The Board held a special meeting on April 28th to consider a proposal to issue bar code passes to realtors. This summary will be in two parts; first, a summary of the action taken by the Board and, second, an explanation as to how and why this took place.
(Disclosure: I’m on the Safety Committee; and it reviewed this proposal prior to the meeting. However, unless otherwise noted, everything in this summary is information that was discussed at the Board meeting and which you would have heard had you attended.)
Summary of the Resolution
I do not have the exact language of the resolution, but I believe this will capture its essence. The entire summary must be read to understand its impact. This program was proposed by an ad-hoc marketing committee which appears to be related to the Marketing and Realtor Relations Committee (“MRRC”). More on this in the explanations section.
This bar code proposal is part of a larger strategy and program; the goal of which is to provide for brokers a more welcoming atmosphere and seamless, integrated marketing experience. Thus, the end goal is to promote the sale of houses within the community. Again, more on this in the explanations section.
The Board passed a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to 75 bar code passes to real estate brokers with the following conditions:
- Brokers must submit an application similar to that used for residents. Applications will be reviewed and approved by members of the MRRC.
- Bar codes will be valid for 90 days; at which time they will automatically expire unless renewed by members of the MRRC. If the broker illustrates activity within GC, the bar code will be renewed. (Note: The word “activity” was not defined and presumably will be left to the judgment of MRRC committee members.)
- The normal $10 bar code application fee will be waived.
The seven directors that were present all voted in favor of this resolution. Doug Frey was absent.
One important note: the limit of 75 is not a firm cap. This was discussed at length by the directors, and I will try to summarize my understanding of what occurred.
Directors were split on the concept of a numerical cap. Some wanted no cap, and some wanted a firm cap. In the end, a compromise was proposed which essentially says that the cap exists; but, if it is ever approached, there is a tacit understanding that it will be raised assuming nobody has any objections or other reason not to do so. This understanding was accepted by the entire Board. As one member put it, if we issue 75 passes, what do we say to the 76th broker who applies? We have no reason to turn them away.
You may ask, then, why have a limit at all? I think there is an explanation; but this is strictly my interpretation. Nobody knows how many brokers will apply for a bar code. It may be only 30 to 40 brokers; perhaps less, perhaps more. I believe many Board members think the 75 limit will not be reached. Therefore, I think this limit was a way of sending that message to the community; namely that they do not believe we will have hundreds of brokers turning in applications. But, if the program is deemed to be working and the limit needs to be raised, there appeared to be general agreement that it would be increased.
That is the best I can do to explain what I heard. Bottom line, it is an open-ended proposition right now. I believe the Board wants to try this out and will react based on the response.
Explanation: (Why and how did this occur?)
In covering these points, I will try to avoid outlining pros and cons. I have set it up as a Q&A format which will follow and elaborate on points from question to question. Translation; please don’t try to skip ahead, because that answer might not make sense if you skip the previous answers.
And please note that the Board agreed to include an article in the POA newsletter giving a full explanation of the program and its benefits. That might not be out for a month or so, but, when it does get published, it will be worth reading.
Who proposed this idea?
It came from an ad-hoc marketing committee chaired by Hayes Shimp, which has real estate brokers as members, and which appears to be related to the standing Marketing and Realtor Relations Committee (MRRC). I do not know the names of all the ad-hoc committee members.
What is the global issue behind this idea?
The ad-hoc marketing committee claims that our community’s selling market is depressed in relation to the rest of the triangle. It claims that our per square foot selling prices are lower than average, that our overall prices are lower and that our homes stay on the market longer than the rest of the triangle area. No statistics or figures were offered to support these statements.
In addition, several members of the committee claimed that our community has a negative impression among realtors outside the gates; using the descriptive terms elitist, snooty, “hard to enter” and retirement oriented. The ad-hoc committee believes that we need to do anything we can to overcome those negative impressions and to encourage brokers to show and sell property here.
As part of addressing those concerns, this committee scheduled a broker open house to take place in mid to late May. This open house will be a comprehensive marketing effort designed to educate brokers about our community and to encourage them to do business here. There are numerous activities within this event, all of which are outlined in the April Splinters.
To encourage participation, the opportunity to apply for a bar code is being offered to any broker that attends this function. However, the invitation list will be selective. Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that any bar code application submitted from this event will be approved.
How many brokers will be invited to this function?
That question was asked at the meeting, but no definitive answer was given. They said they were still working on determining that number; because only selected brokers will be on the invite list.
But that may be a moot point for two reasons.
First, it is quite possible that several hundred brokers will be invited, and perhaps only 30 to 40 will show up; which would be considered a good turnout. Bottom line, though, nobody knows how many will attend, so the number of invitations probably doesn’t mean much.
Second, the event will be just the “kick-off” for the bar code offer. The ability to get a bar code will not be limited just to those attending this event. The committee expects to eventually offer bar code access to other selected brokers; perhaps at other events or in other ways. The goal is to get more brokers to do business here in the community, and it feels that offering bar code access is a critical part of that plan.
Why do brokers need bar codes?
Currently, any broker can enter the community by approaching the visitors’ gate, identifying themselves and handing over a business card. That allows them to, for example, enter GC on short notice when giving prospective buyers a tour of area communities. Those business cards are collected by the MRRC, and information is tabulated as to the number of broker visits every month.
However, members of this ad-hoc committee maintained that requiring brokers to go through the visitor’s lane was discouraging them from doing business here. And they claimed that offering bar codes to brokers would overcome their reluctance to go through the visitor’s gate. Nothing was offered to support this contention other than statements from committee members that have heard this complaint from outside brokers.
That critical assertion appeared to be accepted by the Board; although I detected a little skepticism on the part of a few directors. (Editorial comment: There are others, including some brokers and committee members, who do not accept this assertion. Without getting into a detailed analysis and debate, I simply wanted to point out that there are, as always, two sides to every issue.)
Supporters of this proposal also claimed that using bar codes would provide more security than the current procedures. For example, how do we know that the person offering the business card is actually that broker? They claimed that bar codes would ensure that the right people were entering and that we had accurate entry records.
(Editorial Comment: Two points regarding this issue:
Nobody has claimed that we actually have a problem with people impersonating brokers and fraudulently using business cards to gain entry. Right now, it is speculation. However, it was mentioned at the meeting that this potential problem could be easily addressed by requiring brokers to show their pocket license at the gate. All brokers are required by the NC Real Estate Commission to carry their pocket license whenever they are conducting business as a broker and to produce it on request.
In addition, we need to recognize that holes can be poked in any security procedure. For example, what if the broker’s child or partner is allowed to drive the car with the bar code, and they decide to come in the community? Or what if the broker lends the car to another broker? Or the car is sold?
None of these scenarios is likely. My only point is that dire situations can be created to poke holes in any proposed system. No procedure is going to be absolutely “perfect”, and everything needs to be kept in perspective.)
Lastly, one person commented that The GC Realty brokers have bar codes and that giving bar codes to outside brokers “levels the playing field”.
Why the rush? Why was this approved with no notice to the community?
The rush was precipitated by the immediate need to send out invitations to this function. And, since offering bar codes was a key part of the event, that aspect had to be approved before the invitations could go out.
No notice of this meeting was given to the community at large. However, certain Board and/or committee members must have informed some supporters of this program. Because there were seven people in attendance expressing their support of this idea; and others had written letters. Some of those may have been members of the ad-hoc committee. There were no other residents in attendance.
As to why no notice was given to the entire community, I can offer only some limited information. I received the following explanation from the Board President in response to comments I made regarding the Board’s meeting protocols not being followed during this session. This language does not address my point, but it does seem to address the question about notice to the community:
“However, the Board’s April 28, 2014, meeting was a duly called special meeting of the Board, called for a narrow purpose. We have consulted with legal counsel who has confirmed that all notice and procedural requirements for this special meeting were appropriately satisfied, and that the fact, that it was not announced to the membership at large, that committee and POA members were invited to participate, and that the meeting was conducted, in part, in an informal manner, are consistent with the POA’s Bylaws and applicable law.”
Was this proposal approved by the Safety Committee and MRRC?
Let’s start with the Safety Committee first. The bar code access program approved by the Board (outlined in the resolution described above) was not approved by the Safety Committee. Everything that follows regarding this committee was told to the Board at this open meeting.
The Safety Committee was first presented with this proposal on April 11th. Between that meeting and another held on the 22nd, there appeared to be some confusion as to the nature of the program; specifically whether access to bar codes would be limited to a small number of select brokers or made widely available to many brokers. Further, there was conflicting information as to who supported the program and/or felt it was necessary. In addition, part of the proposal was the undertaking of the MRRC to carefully monitor the program on an ongoing basis. But, at the meeting on the 22nd, it was not clear whether the program had the full support of the MRRC or whether it had, in fact, voted on the program.
Given that, the Safety Committee was hesitant to make any decision at all without further information; in particular, knowing whether or not the MRRC was fully supportive of the idea. At best, it was only willing to consider a program with specific restrictions. Those restrictions were not acceptable to the ad-hoc marketing committee. And that committee then decided to bypass the Safety Committee and go directly to the Board to obtain approval. (Applicable minutes are here: SC Minutes 4-22-14)
As for whether the MRRC voted to support this program, the written record indicates that it did not. But it is not entirely clear what, if anything, was done within this committee in terms of this proposal. The only document that mentions the program are minutes of a focus group meeting; and can be found in item 3 here: ROH Focus Group
When offering bar codes to brokers, how selective will the process be?
Since the resolution itself contains no guidelines on this aspect of the program, that is now entirely up to the ad-hoc marketing committee and the MRRC.
The concept of selectivity was discussed in the meeting. And at one point, Jill Ehrenfeld made some relevant suggestions. These related to targeting specific, high-end firms and specific brokers that are known to do a great deal of business in this area. She also commented that it was not necessarily a good idea to give out a bar code just for showing up at an event. In addition, the term “selective” was used more than a few times by committee members when describing the program.
However, none of that was included in the language of the resolution. Therefore, it remains to be seen how the MRRC approaches the process, whether it will be selective and, if so, how selective it will be in terms of offering this type of access.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe the Board intends to monitor the program and to react and/or make changes based on the nature of the response.