Shared Services
A REALTORÒ Association Partnership Initiative
Case Study Examples
Within this section are just several of the numerous examples of shared services partnerships across the country, whereby local associations are partnering with each other, state associations are partnering with each other and with local associations in their state, and the National Association is partnering with all entities of the REALTORÒ organization. This collection of case study examples is just a starting point and will continue to grow as the shared services initiative becomes an option for more and more REALTORÒ association entities.
Shared Services / PageExecutive and Administrative
· Small board (170 members) provides professional services for a smaller (80 members) neighboring board / 1
· Small board (341 members) provides executive services for two smaller local associations / 3
· Small board (280 members) provides executive services for two smaller neighboring boards (80 and 50 members) / 4
· Medium urban board (1300 members) provides executive and administrative services for a small (130 member) neighboring board
· State association (2,905 members) provides local associations within the state the option of converting from a local association of REALTORS® to a council of the state association.
· Large state association (53,530 members) provides services for 32 of its 91 local associations in the state through two programs: Multi-Board Management and Professional Standards / 5
7
14
Standardized Forms
· A group of associations participants in a regional forms committee to develop and print standardized, shared forms / 25
Technology
· Small board (400 members) fostered a relationship with a local technology expert who developed the expertise to provide technology support services for firms and neighboring boards / 26Education
· Small board (400 members) partners with a local college to present distance learning CE and GRI courses by interactive television / 27MLS
· Small board (111 members) shares MLS information with and purchases MLS services from a neighboring larger association (1,000 members) / 28Definitions
Large Board: 2000+ members
Medium Board: 500 to 1999 members
Small Board: 499 or fewer members
Large State: 15,000+ members
Medium State: 5,500 to 14,999 members
Small State: 5,499 or fewer members
1
Shared Services
A REALTORÒ Association Partnership Initiative
Case Study Examples
Jefferson-Lewis Board of REALTORSÒ
Watertown, New York
Lance Evans, EO
Small Board (170 members) provides professional services for a smaller (80 members) neighboring board.
The Jefferson-Lewis Board of REALTORSÒ in upstate New York provides executive and administrative services for the neighboring St. Lawrence County Board of REALTORSÒ. Services include: executive officer involvement; member data POE; Professional Standards training and administration; phone line support; MLS oversight; and continuing education courses.
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 the 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 term 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 twice monthly with the St. Lawrence County Board of Directors. 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 and printed out on-site.
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 voice-mail 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 bee 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 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.
(Submitted March 2002)
High Point Regional Association of REALTORSÒ
High Point, North Carolina
Jo Anna Edwards, EO
Small board (341 members) provides executive services for two other smaller local associations; one of the smaller board neighbors (65 members), and the other (51 members) is located in a rural area about 90 miles distance.
The High Point Regional Association (341 members) provides executive services to two other local associations, the neighboring Thomasville Board (65 members) and the Alleghany Board (51 members), located approximately 90 miles away in a rural, mountainous area. The two smaller associations contract with the High Point Regional Association and pay fees for the services. The Executive Officer functions as EVP for all three associations, each of which operates as a separate entity.
The Thomasville Board’s contract with the High Point Regional Association was a result of NAR’s mandated minimum service criteria, requiring access to professional executive staff. The High Point Association was already supplying MLS services at the time (1994), so the agreement was an outgrowth of the existing relationship. The Board was able to meet minimum service criteria and maintain its identity.
The Alleghany Association was formed in 2001 when the North Carolina Association discontinued the “member-at-large” membership category. A group of REALTORSÒ in the Sparta area, about 90 miles distance from the High Point Regional Association, organized a local association. One of the members of the newly forming local board sought advice from the High Point Regional’s Executive Officer; what began as a volunteer advisory role evolved into a formal, contractual arrangement to provide professional services. Personal networking relationships facilitated initial contact between the Executive Officer and volunteers from the newly forming association.
Members of the Alleghany Board, formerly members-at-large of the state association, now receive customized services and members feel that they have someone they can talk to who is specifically focused on providing member services.
Forming the relationships with both of the smaller boards was very amicable and proceeded without major obstacles to overcome. For the newly forming Alleghany Board, it took about six months to complete necessary organizational steps and bring the bylaws up to standard; the contract with the Thomasville Association was completed in about half that time. Ongoing, the major challenge for the Executive Officer is in running three separate organizations, each with its own Board of Directors, bylaws, etc.
(Submitted March 2002)
Yakima Association of REALTORSÒ
Yakima, Washington
Jeannette Witham, EO
A small board (280 members) provides executive services for two smaller neighboring boards (80 and 50 members).
The Executive Officer of the Yakima Association of REALTORSÒ provides executive staff services for the Lower Yakima Valley Association (50 members) of REALTORSÒ and the Kittitas County Association (80 members) of REALTORSÒ.
The relationship with the Lower Yakima Valley Association evolved from NAR professional standards mandates regarding the minimum member pool for appointing a hearing panel. The Yakima Association executive oversees professional standards matters for the Board, including training classes. The Yakima Association presents member orientation programs for the Association and charges a $10 per head fee.
The relationship with the Kittitas County Association started with provision of professional standards services and has expanded to other services, such as newsletter publication, communication facilitation with the state and national associations, bylaw compliance, and access to legal counsel. The Yakima Association also manages MLS billing for Kittitas County; originally this function was performed by volunteers and then contracted to an accountant, but the Yakima Association was able to provide MLS billing at a lower fee. At one point, the two organizations considered the possibility of merging, but decided against it. The service agreement fosters an amicable relationship, as the smaller Board is able to maintain its identity and control over local market issues.
As a side benefit, the service relationships have fostered networking among the members of all three organizations. The three boards caucus together at state association meetings and include each other in their social events and functions.
Overall, it took about a year to define the service package, negotiate the agreements, and implement service provision. In developing the service contracts, the executive officer stressed the importance of clearly defining the hours’ commitment, keeping track of hours worked on behalf of the other organizations, and building flexibility into the contract so that the scope of the time commitment can be adjusted or cancelled on a agreed upon advance notice.
(Submitted March 2002)
Toledo Board of REALTORSÒ
Toledo, Ohio
Paul Hiett, EVP
Medium urban board (1300 members) provides executive and administrative services for a small (130 member) neighboring board; the smaller local board receives professional services and maintains its own local identity.
The Toledo Board of REALTORSÒ provides executive and administration services to the Wood County Board, which is located about 20 miles distance in Bowling Green, a small town that includes the campus of Bowling Green State University.
The Wood County Board of REALTORSÒ pays an annual fee to the Toledo Board of REALTORSÒ for executive and administrative services, which include: Professional Standards administration; newsletter (the Wood County Board supplies the content); assistance with budgeting; staff executive support for the board of directors and committees; dissemination and interpretation of communications from the national and state associations (i.e. explaining “what it means for the local REALTORÒ); bylaws compliance; board re-certification assistance; and MLS administration.
The Wood County Board contracted for services from its larger neighbor in order to meet NAR mandated minimum service criteria, requiring access to professional staff. Additionally, the Wood County Board President was very active in the state association and aware of the need to bring greater organization and better services to the local board. The Wood County Board already had an agreement with the Toledo Board to share MLS data, as market areas overlap, and members wanted access to MLS information for both areas without the necessity of joining two associations. Because of this relationship, geographic proximity, and market overlap, the Toledo Board was positioned as the most likely source for services.
The Toledo Board proposed a menu of services from which the Wood County Board selected those that would be included in the package of services and formalized the relationship with a one-year renewable contract. Within a short time frame, 3 to 4 months, the contract details were finalized and the two organizations held only one formal organizing meeting. However, a lot of informal communication and discussion led up to the formal meeting and contract signing. The time commitment for the Toledo executive was intense in the early stages of implementation, as bylaws needed to be brought into compliance and other “housekeeping” matters had to be cleared up. After this initial phase, the time commitment decreased substantially.
Volunteerism remains at a high level at the Wood County Board with members performing “staff” functions such as organizing continuing education classes, RPAC fundraising, and dues billing, which is facilitated by the state association’s provision of pre-printed dues statements. Recently the Wood County Board rented office space to
create a physical location for the Board; records and documents are now housed in the office rather than passed amongst volunteer leaders.
Both organizations have benefited from the arrangement. The Toledo Board has a source of non-dues income. Important personal relationships are fostered through networking opportunities such as joint meetings, and a joint caucus at the state association convention. The Wood County Board benefits through access to professional staff support, more meaningful communications with the state and national association, and, although a side-development, a physical location. Most important for the Wood Country Board members is that they have been able to maintain their identity as a separate organization; a concern that the Toledo Board was very attuned to.
As a result of the success of working with the Wood County Board, the Toledo Board has proposed a similar arrangement to another nearby board. That board, which has 400 members and covers a wide geographic area encompassing 7 counties, is currently staffed by a real estate broker who functions as part-time “elected secretary” and is paid a small fee. The needs of the board and its members are growing in scope and complexity, and outstripping the part-time staff person’s availability and expertise.