Page 9 - Letter to NAR LT

CONCERNS ABOUT SB 2624
􏰀􏰁 I wanted to hear Lisa’s comments prior to the vote at our BOD meeting. However, she was denied even a couple of extra minutes beyond her allotted time. This might have been reasonable if 􏰃he bill’s author had not earlier been allowed to exceed his time by several minutes. It was disturbing that a similar courtesy was denied to one of our own.
􏰄􏰁 Support of this bill seems inconsistent with Addendum 1 of our Leg/Reg Guidelines stating strong support of MREC License Law and MREC, maintaining lines of communication with MREC, and working cooperatively with MREC to determine workability and feasibility of legislation.
􏰅􏰁 MREC was created toPROTECT THE PUBLICvia oversight and supervision of licensees, but this statute seems to be more about protecting licensees. In my experience, MREC has carried out its mission efficiently, effectively, and fairly:
􏰆􏰁 As a former commissioner, I participated in the review of complaints. Any action against a licensee was preceded by a thorough investigation of the issue (both sides). Sanctions followed only after a preponderance of evidence pointed to violation(s).
􏰇􏰁 Penalties were measured and commensurate with violations, and commissioners were not lacking in compassion when circumstances warranted it.
􏰈􏰁 Commissioners are selected by their peers to ensure a thorough working knowledge of the real estate profession. They are uniquely qualified to evaluate the merits and weaknesses of a case.
􏰉􏰁 The effectiveness of MREC in fulfilling its mission is proven by its track record. At the end of my tenure, I don’t believe MREC had ever lost a case on appeal. This included a MS Supreme Court case in which the justices had to ask MREC to explain disclosed dual agency (they didn’t grasp the concept). That doesn’t bode well for complaints heard by an independent administrator.
􏰊􏰁 Like MREC, MAR has a duty to protect the public (Code of Ethics). Though there are differences between law and ethics, they are not mutually exclusive.
􏰋􏰁 This statute weakens the authority of MREC, making it harder to prohibit abuse by
bad players, and diluting protections afforded the public.
􏰆􏰁 It appears to eliminate agreed orders as an option.
􏰇􏰁 It lacks a mechanism for appeal by MREC of an adverse ruling by an
administrative officer.
􏰈􏰁 MAR support of the bill was largely driven by a survey in which:
􏰌􏰁 Questions did not address potential downsides of bill passage.
􏰌􏰌􏰁 There is no information available on how many negative comments
came from disgruntled violators.
􏰌􏰌􏰌􏰁 Negative comments about MREC’s administrator and spouse were
included as a reason to support SB 2624. I don’t see this as a reasonable argument to fundamentally change license law, regardless of whether or not one agrees with those comments. Do we really want to hamstring future Administrators? They do come and go.