process which
[51:41] revealed several critical deficiencies.
[51:44] First, uh improper reporting. Mr. Palmer
[51:48] utilized a standard generalpurpose res
[51:50] form rather than the required
[51:52] condominium form citing ease of
[51:55] readability for this reason which led to
[51:59] the omission of key condo specific data.
[52:02] Furthermore, several areas of the report
[52:05] were not completed. Second, inspection
[52:08] failures. Although Mr. Palmer certified
[52:11] that he performed a personal inspection
[52:13] for this assignment. The investigation
[52:16] confirmed he did not inspect the
[52:17] property from the exterior or interior.
[52:20] He lacked access and could not view the
[52:22] unit from the parking lot where he did
[52:25] not exit his vehicle for any inspection.
[52:29] He also admitted required photographs
[52:31] from the report. Uh lacking physical
[52:34] access, Mr. Palmer made an extraordinary
[52:38] assumption regarding the property's
[52:39] condition based entirely on unverified
[52:43] data of a 2011 remodel which uh was
[52:48] provided by a party with a vested
[52:50] financial interest in the outcome of the
[52:53] assignment which compromised his
[52:56] objectivity and finally a flawed sales
[52:59] comparison approach. The appraisal
[53:01] contained unsupported adjustments,
[53:03] methodologies that failed to support his
[53:05] conclusions, and misidentified
[53:08] comparable properties. Furthermore, his
[53:10] work file lacks the supporting data for
[53:13] this valuation.
[53:15] Mr. Palmer admitted that these actions
[53:17] violated Utah administrative code as
[53:20] well as core use PAP rules, including
[53:23] ethics, recordkeeping, competency, and
[53:27] scope of work. To resolve this matter
[53:30] without the need for a formal hearing,
[53:31] the division and Mr. Palmer have agreed
[53:34] to the following terms. Mr. Palmer must
[53:37] complete 8 hours of mentorship training
[53:40] with the division approved mentor within
[53:43] 120 days of the execution of this
[53:46] agreement. Uh these hours are nonredit
[53:50] hours and cannot be applied toward his
[53:52] regular continuing education. and should
[53:55] he fail to comply with the specified
[53:58] time frame, his license will face
[54:00] immediate suspension.
[54:02] Uh the division believes this agreement
[54:04] appropriately protects the public
[54:05] interest while ensuring corrective
[54:07] training and we respectfully request
[54:10] your approval of this stipulation and
[54:12] order. I'm happy to answer any questions
[54:14] you might have regarding this
[54:16] stipulation and order.
[54:21] Brenn
[54:23] um I read through this and it all seems
[54:26] very reasonable to me and I read in here
[54:30] that he agreed or he had admitted that
[54:32] he had committed these you know failures
[54:35] or whatever you called them. Um, so I
[54:39] don't have any problem whatsoever with
[54:41] this and and I and I really appreciate
[54:43] that the division is, you know, meeting
[54:46] out
[54:48] uh the consequences for bad acts, you
[54:50] know, that is that's in the favor of the
[54:53] appraiser to get the training he needs
[54:56] without, you know, potentially his
[55:00] career if he's willing to follow that.
[55:01] So all that's great. My only comment or
[55:04] question is um and it's not a negative
[55:07] one. It's more about the procedure of
[55:09] how these things are done. This this not
[55:12] how these things are done. What what am
[55:14] I trying to say here? This this
[55:18] person you said that a person in the
[55:20] appraisal profession
[55:23] uh recommended an investigation,
[55:28] a real estate professional. And so when
[55:32] that investigation goes,
[55:35] uh, who is it that that um
[55:40] that like reviews the appraisal and and
[55:44] comes up with the logs.
[55:48] This this stipulation kind of reads like
[55:51] an appraisal review that I I see often
[55:54] where there's adversarial appraisers in
[55:56] a litigation setting and one appraiser
[55:59] is trying to um you know cite all of the
[56:03] bad bad
[56:05] uh acts that that appraiser does and and
[56:09] um is this written by an third party
[56:13] reviewer or is it something that you or
[56:15] and your staff do? How does this how do
[56:20] like the the wording the wording in the
[56:23] paragraphs get into this report? Is it
[56:26] like out of an appraisal review or is it
[56:28] just your words or how does what is the
[56:33] procedure of this? I'm curious about
[56:35] that.
[56:37] >> Um
[56:38] >> let me let me defer to Justin because
[56:40] he's legal counsel for the for the
[56:43] division.
[56:45] Yes, I'm uh u involved in in u this
[56:51] process, but I was I was going to also
[56:53] comment that the the process and and
[56:56] Elliot's here and he is legal counsel
[56:59] for the board and he can weigh in as
[57:01] well, but generally when a stipulation
[57:04] is presented uh there are discussions
[57:07] that go on between the division and the
[57:10] party and uh the Um the process in in
[57:16] this situation is really for the board
[57:19] to to approve the stipulation or not to
[57:23] approve it. We we have to be careful
[57:25] because if this stipulation is not
[57:28] approved, there's a possibility that it
[57:30] could come before the board at a hearing
[57:33] at a later date. And we want to avoid
[57:37] any uh
[57:40] instance in which the board may be
[57:43] accused of having predetermined a
[57:46] hearing outcome that is not even been
[57:48] scheduled at this point. And so uh the
[57:51] division needs to be a little bit
[57:53] careful in in going into too much
[57:57] detail. I I think the the question for
[58:00] the board really is
[58:03] um is this is this a reasonable
[58:07] response to this? And and if not, it
[58:10] it's certainly okay for the board to
[58:12] say, you know what, uh we just don't
[58:14] have enough information to approve this
[58:17] proposed stipulation or this
[58:19] stipulation. And so we want to uh to get
[58:23] more information that could come out for
[58:26] example in a hearing. Elliot, do you
[58:28] have any any other comment on that?
[58:32] >> Yeah, I think that's exactly right,
[58:33] Justin. Thanks. Um and for those
[58:36] reasons, I think it's probably most
[58:38] appropriate really to have
[58:41] any real detailed discussion like this
[58:43] happen and the close session that I
[58:45] believe the the board is going to enter
[58:47] into shortly. So, um, certainly the
[58:50] concerns that have been raised, we can address those, but it's probably
[58:53] best to do that in a in a close session.
[58:56] So,
[58:58] >> and and it's understandable that with
[59:01] new board members, uh, so we're not uh
[59:04] trying to call out or or
[59:07] make any other comment other than just
[59:09] to help understand the process. So, in a
[59:12] stipulation,
[59:14] uh, there's limited information that
[59:16] you're going to be receiving. In a in a
[59:17] hearing, there's total, you know,
[59:20] opportunity to get answers to questions
[59:23] that you might have, but this is a
[59:26] little bit different process. It's short
[59:28] shortened process just for a
[59:30] stipulation.
[59:34] » Thank you. Jared, you had your hand up.
[59:37] >> I do. Um, so my question is more
[59:41] general. Um,
[59:44] and I'll say
[59:46] >> Jared, Jared, before we move on, I want
[59:48] to back up um, back to Chris because
[59:51] Chris had the original question.
[59:54] >> So Chris, is there anything else you'd
[59:56] like to say before I move over to Jared?
[59:58] >> No, no, I get I understand what they're
[1:00:00] saying, what Mr. Barney and uh, Clark
[1:00:06] have indicated. Yeah, I'm I'm curious
[1:00:09] about processes and things like that and
[1:00:12] which is not the form right here to
[1:00:14] discuss that. So that's great. So we can
[1:00:16] discuss that but some other opportunity
[1:00:19] if needed.
[1:00:20] >> Okay. I just want to double back to make
[1:00:22] sure we're okay before Jared is going on
[1:00:25] to a new a new topic. But okay, go ahead
[1:00:28] Jared.
[1:00:29] So, um,
[1:00:32] Bren, if you could help remind me, um,
[1:00:35] and and this is independent of this
[1:00:38] case.
[1:00:40] When we set up the mentorship program,
[1:00:42] well, we have this supervisor
[1:00:45] uh supervisor role that has some
[1:00:51] fundamental requirements has some
[1:00:53] requirements as far as you you can't
[1:00:55] have any um disciplinary action and I
[1:00:59] think it's the prior three years. It
[1:01:02] might be prior five years. I don't
[1:01:03] remember exactly what that is.
[1:01:06] in accepting the mentorship.
[1:01:09] Does this count as one of those? I can't
[1:01:11] remember if and and even if this may not have even come up as we
[1:01:15] were talking about the mentorship
[1:01:16] program um and and architecting it. um
[1:01:23] if would and I I I asked because um
[1:01:31] it may have some impact on how I how I
[1:01:33] feel about about approving or not
[1:01:36] approving. Um, does this have any impact
[1:01:39] on supervisor
[1:01:42] uh and continuing as a supervisor or
[1:01:44] supervising someone if if we do a mentor
[1:01:48] a mentorship option?
[1:01:52] >> I do not have off the top of my head,
[1:01:55] but I believe our statute and rules
[1:01:59] prohibit supervisors if they've had
[1:02:02] disciplinary action.
[1:02:03] >> It's the prior three years is the is the
[1:02:06] rule.
[1:02:08] Sorry, Michael. Michael, one more time.
[1:02:10] >> Uh, prior three years will disqualify
[1:02:13] them from being a supervisor.
[1:02:15] >> Thank you.
[1:02:17] >> And I can't remember is the mentorship
[1:02:19] program considered a disciplinary
[1:02:20] action.
[1:02:21] >> Yes, mentorship is any any stipulation
[1:02:25] and order is considered disciplinary
[1:02:28] action and the mentorship as a result of
[1:02:32] the stipulation and order will be
[1:02:34] considered disciplinary action. It will
[1:02:36] be reported to the ASC registry and it
[1:02:40] goes in the newsletter as well.
[1:02:43] >> Okay. Okay. That was my general question
[1:02:47] asking for a friend.
[1:02:52] » Is there any
[1:02:53] >> Oh, go ahead, B.
[1:02:54] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Is there any other
[1:02:56] questions I could help anyone with?
[1:03:06] All right, seeing none, um we'll move on
[1:03:10] to
[1:03:13] that brings us into Oh,
[1:03:16] >> would you enterain would you entertain a
[1:03:18] motion to uh go into an executive close
[1:03:22] session to discuss the stipulation and
[1:03:25] order pres presented by the board in the
[1:03:28] matter of Jesse Palmer uh docket number
[1:03:32] RE2. 26 uh 2026-097.
[1:03:39] » We have a motion to go into executive
[1:03:42] close session. Um is there a second?
[1:03:50] » There's been a motion and a second.
[1:03:56] Uh it can be open for discussion before
[1:04:00] we we vote on it. Uh, we have two hands
[1:04:03] up. Steve, you had your hand up first.
[1:04:06] >> Yeah, I just before we go into that uh
[1:04:09] close session, I did want to
[1:04:12] bring up if we still needed to meet in
[1:04:15] person this year. And if so, I wanted to
[1:04:18] propose that we discuss that next
[1:04:20] meeting on when we'd like to meet in
[1:04:23] person.
[1:04:26] >> We can have that added to the agenda uh
[1:04:29] probably under the director's report.
[1:04:32] Perfect.
[1:04:33] >> Is that sufficient? Uh, director.
[1:04:39] » Yes. Thank you. Sorry, couldn't find my microphone.
[1:04:43] >> All right. U Joel, you had your hand up.
[1:04:47] >> Um, in the packet, we got some
[1:04:49] information about Peter Paulos, and I
[1:04:51] just wanted to make sure it wasn't
[1:04:52] something we're supposed to go over
[1:04:53] before we go to executive session. And
[1:04:55] Bren, is that something we were going to
[1:04:58] discuss this month?
[1:05:00] I can answer that. Um, it's a licensing
[1:05:03] and what they do is they it's for uh
[1:05:05] whether we're going to give them on this
[1:05:07] one a permit to practice. There were two
[1:05:10] six month um applications and we go over
[1:05:14] typically um this one specifically. It
[1:05:17] should have come through on the email
[1:05:19] and it's uh titled yes answer
[1:05:21] spreadsheet and the division reviews
[1:05:24] them. In this case, uh, he had not taken
[1:05:27] the appropriate education when, um,
[1:05:30] performing a renewal, and so they gave
[1:05:34] him a $250 fine, and then he had to take
[1:05:36] the class, of course, that was taken
[1:05:39] care of and paid for. So that doesn't uh
[1:05:42] prohibit us from licensing him, but we
[1:05:45] do review that even though it's a like a little infraction, if you will.
[1:05:53] And and it's not typical that you
[1:05:55] discuss it when I bring it up. Um just
[1:05:57] in the licensing portion, if you have
[1:05:59] questions, just pipe up and ask me and
[1:06:02] we can chat about that as well. But no,
[1:06:05] uh as far as I know, uh you do not need
[1:06:08] to discuss that in close session. Any
[1:06:15] other questions pertaining to going into
[1:06:17] executive session?
[1:06:21] Seeing none, um, all in favor say I.
[1:06:24] >> I.
[1:06:26] >> Any nay? Any nays?
[1:06:29] With that, we'll go into executive
[1:06:31] session.
[1:06:33] >> All right. Let the record show that the
[1:06:36] following board members have voted to
[1:06:38] close this meeting for the sole purpose
[1:06:39] of discussing the character,
[1:06:42] professional competence, or physical and
[1:06:43] mental health of an individual. Chair
[1:06:46] Chris Pollson, Vice Chair Jared Pricer,
[1:06:49] board member Chris Hansen, board member
[1:06:51] Steve Davidson, board member Ron Jensen,
[1:06:54] and board member Michael Brumble. And I
[1:06:57] will open that breakup breakout room,
[1:06:59] excuse me, for you now.
[2:09:11] All right, I think everyone made it
[2:09:13] back.
[2:09:17] So, we are now
[2:09:19] I see. Let me know what are we still
[2:09:22] recording or do we need to wait until we
[2:09:23] start recording?
[2:09:24] >> We are still recording.
[2:09:26] >> All right. Uh we're back in uh open
[2:09:29] session and I'd like to open it up for a
[2:09:34] motion.
[2:09:41] » I think Michael's muted but trying to
[2:09:42] talk.
[2:09:43] >> Sorry. When you come back in you
[2:09:45] automatically get muted and it
[2:09:48] >> off.
[2:09:50] >> I'd make a motion that we approve the
[2:09:53] stipulation in the matter of Jesse
[2:09:54] Palmer.
[2:09:56] There is a motion to approve. Is there a
[2:09:58] second?
[2:10:01] >> I second that.
[2:10:05] » There is a motion and a second. Uh we'll
[2:10:08] do a roll call. Um we'll start with
[2:10:11] Michael Rumble.
[2:10:13] >> I
[2:10:15] >> Steve Davidson.
[2:10:18] >> I
[2:10:19] >> Jared Pricer.
[2:10:22] >> Nay.
[2:10:23] Ron Jensen.
[2:10:25] >> Hi,
[2:10:26] >> Chris Hansen.
[2:10:30] » May
[2:10:34] » and Chris Pollson myself. Um, I'll say
[2:10:39] I
[2:10:41] did I miss any board members that are
[2:10:43] present?
[2:10:45] I think I got everybody. All right. So,
[2:10:49] the motion passes 4 to two.
[2:10:53] Um I am looking u asking the director if
[2:10:58] there is board I mean I'm sorry division
[2:11:01] concurrence.
[2:11:02] >> Yes share the division concurrence.
[2:11:06] >> Uh with that I believe we have finished
[2:11:09] u the business of the board for the day
[2:11:13] and looking for a motion to adjurnn.
[2:11:20] I make a motion to adjurnn.
[2:11:23] >> There is a motion to adjurnn. All in
[2:11:25] favor say I.
[2:11:26] >> I.
[2:11:28] >> The eyes have it and we are have
[2:11:31] completed business for the day. Thank
[2:11:32] you.
[2:11:34] >> Thank you.