Being able to follow Roberts Rules of Order and ending up with a flawed end result doesn’t say much for the process.

“The tough part for us to recognize is that if the vote had gone the other way, there would have been a bunch of folks just like us (perhaps without blogs) who would have felt that they didn;t get what they wanted.”

You said a mouthful right there Bill.

As I see it, you just copped to the idea that this was an agent vs agent issue, when in reality it is about the reach of IDX and what is best for the industry and consumer in the long run. Is it that hard for you who voted against this to see that the consumer likes access to info ala Trulia and Zillow? Or that exposure is good for the homeowner – most of whom could use every bit they can get?

What exactly would have been the negative if it had gone the other way? Who exactly is damaged with indexing? Last time I checked indexable IDX solutions were available to any agent or broker who qualified for a non-indexable IDX solution?

“If we participate in the system, and make our voices and opinions heard, where they need to be heard, in the forums, the committees, and the BOD meeting, then our opinions will be the ones that prevail. And if not, maybe our opinions were not reflective of the opinions of the greater portion of our group.”

Is this really about opinion and who has the most votes, or common sense that promotes what we do – help people buy and sell real estate?

What is MIBOR’s problem with indexing? I honestly don’t think they had a position on it until a tech savvy agent complained. At that point, they used the existing language and interpreted it to mean, Google is a scraper and therefore, indexing is scraping. From the emails I received, It appears this was suggested by the complaintant.

I write this and still can’t believe it. I meet with the board today and am hoping for some resolution.

Dave: I wish you had jumped up, but motions to refer do come pretty quickly and members of the BOD who might have been less than familiar with the situation might have thought that a review was a harmless option for a disputed item.

Paula:Local Associations do need to have their policies in compliance with NAR, However their enforcement is left to the local board. I know this part is difficult for some folks to get , but NAR does not directly enforce any of the local association or MLS rules or regulations.

Matthew;
As I understand MIBOR’s issue, if the rule had been changed, they would not have standing to make the prohibition they have made. I am not familiar with the local politics, and am not sure where MIBOR’s problem with Indexing is, but obviously they have one – and perhaps they would find another way to prohibit actions that they (the governing body there) find objectionable.

If you review the latest model bylaws, you’ll see that when there are choices for associations, these are extended as clear alternatives–”select either option A or option B”, not “here’s a suggestion, feel free to adopt it.”

Further, the local Realtor association or MLS is encouraged to submit all rules for regular review by NAR in order to be approved for compliance and insurance coverage.

In the thinking of many local associations, taking advantage of NAR’s risk management wisdom and insurance coverage is a part of the member benefit and obligation of due diligence in association management, and these organizations operate by adopting and enforcing all recommendations from their national association. Further, NAR has a covenant with the insurance provider to encourage risk management behavior–and they aren’t going to say, ‘well, it’s a policy but enforcement is optional.’

Of course there are ways around the situation, and there is always the option to ignore the enforcement issue–in fact many smaller associations simply don’t have the resources to enforce all NAR policies and mandates.

As has been said in the many posts on this topic, NAR doesn’t have the governance structure which allows for being light on its feet when it comes to policy changes–and the local associations find themselves between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

I elaborate on this situation because now that the national spotlight shines brightly on MIBOR from both sides, the decisions the association makes will be carefully scrutinized by everyone. And probably no matter which road the association takes, it will be vigorously criticized by those who don’t agree.

I suppose if they want to stand their ground and remain “in the dark”, it is highly unlikely they can be moved.

However, MIBOR did go to NAR for verification of their interpretation of the ruling, so NAR did have the power to rule on this and have since changed their view; allowing individual boards to decide what the language interpretation is.