Page 38 - Letter to NAR LT

From: Judy Glenn <jnglenn@bellsouth.net>
Date: March 3, 2021 at 7:06:21 AM CST
To: Dorothy Thompson <mar@msrealtors.org>, Beth Hansen <BHansen@msrealtors.org>, Ron Farris <ron@farrislawgroup.net>
Cc: Nancy <nancylaneccim@gmail.com>
Subject: Legal Counsel Report to LegReg
President Thompson and Association Executive Hansen:
The legal opinion prepared by Ron Farris and attached to LegReg meeting documents begins too late and is of little comfort as he freely admitted that he has been on every call and in every meeting. What else would he say?
Here is the basis of all problems and what must be disclosed to start to correct the perceived unethical practices of the LAT/EC which has tainted the process from the start:
Any member of LAT/EC who has worked for SB2624 must disclose if they or a close personal connection has a current investigation or past disciplinary action before the MREC and if yes, recuse themselves from Chairing or voting in this matter. Without this step, there is a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest.
Any member of LAT who voted to proceed with support with SB2624 before 2/22/21 committee and BOD voted to support must disclose to the committee if they or a close personal connection, including their Designated Broker had a past disciplinary action by MREC, the nature of the discipline and whether they believe their due process rights were or were not violated, the basis of that belief, proof they have-if any, whether they appealed the MREC decision and outcome of appeal. Without this step there is a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest. Any member of the EC who voted to continue support of LAT decision in support of SB2624 prior to LegReg and BOD vote on 2/22/21 must make the same disclosures before the committee for the same reasons.
Those in leadership who alleged they have been traveling the state for the last three years and have heard due process violations against the MREC must disclose if they did or did not research the matter to determine its truth or lack thereof and whether they did or did not take any valid complaints, if any, to meetings with MREC (official meetings) whether generically to shield the identity of members complaining or specifically and the results of those actions, including why they did not act as an advocate for their members at the time their attention was brought to the matter.
The LAT and EC must disclose the initiatives undertaken (dividing lists or any other) to make personal contacts by phone or other methods (not including all member emails or texts which were visible to all) to voting members and (AEs) of LegReg and BOD meetings before 2/22/21 vote was taken to influence support and subsequent Survey was taken in attempt to influence a favorable vote outcome and to influence the production of a survey that created the perception of wide spread due process abuses by the MREC.