How a Small, Undisclosed Group Shapes PPC Decisions and Impacts Member Fairness
1. What Is the AIC “Fellow” Designation?
An honorary addition to AACI or CRA — not a professional qualification.
Members who receive the Fellow designation hold titles such as:
AACI, Fellow, or
CRA, Fellow
This is important:
The Fellow title is an add-on honorary recognition.
It is not a professional or competency-based designation.**
The Fellow designation:
Does not replace AACI or CRA
Does not grant new valuation competencies
Does not require any additional exams
Does not require any specialized practice experience
Does not evaluate whether the appraiser is current with modern valuation methodology
Does not require active practice at all
And critically:
AIC publishes no policy explaining how the Fellow title is awarded.
There is no published information on:
How Fellows are nominated
How candidates are evaluated
What criteria are used
Which committee(s) approve nominations
Whether Fellows participate in selecting more Fellows
This absence of transparency creates an internal governance blind spot.
2. The Fellow Imbalance — A Small Add-On Title With Outsized Influence
Although the Fellow title is honorary, not competency-based, and held by fewer than 5% of AIC members, committee rosters show:
Fellows occupy ~25% of PPC, Adjudicating Panel, and Appeal Panel positions.
This means:
A very small subset of AACI/CRA members
With an honorary (not competency-based) add-on title
Serves on discipline committees five times more often than their numbers justify
Impact:
A small, non-representative group exerts disproportionate control
Fellows judge a large majority of members who are not Fellows
Members have no visibility into motivations, loyalties, or nomination history
A closed internal network may dominate the disciplinary environment
No regulator should allow honorary titles to create governance dominance.
3. AACI or CRA vs. Fellow — A Serious Misalignment
AACI / CRA (professional designations)
Require:
Degree requirements
Mandatory coursework
Supervised experience
Case studies
Professional Competency Interview
Comprehensive exams
Ongoing CPD
Compliance with CUSPAP
Professional liability insurance
Fellow (add-on honorary designation)
Based on AIC’s publicly available documents:
No published criteria
No examinations
No technical appraisal competency requirements
No transparent selection process
No requirement for current practice
Not elected or approved by members
No oversight by the AIC Board
Despite this:
Fellows influence discipline far more heavily than regular AACI or CRA members.
This is a structural imbalance.
4. Positive and Negative Impacts of the Fellow Title
Impact on Membership
Potential Positives
Recognizes long-term service
Provides continuity and institutional memory
Encourages volunteer participation
Significant Negatives
Fellows dominate PPC, adjudication, and appeals
Members have no way to evaluate Fellow competency
Conflicts or nomination relationships are not disclosed
Panels may include multiple Fellows without neutrality safeguards
Members judged by Fellows may be judged by individuals with no published qualification standard for such work
Creates structural bias in a system that should be independent
5. Undisclosed Relationships — Fellow Chairs Sitting With Fellow PPC Advocates
Because the selection and nomination process is invisible to members, a serious fairness risk arises when:
A Fellow sits as a Hearing Panel Chair, and
Another Fellow acts as a Professional Practice Advocate, panel member, or advisor
Members are not told:
Whether these Fellows nominated each other
Whether they served together on committees
Whether they endorsed each other’s Fellow designation
Whether internal loyalties or relationships exist
This lack of disclosure creates a reasonable apprehension of bias, which is unacceptable in administrative law.
Members deserve adjudicators whose internal relationships are known, disclosed, and evaluated for conflicts.
6. Lack of Board Oversight — PPC Operates Without Accountability
One of the most serious governance failures at AIC is that the National Board has not exercised its oversight responsibilities over:
PPC appointments
Adjudication quality
Fairness audits
Structural bias
Retired members serving on panels
Fellow overrepresentation
Undisclosed conflicts
Misrepresentation of SCAs as “non-negotiable”
Effectively, the PPC operates without:
Oversight
Accountability
Transparency
Conflict screening
Review of fairness
Compliance monitoring
Such a system would be unacceptable in any modern regulated profession.
7. Governance Risks Created by Zero Oversight
A. Structural Bias
When Fellows dominate multiple roles without oversight:
Decisions may reflect internal dynamics
Internal networks may influence outcomes
Independence cannot be assured
B. Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
Members cannot trust a system where:
Internal Fellow relationships are undisclosed
Fellows sit together on panels
Fellow Advocates appear before Fellow Chairs
C. Legitimacy Risk
A disciplinary system loses legitimacy when:
Oversight is absent
Panel composition is unbalanced
Conflicts remain concealed
Structural advantages exist for a small internal group
This undermines confidence in AIC’s ability to self-regulate fairly.
8. Impact on Due Process and Professional Integrity
A fair discipline system requires:
Transparency
Independence
Competency
Balanced representation
Conflict disclosures
Oversight by the Board
Use of active, current AACI/CRA practitioners
But AIC’s current system:
Allows an honorary title to dominate adjudication
Lacks published selection criteria
Allows Fellows to sit together without disclosure
Has no conflict screening requirement
Lacks Board oversight
Is vulnerable to bias and role entrenchment
This places members—and the profession—at risk.
9. What Needs to Change — Reform Without Removing the Fellow Title
AppraisalDefense.ca recommends the following:
Transparency
Publish how Fellows are nominated and selected
Publish the criteria and committee structure
Balance
Limit Fellows to one per adjudicating panel
Impose term limits for all disciplinary roles
Require all adjudicators to be active, current AACIs or CRAs
Conflict Management
Mandatory disclosure of Fellow relationships
Prohibit Fellows with nomination or committee ties from sitting together
Compliance
Enforce the rule prohibiting retired members from adjudicating
These reforms correct the imbalance without attacking the Fellow title itself.
10. Have You Been Affected by Fellow Imbalance or PPC Fairness Issues?
If you have experienced:
A Fellow Chair and Fellow Advocate on the same hearing
Lack of conflict disclosure
A panel dominated by Fellows
A process that felt biased or unfair
An SCA presented as “non-negotiable”
Retired members acting as adjudicators
Please contact us confidentially:
Your voice helps build a safer and more accountable profession.