[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.

Appraiser Board Meeting - 7/29/26

Transcript