Type "missouri hb 978" into a Google search and see what comes up.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Watch the newspapers in the next two weeks, folks, and hold your ears.....

You just might want to leak something to Cheech & Chong simply to keep the chaos needle pinned. Let me know if I can add anything to the confusion.

[James H. Bushart]

Gee...what an amazing thing to discover.

Fred Kratky, who sits on the Profession Licensing and Registration Committee with Mike Parson, has this bio printed with the National Realtor Assoc:

FRED KRATKY

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
2006 REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT


Fred Kratky, a REALTOR® from St. Louis, is a 2006 regional vice president for the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. He serves as NAR’s liaison for Region IX, which includes Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. NAR, The Voice for Real Estate®, is America’s largest trade association, representing more than 1 million members involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries.

Kratky, a REALTOR® for 30 years, is broker of RealtyNET Kratky Team in St. Louis, specializing in residential brokerage. He holds the professional designations of Graduate, REALTOR® Institute (GRI) and Certified Residential Specialist® (CRS®). He also is a member of the Council of Residential Specialists.

At the national level, Kratky has served on NAR’s Board of Directors intermittently since 1995. He served on several committees including Issues Mobilization; Meetings and Convention; Political Communications; and State & Municipal Legislation.

Kratky was president of the Missouri Association of REALTORS® in 1996; he earlier served in numerous capacities. He was honored as “REALTOR® of the Year” by his state peers in 2005.

At the local level, Kratky was president of the St. Louis Association of REALTORS® in 2000, with extensive service at the committee level. He was named “REALTOR® of the Year” by his local peers in 2000.

Active in the community as well, Kratky was re-elected to a second term in the Missouri House of Representatives in 2004, and was chairman of the St. Louis Democratic City Central Committee. He is a member of Affton Elks Lodge and the Cheltenham-Chouteau Lions Club, and founded the South City Unit of the American Cancer Society. Kratky is a founder and president of the Missouri Housing Industry Alliance, which cooperates with ancillary industries, and is administrator for the St. Charles School of Real Estate.

Kratky resides in St. Louis with his wife, Michele; they have four sons.

Now, while he has the integrity (or just plain good sense) to refrain from co-sponsoring the bill that the Missouri Association of Realtors paid for...do you think he will also disqualify himself from voting on the measure should it come to his committee?

We will be more than just watching.

[James H. Bushart]

Sam Licklider, the Missouri Association of Realtors paid lobbyist (who also happens to be their VP in charge of Governmental Affairs) has just sent this to those monitoring the MAR political activities:

Home Inspector Licensing:

A response to a letter distributed by a home inspector went out to the Association Executives for the several boards last week. If the letter was in your paper I'd like to know when and which paper. Thanks. I've already heard from Bolivar, Lake of the Ozarks, Washington, Rolla, Joplin, Jefferson City and Columbia.

If someone can intercept one of these letters to MAR "Association Executives" and send it to me, I would greatly appreciate it. I would love to read what Mr. Licklider is telling people to say in response to my letter to the editor in several Missouri papers. I wonder what he will have them say in response to the actual newspaper articles and electronic media reports that will be coming out when the bill actually goes before the real estate brokers who sit on the Professional Licensing and Registration Committee.

I can tell you that much is going on to keep this bill from ever becoming law by many people on several different fronts.

On a humorous note, the ASHI president who also happens to be president of the make-believe "coalition" known as MAHI is telling people in his chapter (who also disagree with HB 978 ) that he agrees with me and does not quite understand why I might think otherwise. Apparently, Dirty Harry likes to work both sides...seeing as how, out of 130 members in his St. Louis ASHI Chapter, only 30 signed up for membership in his "coalition".

[James H. Bushart]

So...here is something for those who are monitoring this thread to ponder...

Which key member of the Professional Licensing and Registration Committee for the Missouri legislature is a former director of the Missouri Association of Realtors and whose wife is presently a lobbyist for the Missouri Association of Realtors?

Should this person disqualify himself from involvement in matters regarding the law that the Missouri Association of Realtors is trying to get the Missouri legislature to pass?

Rumor has it that he plans to return to his old job with the MAR and push to have his lobbyist wife replace him as a representative to the Missouri House.

My, oh my.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

My, oh my.

There is little doubt the chuckle-heads from Washington & Idaho who use licensing to limit competition will find this amusing.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

There is little doubt the chuckle-heads from Washington & Idaho who use licensing to limit competition will find this amusing.

Are you referring to those prostituting their own livelihoods to real estate salesmen...hoping to be fed the crumbs that may fall from the banquet table? Of course, I should add, all in the interest of the consumer .

[James H. Bushart]

This is amazing....

The federal government fought a bill that was being pushed in Missouri by Sam Licklider and the Missouri Association of Realtors. Here is the article, but please...for general applicability....read the last paragraph...TWICE.

Federal antitrust agencies attack Missouri real estate law
DOJ, FTC ask governor to veto limited-service legislation
Tuesday, May 24, 2005

By Glenn Roberts Jr.
Inman News



The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on Monday sent a letter to Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt that encourages him to veto legislation mandating services that real estate brokers must perform for home buyers and sellers. The federal agencies charge that the bill is anti-competitive and will likely lead to higher prices for real estate services.

House Bill 174, which passed the House on March 14 in a 156-0 vote and passed the Senate on May 5 with a 33-0 vote, provides that all brokers and agents who enter into a written agreement to exclusively represent a consumer in a real estate transaction must accept and present all offers and counteroffers for their clients, assist clients in developing, communicating, negotiating and presenting offers and counteroffers, and must answer their clients' questions relating to offers, counteroffers, notices and contingencies. And the bill specifies all of the scenarios in which real estate professionals must enter into written agreements with their clients.

"The proposed legislation, if enacted, is likely to reduce competition and harm Missouri consumers in two significant ways," the federal agencies state in their letter to the governor. "First, consumers who want to perform for themselves some steps involved in negotiating home sales in Missouri will pay real estate professionals more than they do today. Second, House Bill 174 is likely to increase the price that some consumers who prefer full-service brokerage pay for real estate services."

The letter also states that the Missouri legislation "limits competition far more than could possibly be necessary to address any plausible consumer protection concerns" and "there is no justification for excluding fee-for-service brokerage options from the marketplace."

Sam Licklider, senior vice president of government affairs for the Missouri Association of Realtors, said, "I am to a degree astounded that (the federal agencies) would do this." Licklider said he believed that the requirement of the proposed minimum-service law was "so minimal" that it would not draw a response from the Justice Department.

While federal agencies have asked lawmakers and regulators in several other states to reject laws and rules mandating a list of real estate services that brokers and agents must perform for clients, Licklider said the Missouri legislation would only apply to transactions in which consumers have entered into an exclusive agreement with a real estate professional.

To date, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have also separately or together filed letters with regulators or lawmakers in Texas, Oklahoma and Alabama opposing proposals that would heighten real estate service requirements.

Over one dozen states have proposed or passed similar minimum-service measures, which typically require that brokers accept and present all offers and counteroffers on behalf of their clients. The law and rule changes typically prevent companies from offering bare-bones services, such as listing a property in a local multiple-listing service for a flat fee without performing any other services for clients.

Backers of such measures have claimed that they are working to protect consumers from those companies that offer less services than they need to complete a real estate transaction, while opponents say that such measures can restrict consumer choice and force consumers to buy services that they may not want or need. State Realtor associations supporting the measures have said that agents at full-service real estate brokerages can feel obligated to perform services for consumers whom they do not directly represent when those consumers are working with a limited-service company.

Licklider said that despite the federal agencies' opposition, the association will encourage the governor to pass House Bill 174. The Justice Department is acting as "an interested special interest group," he said. "They have a position, we have a different position." He contacted the Missouri Association of Realtors today to notify the association about the federal agencies' letter, and he also spoke with the governor's office.
"Really, it's too early to tell what's going to happen," he said, adding that he plans to submit some information to the governor's office and will encourage the governor to sign the bill.

The governor has 45 days from receiving the bill to consider whether to approve or veto the legislation, said Jessica Robinson, a spokeswoman for the governor. "The governor is reviewing the letter as well as the related bill," she said.

While the 1-million-member National Association of Realtors has not formally endorsed these efforts by state Realtor associations to pass similar minimum-service laws, the association has provided legal advice about such laws and has not discouraged the associations from pursuing the laws.

Laurie Janik, general counsel for the National Association of Realtors, said in an April 22 letter to state Realtor association executives that they should not give too much weight to Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission comments on minimum-service measures.

"The views submitted by the DOJ or FTC should be evaluated on their merits and should not be afforded undue weight based on a mistaken belief that state legislatures or real estate commissions must acquiesce to (their) views or face the prospect of defending their actions in court," she wrote. "Nor should Realtor associations be deterred from expressing the views of their members to legislators and regulators."
Janik also noted that Realtors and Realtor associations "have the right to lobby for legislative and regulators action they support – even if the effect of such action would be anticompetitive. In making this statement, we do not mean to suggest that laws and regulations imposing minimum duties on licensees are anticompetitive. To the contrary, they are intended to assure that the market for the sale of real estate functions efficiently and in the interests of buyers and sellers. But even if they DOJ or FTC believes that these government actions suppress competition, the right to petition for such actions should be unquestioned."

The Justice Department is also investigating other aspects of the real estate industry. Justice Department officials have been investigating a National Association of Realtors' policy for Internet property listings for about two years, and the association is negotiating with agency officials and pursuing changes to its online listings policy in an effort to find a compromise. Also, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division filed a lawsuit against the Kentucky Real Estate Commission in March, charging that the state's anti-rebate law limits competition among real estate brokers.

Steve Brobeck, executive director for the Consumer Federation of America, a pro-consumer group that represents about 300 nonprofit organizations, said that he has heard complaints from real estate discounters for years about "the subtle and not-so-subtle ways that they are discriminated against," and he said that the National Association of Realtors still appears "committed to helping to preserve the price structure." He added, "I think many consumers are surprised that there are not more pricing options (in real estate). "
Chris Nye, broker and founder of MLS4Owners.com, a real estate advertising company that offers flat-fee property listings in Washington, said that he would like to see the National Association of Realtors conduct a survey of its members on the topic of minimum-services legislation.

"I would be willing to bet that a majority of Realtors don't like these actions taken by state associations. I would be willing to bet that many Realtors are not aware of it," said Nye, who also said he has personally been in contact with the Justice Department.

Nye said that the minimum-service efforts across the country appear to be "a cartel protecting its turf," and he believes that the Justice Department has reason to take an interest in antitrust issues relating to minimum-service laws. "(DOJ investigators) are busy people – for them to make the statements they're making, to jump into this argument the way they did – they obviously feel there's some meat to chew on here."

Craig Cheatham, executive vice president for the Association of Real Estate License Law Officials, a nonprofit group that links real estate regulators, said that his group is compiling a list of states that are considering or have passed real estate minimum-service measures. The association's board requested a status report on each jurisdiction's status on the minimum-service issue as of June 30.

"The study will analyze the rationale and goals of each initiative and will compare and contrast the most significant points in each law, each regulation or each proposal." Cheatham said the group's board members will study that document to determine what guidance the group could or should give to its member agencies.

"Although the mission of 'consumer protection' is often being invoked in the recent crop of proposals relating to 'minimum service,' few, if any, appear to have been initiated from consumer-protection agencies – the licensing and enforcement bodies that have protecting the public as their primary mission," Cheatham said. Also, he said that "at first glance, it appears that most 'limited-service' arrangements are not hindered" by the laws.

[James H. Bushart]

A few odds and ends....


(1) If you would like to keep up with what is going on in our fight against HB 978, go to http://www.monachi.org/?D=10 and join our mailing list.

(2) A series of secret meetings with real estate brokers and agents have been going on throughout the state all week. They are planning to blitz the legislature with their push for HB 978 when they return from break. Do not stop communicating with the folks in Jeff City.

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

A new twist for licensing (at least new to us) is that all of a sudden we're hearing several very justifiable excuses from the real estate community as to why home inspectors need to be licensed. Each of these excuses is along the lines of "For the Children" OR "For National Security, etc". They sound really good but have no real basis - so what am I talking about??

Excuse #1 - Home Inspectors are wandering around loose in peoples homes unsupervised & poking into their closets and rummaging in their belongings. The inspector could be a serial killer, child molestor, or be a habitual burglar casing the house. We have to get home inspectors licensed - its the only way realtors can regulate who is in people homes and protect the homeowner or even unsuspecting buyer from a RABID home inspector.

Excuse #2 - Home Inspectors are wandering around loose in peoples homes unsupervised & poking into their closets and rummaging in their belongings. The inspector often hurts the sellers property or breaks something while operating it. Then trys to say the XXX was defective to start with. We have to get home inspectors licensed - its the only way realtors can make these guys carry insurance to protect the sellers home.

Makes you wanta go throw up....................

[pcarter-old-04]

I am surprised that more reference hasn't been made to the Ohio RE Commission Study on Home Inspector Licensing. Missouri is mention in this study and the bottom line if you read it indicates that RE agents in Ohio found no difference between licensed states and non-licensed states, maybe thier is some ammo you can use there................
the link: http://com.state.oh.us/real/document...FinalPaper.pdf

[Dan Bowers, CMI]

Pat -

I actually printed off the whole 135-140 pages and read it one weekend. You're right it did mention Missouri was one of the 6 states they used in the study (3 licensed states - 3 unlicensed states).

End result: WITH or WITHOUT Licensing - we weren't better inspectors; didn't produce more accurate reports; weren't more knowledgable; etc, etc

Then if you look out around page 130-138 I believe, when they polled people about if they'd had problems with the inspection or inspector - of those that said they'd had problems - a large amount of them blamed that on USING the INSPECTOR that the Realtor chose or steered them to.

I found that amazing - especially since the study was done by a STATE Real Estate Commission in conjunction with a well known Community College.

[rstrahan]

That Ohio report really is amazing. And yes it was paid for by real estate license fees.

The conclusion is VERY honest. It says the real advantage of licensing is that it helps to shield the agents from liability.

Amazing.

[pcarter-old-04]

We Have a "BINGO"

[James H. Bushart]

Most of the legislators I have personally spoken with are of the opinion that the bill will not be moving forward.

This possibility is frustrating to the real estate salesmen and saleswomen who have lobbied hard for it, and they are planning to revive the bill when the House resumes session after their break.

In the face of real estate salespeople who, while aware of this conflict of interest are still pushing forward with it, such facts as those presented in the Ohio State study will be of little significance. In other words, they will refuse to be allowed to be confused with facts.

Thankfully, there are several legislators committed to protect the citizens of Missouri against the greed of those selling them houses and are committed to thwart any attempt the MAR makes to take control over the home inspectors in Missouri.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Most of the legislators I have personally spoken with are of the opinion that the bill will not be moving forward.

Thankfully, there are several legislators committed to protect the citizens of Missouri against the greed of those selling them houses and are committed to thwart any attempt the MAR makes to take control over the home inspectors in Missouri.

This should be classified as "good news".