Navigate: home / site map / Business Card

Dear Stewart Leach

Note: Below is the text of an open letter/email sent to Stewart Leach with copies to the Who's Who List. Because of the length - the document is split into 4 pieces.

03/02/06

BOREA
1900 Grant St, #600
Denver, CO 80203

Attn: Stewart Leach

Subject: Complaints (numerical order)
8055050
80355942
80355947
80355950
80355952
80355953
80355954
80355955
80356681
80357029

03/02/06

Part 1 of 4 - Stacy McDonald

I filed three complaints in 2004. Two of the three have been resolved. The unresolved complaint is Stacy McDonald. Here is a review of what I know about the McDonald complaint:

I filed the complaint against Stacy McDonald on 8/2/04. I received a form letter from Future Davis dated 9/21/04. This letter shows the name of the appraiser as Robert Stacy McDonald - which is incorrect. I sent a letter dated 11/14/04 to Future Davis to straighten out the mistake, and to ask for the case number, and to clarify that my complaint is not a review. I got an informal response from Future that the case number is/was a secret.

If the case is headed for a plea bargain settlement - it's hard for me to understand how it can take the Board 12 months to get the case resolved. The McDonald complaint has not been resolved, and no case number assigned at the Office of Administrative Courts within the Colorado Department of Personnel & Administration. It is my opinion/prediction that if this case goes to "court" it will be at least next year (2007) before it gets resolved. In the mean time, Stacy McDonald is "innocent until proven guilty" and therefore fully licensed and able to conduct business as usual.

Want to order an appraisal from Stacy McDonald? Visit her Website with the tag line - "The Sky's the Limit".

03/02/06

Part 2 of 4 - Third Request on 20 Complaints

In September, 2005, I filed 20 complaints against 15 appraisers. It appears your department is having difficulty keeping track of this large number of complaints. Your department may wish to make use of a handy summary posted on the Internet. The summary is currently updated with the latest available information and links to all the supporting documents.

To refresh your memory:

The Initial Response: I received 3 form letters dated 9/26/05 signed by Future Davis. These 3 form letters applied to Sean Solomon (2 complaints) and Dennis Danek (1 complaint).

My letter dated 11/29/05 asks about the other 17 complaints. My letter dated 01/09/06 asks again - a second request. I also pointed out a very questionable statement by Chris Stanley.

Since then, we have made some progress, but I still have questions.

My questions/comments:

03/02/06

Part 3 of 4 - Secret Quota?

Elizabeth Butler filed a complaint against me because she is angry and upset about the 2 complaints I filed against her being published on the Internet. The date stamp shows your office received the Butler complaint against me on 1/20/06 – 5 days before my complaint was assigned to Mark Kohn.

Mark Kohn states:

“because of the volume of your complaints, they will be prioritized...”

Does this mean what I think it means? If I submit 20 really good complaints, and another person (Elizabeth Butler for example) submits 1 really bad complaint – does the bad complaint get higher priority than mine because there is only 1? Does Elizabeth Butler have a complaint quota, and if so, does her counter-complaint(s) against my 2 complaints count as 1 or 2? Do I have a complaint quota? If so, do my 2 complaints against Elizabeth Butler with 1 case number count as 1 or 2 toward the quota?

I understand the need to prioritize complaints – especially if your department is unable to keep up with the volume.

I spent several hours on every one of the complaints I filed. Average 6 hours per complaint x 20 complaints = a lot of hours. If your department is going to assign low priority to any of my complaints – I would have liked to known that before I invested the time, effort, and money. Quoting Chris Stanley - it is the duty of your office to "enforce the provisions of the Real Estate Appraiser Law in a manner that is fair to all parties to a controversy". How can you justify that Elizabeth Butler files a complaint dated 1/18/06 and your department has it logged in and acted on in less than a month? I have 3 complaints filed more than 5 months ago and I cannot get an answer to the question – did you receive them? Am I a party? What is fair about that?

Should I have held back and filed my complaints one per month over a 20 month period? Is there any way for me to have known how your system works? If I had called and asked, would you have told me? I am mad as hell and I am asking now. Is there a quota system? If so, exactly how does it work? How long do I need to wait until my next complaint is treated equal with Elizabeth Butler?

I hope each complaint will be prioritized based on the merits – and not some secret quota system. I am asking the Board to speak up and clarify what the heck is going on. Your department's track record with enforcement over the past 3 years is pathetic to non-existent.

Stewart Leach -- get a clue.

03/02/06

Part 4 of 4 - Butler Answer

This will acknowledge and confirm receipt of case number 80357029, a complaint filed against me by Elizabeth Butler. The complaint is dated 1/18/06. There is a cover letter signed by Chris Stanley dated 2/16/06. Chris Stanley identifies herself as the "Investigator". I received the letter on Saturday 2/18/06.

Chris Stanley spelled my name wrong. It's hard for me to respect a process when the Investigator can’t get my name right. I have very serious concerns about Chris Stanley’s ability to be an impartial investigator of this case.

The facts:

I filed 2 complaints against Elizabeth Butler
The 2 complaints are/were published on the Internet

The real issue is item #2. I ask the Board to address the issue head on. I urge the Board to think carefully before taking on the job of Internet Police. My advice is to get a grip on the job of Appraiser Police before taking on any new responsibilities. Having said that, I urge the Board to issue some kind of public statement. Just speak up and be clear about what is OK and what is not OK.

I filed the 2 complaints pursuant to BOREA mandatory reporting which says:

A Colorado appraiser who is aware that anyone has violated appraiser license law is legally required to report the violation to the Board of Real Estate Appraisers.

All of my complaints are a good faith effort to comply with BOREA mandatory reporting (mandatory requirement is redundant - there is no such thing as mandatory option). It is just ridiculous to say I am required by law to report a violation, and then complain about the way I report. Do you want me to report or not? At the top of the Colorado Appraiser complaint form under the heading General Information – the form states “unless dismissed, your complaint will become a public record of the Board”.

Does it matter if I file as:

Philip G Rice
vs.
Philip G Rice, Certified Residential Appraiser Colorado License Number 014191

If not, then why does the form ask for this information? What difference does it make? Does the board accept (log in and act on) anonymous complaints? Seems like a simple question. Right?

There is nothing confidential in the complaints I filed against Elizabeth Butler. Elizabeth Butler is not my client. To the best of my knowledge, and in a good faith effort to be aware of and comply with USPAP, it simply does not apply in this situation.

If Elizabeth Butler and/or Chris Stanley think there is something confidential in the complaints I filed against Elizabeth Butler, no one has bothered to mention specifically what that might be. For example, my complaint contains one or more zip codes. Can we all agree a zip code is not confidential?

What part of my complaint is confidential, and why is it any different than a zip code? I cannot and will not attempt to justify the non-confidentiality of every item in the complaint. It is up to Elizabeth Butler to say clearly and with specificity what she thinks is confidential. She has failed to do so.

The complaint is filed by and signed by Elizabeth Butler – presumably she authored the document.

In the section headed “Complainant information” (i.e., identify the person who files the complaint) she lists her name but she lists my license number. In the section headed “appraiser information” she lists her name and her license number. If I ignore the license numbers and look only at the names, it looks like she is filing a complaint against herself. If I ignore the names and look at the license numbers, it looks like she is using my license number (without my knowledge or consent) to file a complaint against herself.

At best this is very confusing.

Of course when an appraiser files a complaint against another appraiser – there are 2 appraisers involved. When the form says “appraiser information” it's reasonable to ask the question – which one? Based on my reading of the dictionary item “complainant”, I interpret the form to mean “complainant information” is the place to identify the person filing the complaint.

Am I reading it wrong?

By definition this form is always used to file a complaint against a Colorado appraiser – i.e., someone with a Colorado appraiser license. This would imply (but not clearly state) that the section headed “appraiser information” is the place to identify the appraiser that is the subject of the complaint. There are 2 sections with the heading “appraiser information” – I take it to mean the pre-printed part of the form anticipates one complaint against 2 appraisers – for example a supervisor and a trainee.

As near as I can tell, even thought Elizabeth Butler filled out the form wrong, someone at the board (presumably Chris Stanley) chose to “interpret” the form based on what Chris Stanley assumed Elizabeth Butler meant or intended to say.

This puts me in a very difficult situation – do I respond the what the document says? Or do I respond to what I think Elizabeth Butler intended? Or do I respond to what Chris Stanley says? Or do I respond to what Chris Stanley says Elizabeth Butler said? It is reasonable to ask – why would Chris Stanley and/or the BOREA log a complaint against me when the form says the complaint is filed against Elizabeth Butler?

The complaint form asks Elizabeth Butler if she contacted me. She did not answer this question. Elizabeth Butler did not contact me prior to filing the complaint.

In her statement, Elizabeth Butler says that I said seller concession ($10,000) for 476 Kenton Street were “not presented”. This is misquoted. What I actually said is:

Page one of the URAR says seller concession is “N/A”

The correct quote is easily verifiable. There is a significant difference between what I said, and what she says I said. Under the circumstances, this mistake reflects poorly on Elizabeth Butler's credibility, honesty, integrity, and her appraiser competence.

The Butler statement includes the sentence:

“There is no such thing as a predetermined value.”

I am genuinely puzzled about this statement. When Elizabeth Butler says: “There is no such thing as predetermined value” – my response is – this statement is factually incorrect. Is she incoherent and irrational because she is upset, or is she like this all the time?

Elizabeth Butler is attempting to position herself as a victim. She says she has not worked since the end of November. Were there any tear stains on the paper she sent in? This is a shameless and transparent attempt to generate sympathy.

Of course the real victims are the ethical appraisers forced out of business by those who were effectively and conveniently ignorant about seller concessions. If I read her statement correctly – Elizabeth Butler is saying she didn’t know how to find out about seller concessions in 2004, but now she does. Perhaps that is why she is not working -- because now she can’t compete with all the other appraisers who are still using the sold books and acting dumb.

But of course the point is – what does any of this have to do with the complaint filed against me? My position is - if she can’t fill out the form correctly, or if the form is confusing, that's not my problem. This all points to a lack of competence and a lack of credibility about the author of the document.

The letter signed by Chris Stanly contains the statement:

Please respond to Ms. Butler’s allegation #2 only. In addition to that response please explain how you came to be in possession of the above appraisals.

I interpret the first sentence as follows:

Chris Stanley read the entire statement and realizes most of it (for whatever reason) is meaningless and irrelevant – and therefore, I am not required to respond. Can I safely assume that everything that comes before “allegation #2” will not used against me?

Chris Stanley directs me to respond to “allegation #2”. Elizabeth Butler does not use the word “allegation” anywhere. Does allegation #2 imply the existence of an allegation #1? In a good faith effort to understand the statement, I searched for the paragraph or section that begins with a “1” (one). I was unable to find a section or paragraph number 1, which only tended to increase my confusion about the entire document.

“Allegation #2” (Chris Stanley wording) begins with the number 2 (two), but where does it end? Should I assume Chris Stanley used the singular (allegation and not allegations) because she found only one allegation? If I find one allegation and respond to it, can I rest my case?

I see the following sentence in the statement:

2. “The review appraiser must focus his or her comments on the appraisal report under review and not include personal opinions about the appraiser who prepared the appraisal”.

Please note the quote marks are not mine, they are included in this passage of the statement. In other words – Elizabeth Butler is quoting something. But what? She says the “Guidance for Completing the Appraisal Review Report” (her quotes).

Question(s) for Chris Stanley – You directed me to respond to:

The review appraiser must focus his or her comments on the appraisal report under review and not include personal opinions about the appraiser who prepared the appraisal.

Chris Stanley did you read this? Chris Stanley -- do you think this statement is in USPAP – or any other binding rule or pertinent regulation? If so, please provide a citation so I know where to find it. Chris Stanley are you directing me to respond to some random silly statement? Or not?

Even if we assume (and I do not) that everything after the 2 is true and correct, is there anything actionable by BOREA, and if so, what exactly would that be?

The next sentence after the 2 says:

“The ETHICS RULE sets forth the requirements for integrity, impartiality, objectivity, independent judgment, and ethical conduct. Mr. Rice ignored all of the above.”

The statement says I “ignored” the cited provisions of the ethics rule. At best this is poorly worded. For example, what if I went on vacation for 2 weeks and during that period of time I did my very best to ignore the ethics rule? Once again I am faced with the prospect of trying to decide if I should respond to what the complaint says, or should I take my best guess at what I think the team of Elizabeth Butler and Chris Stanley meant – or meant to say.

The statement says I “ignored” integrity. USPAP refers to integrity of “data”, not the integrity of the appraiser. Is Elizabeth Butler claiming my data lacks integrity? If so, specifically what data is lacking integrity – and what should I change?

The statement says I “ignored” impartiality, and I “ignored” objectivity. Keep in mind the Butler complaint against me is really a complaint about 2 complaints I filed against her. She is complaining about my complaint. Or is she?

If Elizabeth Butler is complaining about something else – what is it? And more to the point – where is it? The only pertinent documentation included with her complaint is a copy of my 2 complaints. Elizabeth Butler has made only vague and non-specific statements – with no rationale and no supporting documentation.

My response to “impartiality and objectively” is to ask the question – even if this was true, so what? The Board says I must file a complaint – it is mandatory not optional. Is Elizabeth Butler claiming that it must be impartial and objective? Would she claim that her complaint against me is impartial and objective? If I think her complaint against me is not impartial and not objective – am I then required to file the mandatory complaint against her for filing a bogus complaint against me? Of course not, the whole thing is preposterous.

Am I wasting my time here?

Allegation #2 continues:

“USPAP states: An appraiser must not disclose confidential information or assignment results prepared for a client.....”

I filed a complaint. Elizabeth Butler is not my client. My complaint was not prepared for a client, and therefore, none of the quoted passage applies to my complaint.

Elizabeth Butler states in the complaint

“Mr. Rice violated the ethics rule choosing to make the results of his reviews available to the whole world.”

In the complaint filed by Elizabeth Butler, I see a copy of 2 complaints I filed against her. I don’t see a review. I don’t see the results of a review.

In summary:

I admit that I filed 2 complaints against Elizabeth Butler. Elizabeth Butler objects to the complaint being made public. But I am unable to see a coherent argument that anything I did constitutes a USPAP violation. Specifically what statement of mine is a USPAP violation? Specifically what part of USPAP has been violated? I see a lot of poorly worded, vague, non-specific statements with no rationale and zero supporting evidence. Nearly everything she says is wrong – but even if it were all true, it would not be actionable. It is irresponsible for Elizabeth Butler to make emotional, irrational, and poorly supported accusations for the purpose of revenge.

Thank you.

Philip G Rice
11268 E Linvale Dr
Aurora, CO 80014

Navigate: home / site map /