Appraiser group urges review of Tennessee complaint and reviewer process; commission asks for data and to standardize reviewer forms

Kevin McGuigan, speaking during public comment, urged the Tennessee Real Estate Appraiser Commission to reform its complaint-review process, characterizing the current system as overly punitive for appraisers facing frivolous complaints. McGuigan asked the commission to adopt four measures: a filter for clearly frivolous allegations, a more rigorous RFP and selection process for expert reviewers (including higher, market-rate fees), clearer assignment conditions for reviewers and a mentoring option for first-time offenders.

State staff and commission legal counsel responded at length. Staff said the commission’s complaint process is administered through the Department of Commerce and Insurance’s regulatory boards division and that the program already uses an “expert reviewer” model: complaints that allege USPAP or appraisal deficiencies are screened, respondents receive an opportunity to respond, and potential USPAP violations are sent to an expert reviewer. Staff also explained the commission has a conditional-dismissal option the board created as an administrative alternative to formal discipline for certain first-time matters; under the conditional-dismissal option the respondent completes a reviewer-recommended continuing-education course and the case is closed with no further action.

Staff said the conditional-dismissal process is discretionary (it is not required by statute) and that the commission could discontinue that option if the board and administration chose to do so. Staff also said the agency posts RFPs for expert-review services publicly and attempts to solicit bids, but that procurement responses have been inconsistent — the staff reported that in recent procurements they had to repost RFPs because of limited or no responses. Staff offered to provide the commission with the last RFP package, procurement history and examples of reviewer forms to inform a possible reform discussion.

Commissioners and staff agreed on next steps: staff will share the RFP materials, procurement history and a redacted example of a reviewer report/form with commissioners in advance of a future meeting for the board to evaluate. Commissioners suggested any reform proposal should be supported by data and case studies showing systemic problems; several commissioners said the matter would require a clear problem statement and a road map for change before the commission and department could propose revisions that might touch broader agency policies or statutes.

Why it matters: McGuigan and other appraisers told the commission that responding to complaints imposes hours of administrative work and potential legal fees; they argued the state should pay market rates to attract experienced reviewers and provide stronger procedural protections to reduce the burden of frivolous or marginal complaints. State staff emphasized the department’s legal and procurement constraints and said some proposed remedies (for example, requiring background checks for third-party data collectors or new statutory licensing categories) would require legislative action.

Directions and follow-up: staff agreed to provide the commission (1) the last reviewer-RFP packet and procurement history, (2) redacted sample reviewer reports/forms used by existing contracted reviewers and (3) a description of conditional-dismissal usage for the commission’s review prior to a follow-up meeting. Commissioners asked the commenter and any interested associations to assemble case studies demonstrating a pattern of frivolous complaints to support any statutory or administrative reforms.