
An animated discussion on ethics training
“Does anyone else find it ironic that NAR – the trade association for Realtors – has to mandate that members take an ethics class every four years?” An agent who attended one of my company’s broker opens yesterday posed that question to the wine and cheese grazing attendees. Of course, that opened up an animated discussion on the value of etchics training and the lack of enforcement when the rules are violated.
One agent volunteered that the guy sitting next to her in her last ethics class played games on his cell phone and then cheated during the test at the end of the class. Seriously, dude? You cannot even pay attention long enough to pass what should be the easiest test you’ll ever have to take in your career? Perhaps he was just seeing how far he could push it by cheating during an ethics test, to see if anyone else around him caught the extreme irony there. None of the other agents around him – including the agent he cheated off – turned him in and the instructor didn’t notice.
This same agent later called one of my sellers and tried to convince him to break a listing contract with me, because he had a “guaranteed buyer” in the wings. The seller was an attorney, and this bozo tried to get me cut out of the deal, offering the seller a reduced fee to dump me. The seller held firm and directed the agent to call me, then the seller called to let me know about the conversation.
“But you know if you file something the other agent will know.”
It gets better. After the deal closed, I requested paperwork from our local Board of Realtors to file an ethics complaint. The person in charge said, “But you know if you file something the other agent will know.” Gee. Really? I asked her to send the paperwork over anyway.
I called the seller/attorney and asked him to repeat the conversation to me, because I was documenting it to file a complaint. He turned wishy washy on me at that point and his story changed from “The other agent tried to get me to dump you as the listing agent to cut you out” to “Well he really only asked a few questions and I told him to call you. He probably didn’t mean any harm by it.” So there goes my star witness, who doesn’t want to rock the boat.
I didn’t file the complaint. I resorted to the “turn the blind eye but never trust the sleazeball again” path. And that is what happens to almost all ethics issues I hear about / see in person.
That’s what happens when you have a self-policing group of “professionals” who would rather not “narc” on a fellow agent. After all you’re probably going to end up on the other side of a deal from this guy some day, right? The guy in my example has sold two of my houses since that run-in. Why tick him off by filing a complaint and going through all that hassle? If he stops bringing buyers to my properties then my sellers ultimately lose, right?
Boiling down the CoE
The NAR Code of Ethics takes up pages and pages of tiny print, and it runs each year in their trade magazine (I think it’s the January issue). Does anybody read that? Probably not many. I’d argue none of us ever should have to read it again. Simply follow this advice instead. The thousands of words in the Code boil down to one thing: Do unto other agents, and consumers, and clients, what you would have them do unto you. It’s the Golden Rule. Simple. Well, obviously not, for many agents and brokers.
The sad part is the agent in my example had no clue how close I was to filing that compaint, and if he did know he’d probably scratch his head and wonder why his actions were “wrong.” Making us take a one-day class every few years won’t “make” the unethical agents suddenly operate ethically. Most of them just don’t get it.
Jay Thompson
November 26, 2007 at 5:49 pm
First time I’ve noticed it, but to be honest, I don’t usually pay a lot of attention. I just write the check. I have no other choice.
And I don’t save past statements either…
Kelley Koehler
November 26, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I’m just motivated enough to put off these feedback calls to search through my files for you. Checking.
Kelley Koehler
November 26, 2007 at 7:03 pm
That didn’t take nearly long enough. Now I’ve got to go back to work. Being organized can be a terrible thing.
2005 dues have a $20 NAR public awareness assessment.
2006 dues have a $20 NAR public awareness assessment AND a $10 TAR public image “investment.”
There’s a yearly $30 RAPAC voluntary contribution as well that I skip – but you have to subtract that from the total as displayed. If you pay the amount they say is due, it includes the voluntary RAPAC stuff.
Jonathan Dalton
November 26, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Well, I’ll be darned …
Feel like Morpheus just handed me the blue pill. Ought to add that to a blogging seminar somewhere.
Kelley Koehler
November 26, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Blogging Seminar Part 4: Learning to shove paper into a folder in a timely manner.
How Web 2.0. Sounds thrilling.
Jonathan Dalton
November 26, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Okay, not that part … the clever “blue pill” line.
Oh, hell … don’t go there either.
Athol Kay
November 26, 2007 at 9:39 pm
LOL the blue pill. 1999 is over Jonathan. 🙂
Trust me, we’re all being milked like cows to pay for these wonderful advertisements.
Look on the bright side though. This money isn’t being earmarked to bribe political figures to support keeping banks out of real estate brokerage.
Sorry, bribe is the wrong word there. I’m just to lazy to look up the right one though.
Benn Rosales
November 29, 2007 at 8:58 am
Maybe its been noticed because the ‘amount’ of money we’ve been willing to pay sharply increased. It’s the same as knowing your daily coffee at starbucks costs $2 yet your tab shows $3.50 plus an addition 77 cents for the water.