Share
Jump to a case study:
- Greater Fairfield Board of REALTORS®
- Texas Association of REALTORS®
- Jefferson-Lewis Board of REALTORS®
Greater Fairfield Board of REALTORS®
Fairfield, Connecticut
Fran Cormier, EO
For over 20 years, staff at the Greater Fairfield Board of REALTORS® has been serving as staff for the Newtown Board. When the smaller Newton Board no longer had a physical location for their office, they began using the Greater Fairfield Board’s address.
The Greater Fairfield chief staff executive stepped in to assist the Newtown Board with executive and administrative services. These include attending Board of Director meetings, writing weekly newsletters, and coordinating membership meetings and continuing education courses. The chief staff executive also oversees dues collection and new member orientation, as well as any other business that arises.
The arrangement has been beneficial to both associations. For the Greater Fairfield Board, it is a source of non-dues income and keeps the dues for their members from increasing. It has also allowed the Newtown Board to remain a separate organization, proving successful with the help of very involved leadership.
Texas Association of REALTORS®
Austin, Texas
Travis Kessler, CEO
Since January 1995, the Texas REALTORS® have provided a Multi-Board Management Program, built around the Organizational Standards set by the National Association of REALTORS®. The program serves 15 associations, each of which has fewer than 250 members.
The program offers various services related to the management of local associations of REALTORS®, such as:
- Education Session Coordination
- Dues Billing/Collection
- Bookkeeping Services
- Multiple Listing Services (MLS)
- Government Relations Services/Political Affairs
- Legal Counsel
- Assistance with NAR Core Standards Compliance
- Professional Standards Services
- Records Maintenance
- Minutes Preparation
Webinars are conducted to inform the multi-board associations of updates, conduct trainings in areas such as finances, parliamentary procedures, TREPAC fundraising, etc., allowing staff to fortify the rapport with associations that are located throughout the state of Texas.
In order to standardize procedures and allow staff to operate efficiently, associations must enter a yearly agreement that further details the services provided by the program. The multi-board associations don’t house local staff, therefore, we collectively serve the people.
Jefferson-Lewis Board of REALTORS®
Watertown, New York
Lance Evans, CEO
The Jefferson-Lewis Board of REALTORS® in upstate New York has been providing executive and administrative services for the neighboring St. Lawrence County Board of REALTORS® since 2001. Services include: executive officer involvement; member data POE; Professional Standards training and administration; phone line support; MLS oversight and support; and continuing education courses. In addition, a part-time staff member of the Jefferson-Lewis Board dedicates most of her time to support the St. Lawrence County membership.
Prior to contracting with the Jefferson-Lewis Board, the St. Lawrence County Board tried to “go it alone” to meet the minimum service criteria. First, they contracted with a local housing council for professional services; an arrangement that was terminated when the local council obtained a major program grant and, as a result, was no longer able to provide the services. Efforts to hire through a temporary help agency as well as hire an independent contractor were unsatisfactory, primarily because no one was available to train the new staff.
Jefferson-Lewis Board members who were involved in real estate transactions in the other board’s territory saw a critical need for greater coordination of the St. Lawrence County Board’s activities.
Since the Jefferson-Lewis Board was already providing POE member data services, it seemed a natural progression to propose a broadened package of services. The Jefferson-Lewis Board’s first proposal was turned down, but within a year, when the St. Lawrence County’s experience with temporary help proved unsatisfactory, a second proposal was made and accepted. Personal networking relationships and lots of informal preliminary discussion facilitated formalization and implementation of the agreement. Merger was not an option either board wanted to attempt; the St. Lawrence County Board wanted to maintain its own identity, and the Jefferson-Lewis Board did not want to get involved in the paperwork and complications of working out a merger. Geography does not favor a merger because although the St. Lawrence Board is small in terms of number of members, its territory is one of the largest in the state, with some members as far as 100 miles from the Board office.
The Jefferson-Lewis Board EO meets with the St. Lawrence County Board of Directors and their committees and work groups via Zoom or in person as needed. He also travels to the Board to conduct Professional Standards training and hearings. He carries a copy of all of the Board’s records and forms on a laptop computer for quick access. For example, at professional standards hearings, there is no delay in processing paperwork because forms are completed electronically during the hearing.
The St. Lawrence County Board members have experienced an increase in value for their dues dollars. They now have well-coordinated board activities and, with phone line support, they can talk to an “actual person” instead of leaving a voicemail message and hoping for a timely callback. Jefferson-Lewis Board members are pleased with the enhanced professionalism that has been fostered by the agreement. Networking relationships between the Boards’ members are promoted through joint meetings and social events. Communications between the state and national association have been improved for the St. Lawrence County Board, as they now have professional staff who can alert members about important issues and explain the impact.
In order to make the time commitment necessary to provide the executive services for the other Board, the Executive Officer reported that it was really necessary to take a look at the tasks he was performing and delegate some to other staff. He recommended “taking a look at the tasks you are doing, questioning why you must do the task, and then train other staff to take on those tasks.”
In developing procedures for the other board, he recommended putting aside the assumption that what works in one board will work in the other. It’s best to examine both boards’ procedures, get input from members and staff, and develop new ways of doing things.