PAR Structure and Operations

Because of the complexity and thoroughness of the GTF’s work, the group’s 22 members are in the midst of an unprecedented informational exchange with the 220+ PAR Directors, in order to communicate their work, their rationales, and the basis for their recommendations. Teleconferences with Directors, phone and face-to-face meetings with Association Executives and other groups, and visits to local associations are all part of the mix to educate the voting members on the recommendations and to gather feedback to enhance the proposals before they are finalized.

“I’ve received a considerable amount of positive commentary on the recommendations,” notes GTF Chair Guy Matteo. “There’s been some negative feedback, but there also are some misconceptions and misinformation regarding the recommendations. We want the opportunity to communicate with individual members and explain the recommendations. Once people see the reasoning behind the recommendations, the feedback is overwhelmingly positive in favor of the recommendations.”

Although the GTF officially started its work in March of 2005, the road for this journey was marked years before, during PAR’s 1999 Strategic Planning process. From that process, PAR purposefully embraced strategic visioning by appointing a Strategic Thinkers Group, a collection of forward-thinking individuals, who could look out at the horizon and see what issues this association and its membership might be facing in the coming years. One recurring theme from this group, and the many work groups associated with it, was that PAR’s current governance structure – while not broken – might be impeding the association’s ability to respond effectively to its membership, to conduct strategic discussions at an action-oriented level, and to respond quickly to emerging issues.

In September of 2004, the PAR Board of Directors agreed that its governance structure was worth a look. The GTF was born.

True to its charge of being reflective of the needs of 32,000 members and the best practice of the association industry, the GTF reviewed existing research, conducted new research, and polled and surveyed a number of different groups at the outset of its work and periodically during its process.

At its first meeting, the GTF outlined exactly which aspects of PAR’s governance it would examine. The answer: everything.

Matteo, who also serves as a District 2 Vice President, says, “These recommendations are very comprehensive because we looked at so many different aspects of PAR’s governance structure.” The last review of PAR’s governance structure was in the mid-’90s; before that, the mid-’80s. Each time, the final recommendations have met with resistance from the voting directors. Matteo believes that this was due primarily to a lack of communication about the process and the reasoning behind the proposals. The hallmark of Matteo’s chairmanship is transparency in the process.

The Task Force itself conducted a very open, discussion-oriented process. Each member’s views were considered, and compromise and meeting of the minds was the usual order of business. Similarly, the members of the GTF carry this philosophy into the process of presenting the recommendations to the PAR Board of Directors. “The calls, the meetings, the visits to local associations – we welcome the opportunity to talk about these recommendations and to hear our Directors weigh in with constructive commentary that we can take back to the Task Force,” Matteo says.

Not that the subject is new for the Directors. Updates have been provided at each PAR business meeting since the GTF began its work. Because of the time constraints of the Directors’ meeting and the challenge of meaningful dialogue with a large Board, the last two updates – in September 2005 and January 2006 – were accompanied by booklets detailing the changes. The latest update is available on the PAR Web site (www.parealtor.org), under Association Information.

In addition to the updates, members of PAR Board of Directors have been surveyed throughout the process, to ensure that the GTF was receiving their input on issues it was about to consider. In addition, the GTF took into account two membership surveys that were conducted during the process. There were many commonalities between the information received from the Directors and the general membership, and the Task Force incorporated much of that feedback into its work. Some of those common areas were: shifting from a “representational” to a “perspective” model for the Board of Directors; reducing the size of the Board of Directors; and trying to transition from a “satisfied” membership to an “extremely satisfied” membership while facing the belief that most members are truly “customers” of PAR.

One of the recommendations forwarded most recently, in January, concerns the composition of PAR’s Board of Directors. The Board currently consists of approximately 225 people; the recommendation by GTF in January was to reduce the Board of Directors to 61 members.

“The bottom line is that under best practices,” Matteo explains, “we’re looking at having a Board of Directors that is manageable in size, and which gives it the flexibility and agility that’s needed to make strategic decisions. At this point, it’s difficult for 200 to 225 people to have meaningful discussions to make decisions.”

“There is, however,” he adds, “A feeling these recommendations are etched in stone. We are still soliciting input and the final recommendations will reflect that feedback.” Indeed, the GTF has already met and determined that the recommendation for the Board of Directors should be modified to reflect a scaled-down representational component from each local association. While this modified recommendation is still in keeping with best practice, it takes into account the diverse market conditions of Pennsylvania as reflected through the local associations.

The GTF recommendations also emphasize greater outreach to members. “This is extremely important,” says Matteo. “Since the GTF, there has never been a greater effort to reach out to our members to get their input. PAR as an organization should and will reach out to its 32,000 members to get their input for the direction and decision-making process of this organization.”

While the newest recommendations include the changes to the Board of Directors and are, understandably, getting a lot of attention, the first set of proposals presented in September also made some significant changes to the structure of committees. In short, many of the duties of present committees at PAR are being consolidated, and much of the more pressing business of the association will be assigned to Task Forces – either appointed by the Officers or by a Committee, as necessary.

The GTF has recommended changes within the Pennsylvania REALTOR® Education Foundation (PREF) as well.

“We want PREF to have a greater impact on the industry than it has in the past,” explains Matteo. “The foundation needs to be broader based and wider encompassing. And we see a potential for PREF to go beyond the educational component it currently addresses.” The PREF Board responded positively to the GTF’s recommendation by voting in January to begin a strategic planning process.

The GTF continues to emphasize that the process is currently in the “education and feedback” phase. “We heard some concerns regarding the recommendations that were made in January,” Matteo says. “We’re garnering additional input and feedback, with the intent to further modify the recommendations, based on that input. We want to get different points of view to help shape and modify the final recommendations for discussion in May.”

Matteo goes on to say, “It’s critical that the organization look at its governance from time to time. We need to make sure it’s flexible and services our members. And the GTF’s charge was to make sure that PAR’s governance provides service to its members and reflects best business practices, just as our members do in their own real estate businesses. Ultimately, these recommendations will benefit our 32,000 members.”