We were very surprised to learn last year that the AREA board of directors has adopted the concept of member choice in services they receive from their local board and AREA. There have never been any conversations about this idea, certainly during last year’s attempted merger with AREA or any time before or since.

The first we saw of this idea of AREA competing with local boards/associations was in their rationale opposing our proposal to correct an inconsistency in their bylaws that were approved a few years ago with zero discussion about member choice. A letter dated Dec. 7, 2023 from AREA Chair David Brown announced, “our joint members should have the option at their discretion to avail themselves of an alternate process at a provincial level”.

So as the elected leader of an organization that delivers proven, high-quality rules management, enforcement and dispute resolution services to our members, I spoke up on your behalf at the AREA AGM when we proposed some friendly bylaw amendments to correct this situation.

In a CREB^® Talk article on Jan. 30 entitled CREB^® positions at AREA AGM I explained the position we took in supporting the REALTORS^® Association of Edmonton’s (RAE) motion to postpone at the Jan. 16, 2024 AREA AGM. The postponement was to allow AREA the opportunity to facilitate an in-depth consultation of members clarifying rules enforcement and dispute resolution services in Alberta. Please review this article so you are clear on our concerns around AREA’s desire to introduce member choice in the administration of commission disputes, violations of the REALTOR^® Code, practice rules and conduct issues.

My focus in this week’s article is on AREA’s current survey on administrative justice.

It is important to note that “administrative justice” is a relatively new term that encompasses many aspects of rules management and enforcement, as well as dispute resolution. The fact is that most local real estate boards/associations in North America have delivered this member service virtually since their inception.

In fact, CREA requires local boards/associations to either deliver this service in terms of the REALTOR® Code enforcement or advise CREA who they have delegated this responsibility to. This is a requirement that boards in Canada must meet and CREB^® is fully in compliance and always has been.

This responsibility for local boards/associations to set and maintain practice standards is not new. CREB^® was founded by career real estate agents over 81 years ago with the primary focus of establishing standards of practice and enabling more business to be conducted. To our knowledge there is not a single local board/association in North America that has their provincial or state association offering services that compete with those already being delivered locally.

The concept of member choice in services is something new that AREA has adopted with no member consultation. The CREB^® Board of Directors thought that was wrong, which is why I spoke up on your behalf at the Jan. 16, 2024, AREA AGM about the need for member engagement on this concept, with a member survey potentially being an option. In no way did I suggest a member survey was the only option.

In fact, I recommended in-depth member consultation and engagement on this topic which would include focus groups, a task force and potentially a member survey. CREB^® members expect innovation but they also expect to be a part of a meaningful conversation. So far, no one has spoken to CREB® members about having a choice in services between AREA and CREB^®.

I spoke at the AREA AGM in favour of the necessary motion to correct AREA’s bylaws because we believe members deserve the opportunity to hear the pros and cons of competing administrative justice services. Our fundamental concern with the current AREA survey launched Aug. 6, 2024, is that they have but one question related to the concept of member choice, and it is very leading in nature.

Unfortunately, AREA chose to not act on an offer from our staff to help provide some additional context so question #6 could generate more valuable feedback. The way the AREA question is worded is inaccurate.

“Currently, members in CREB^® or RAE apply to their local Board’s administrative justice program but have the option to apply directly to AREA’s administrative justice program if they choose.”

Let’s break this down;

• CREB^® members do not make an application to engage our rules enforcement or dispute resolution services. You can complete an online form that details the nature of the issue, and the process begins.
• The option referred to has not been delegated as an option by CREB^®. CREB^®’s Member Practice team is in place to enforce CREA, CREB^® and Provincial Practice rules as set forth in CREA’s bylaws and abiding by the rules and CREB^®’s enforcement of the rules is a condition of CREB^® membership. If we were to permit an alternative option, we would have explained it to you and created a process for this to happen.
• AREA has never explained to members what would happen if one member in a dispute selects AREA and the other selects CREB^®. The AREA administrative justice program was created to service boards who delegate these services to AREA often because they do not have or do not wish to have rules enforcement programs of their own.
• AREA has never explained what happens with case history information. There are many details that need to be considered, otherwise members will have a new layer of red tape (that you pay for) and with no known impact on our standards. Do we really want members to ‘shop around’ for rules enforcement or dispute resolution?
• Can you imagine if a habitual rule offender was facing a hearing at CREB^® due to their repeated infractions and they then chose to have their case heard in another jurisdiction where there was no record of this individual’s repeat case history? Their case would simply start the process all over again, receiving an educational warning as a first offence. Individuals who consistently break the rules should have to explain their behaviour and ultimately be held accountable by a Hearing Panel of their peers. This is fundamental to professionalism within our industry.
• The third response option in question #6 asks members to affirm something that is already established. Naturally, the smaller boards in Alberta have limited resources and smaller pools of members to draw on for peer-to-peer justice. At CREB^® we have for decades provided best in class rules enforcement and dispute resolution. If this is a referendum on this service being provided by local boards/associations or by AREA, this should be clearly stated.

We believe it is confusing to use the term “Administrative Justice” because members know this member service as primarily rules management/enforcement and dispute resolution. It is not helpful to ask for our opinion on something that is not clear. We also believe it is misleading to touch on this topic without adequate background on the pros and cons of member choice.

CREB^® has invested significant member dollars in establishing our current program, which has withstood judicial review  with flying colors and by all accounts is considered “best in class”.

AREA’s administrative justice program, as outlined in AREA’s bylaw proposal, is designed to address commission disputes, violations of the REALTOR^® Code, provincial practice rules and conduct issues that originate from violations of provincial practice rules, which is a duplication of services that CREB^® already currently provides our members. AREA’s program was created to serve boards who decided on their own to delegate this work to AREA. We are very supportive of AREA doing this work for the smaller boards because it should raise the bar of professionalism across the province.

Our members, consumers and the government expect us to properly enforce rules and resolve disputes effectively and efficiently. Like every other aspect of life, clarity is needed in how processes work and we are always open to feedback.

CREB^®’s current complaint process serves our members very well and works to meet the unique needs and expectations of members who use it. All that is needed is for there to continue to be clarity in roles between the organizations you fund, CREA, AREA and CREB^®, and for those organizations to exist within their mandates. This will enable us to continue to have confidence in the consistent application of our rules.

The question we have advocated to be put to all members, is whether having competing programs raises the bar for member behaviours and enhances your member experience? CREB^® members are already paying for CREB^® services and must ask themselves if they are prepared to fund over 55 per cent of the AREA bill for a competing program. Why would AREA be proposing a program to compete with CREB^® and RAE, who collectively serve over 85% of the REALTORS^® in Alberta, particularly when their current systems have proven to be extremely effective for decades.

CREB^® has a long history of innovation and has advocated for more efficient structures in organized real estate. This is something we are proud of. The AREA concept for member choice is very unclear and the AREA survey only serves to make it even more unclear. We believe the issue of AREA competing with CREB^® needs to be transparently explained and discussed. Only then could a member survey potentially be of value.

In answering the current AREA survey, CREB^® members should contemplate not only the financial costs of a competing system but also what is AREA’s capacity to deliver a competing system to the 85% of REALTORS^® in Alberta that AREA is currently not providing this service to? Moreover, members should consider any potential costs to professionalism in our industry. It is important for us all to take some time to consider the costs that come with choice.

CREB^® will continue to transparently inform our members to ensure you are knowledgeable of the impact on your membership, and we encourage you to be well informed. If change is in the air, let’s require those who are behind this change to come clean on every aspect of what this change could mean to you. The concept of member choice being the foundation of our provincial association is a principle the membership must have a say in.

For the record, we firmly believe no change is needed in how rules are managed, enforced and how disputes between members are resolved. This is a challenging member service that our volunteers and staff work hard at and one that you now have direct input into. If our current program is already considered to be “best in class”, why would we change that?