Page 3 - Letter to NAR LT

Of the 7 LAT members, we believe 5 should have recused themselves from the decision to support SB2624 because they or their company have pending disciplinary cases with MREC or have been disciplined by MREC. These potential conflicts of interest raised by Past Presidents were denied by the staff attorney.
The two Senate sponsors of the bill are in their first term. One is a cousin of a member of the LAT who was disciplined by MREC. The other sponsor is a neighbor of a Mississippi broker who was recently disciplined by the MREC, and his managing broker sits on the LAT.
We do not feel that the LAT, GAD, Leadership team, CEO and staff attorney were forthright in their dealings concerning SB2624. We would like to review the minutes from the LAT and EC meetings and the staff attorney’s notes to verify their timeline and approved actions.
When the CEO was questioned by Past Presidents, the CEO said she was just a bystander.
We believe the leadership team, staff, and the LAT members used unfriendly methods in their dealings with SB2624:
A. The LEG/REG Chair gagged the LEG/REG in an email, claiming committee members were “dangerously close” to improper behavior because they were asking questions through emails and were directed to wait until the meeting to have discussion on SB2624. However, the LAT continued to meet, divided the member roster, and called LEG/REG members to promote the bill. One LAT member, who is also an NAR Director, attempted to prejudice a new committee member against the 10 Past Presidents, who serve on the LEG/REG committee, so that the LEG/REG member would not listen to the Past Presidents’ opposing views in the scheduled committee meeting. (We received a recording of a 20-minute conversation with a first-time committee member). In addition, it appears that Local board AEs and Presidents were contacted and presented one side of the legislative issue, then encouraged to send letters, along with general member and local board EC endorsements to the LEG/REG and BOD meetings.
B. A biased, weighted survey and numerous CFAs were sent out after giving the GAD authority to lobby for the bill.
C. Through propaganda, claiming lack of due process for members, we believe the MREC was vilified. However, there is no evidence of this claim, except for survey comments from a small percentage of REALTORS® who were disciplined and admitted they broke laws/rules/regulations. We feel that some of the comments border on hate speech and were concerned when the comments were passed out at our LEG/REG meeting and some read aloud by a member of the leadership team.
D. When we contacted our legislators to ask them to oppose the bill in the senate committee, we were told that our GAD was lobbying for the bill, saying it had the full support of our association. Some senators, who received a flyer with talking points from our association, forwarded it to LEG/REG members. The GAD claimed it was not a flyer and that he only gave it to one senator.
E. The LEG/REG and BOD meetings were run so that members in opposition to the bill were not allowed equal time to speak. There were long presentations by staff and handouts supporting