Fallout from the vote to remove Robert L. Nash from his position as executive vice president of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors continues, more than a month after the June 22 decision.
Critics of the vote now contend the outcome was heavily influenced by voters looking out for the interests of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board instead of MAR in general, a charge refuted by GBREB officials.
In an interview last week, former MAR President William T. Galvin Jr. said the move to oust Nash was started by members of the board of directors with allegiances to GBREB. In his opinion, the move was brought on by a desire for the directors to find a “scapegoat” to blame for MAR moving ahead with its MassForms real estate forms product line, which threatened GBREB’s own form business.
Galvin also lashed out at current MAR President Fred Meyer, who also is a GBREB member. Meyer, he said, has been looking out for GBREB’s best interest instead of the interest of the state association. He added that he was upset at the way the June MAR director’s meeting was run.
“Bob Nash was under the directive of the board of directors to pursue having statewide real estate forms,” said Galvin, broker/owner of Galvin Real Estate in Wrentham. “A large, state-wide committee was convened to work on the forms. But the Boston board didn’t want it, because they were afraid it would affect the sale of their own forms,” added Galvin, who has served in several leadership roles at the local, state and national Realtor association levels
Nash, through a MAR spokes-man, declined to comment. He will remain active with MAR until late October.
Aside from MassForms, GBREB’s real estate forms are among the most used throughout the state and are a significant source of non-dues revenue for the Beacon Hill-based organization.
“The Boston board did not want [MassForms] to fly,” Galvin said.
Other sources familiar with the situation who ask not to be named said they, too, sensed that GBREB was looking to derail the MassForms plan.
Edwin J. Shanahan, GBREB’s CEO, last week denied that the MAR directors who also belong to his organization had come together to form a powerful voting bloc intent on removing Nash.
“As far as the MAR Board of Directors is concerned, I really couldn’t tell you who voted how,” Shanahan said. “As far as the Boston directors voting in a bloc, I couldn’t say it occurred that way.”
Shari Marquis of Marquis Real Estate Better Homes and Gardens in Brighton, a state director and president of GBREB’s Residential Association of Realtors, said her board members did not have influence over other votes.
“Definitely the majority of GBREB directors did vote in favor of [removing Nash],” she said. “But it was not caused by or favored by GBREB … We don’t have that much influence. I wish we had as much influence as people seem to think we have.”
She added that the members of the MAR Executive Committee that first brought up the motion of removing Nash came from almost every area of the state, not just Boston.
Of MAR’s approximately 120 directors, 23, or almost 20 percent, are from GBREB. GBREB has three additional members who are listed as Massachusetts National Directors and also have voting power. GBREB has more seats on the board than any of the other 17 local associations represented on the MAR Board of Directors because it has the largest general membership.
Shanahan added that MAR directors meet in a caucus that is run by the state association, not GBREB. “The directors decide on things as they see fit. We’re not involved in it.
“The directors have a fiduciary responsibility to do what’s best for the state association, and whatever they may have done, they believed it to be in the best interest of the state.”
But Galvin disagreed with that assessment.
“The Boston board has completely mishandled this situation,” Galvin maintained. “They arbitrarily tried to get [Nash] dismissed from his position when all he was doing was following the directive of the membership.”
“Push and Shove’
At a meeting last month, MAR’s directors eventually voted to reinstate marketing efforts of MassForms, an initiative that that had been suspended amid controversy in February.
“There has been a lot of discussion out there blaming GBREB for all this,” Marquis said. “This is not a GBREB issue. We have our own issues to deal with.”
Galvin is so unhappy, he said, that he has decided to sever his ties to GBREB, an organization to which he belonged for more than three decades.
“My office and staff are withdrawing our membership from the Boston board after 31 years of membership, and we are disbanding our [GBREB real estate] forms disk,” Galvin said. “I’m joining another board, and I’m going to be using [MAR’s form] disks.”
He added that he wasn’t the only office about to take action concerning their GBREB memberships.
“There are other independent office in process of deliberating and doing the same thing,” Galvin said, “and one multi-office company has reached that conclusion also.” He declined to name the other companies considering leaving GBREB.
Galvin Real Estate has about 12 agents operating out of one office in the center of Wrentham. GBREB’s membership totals about 4,000.
“It’s always been push and shove between MAR and GBREB,” Galvin said. “The only way to show my discontent is by hitting them where it hurts. I figure I’ll save everyone in my office $50 to $100 a month by not being in GBREB.”
Galvin said the decision came after weighing what he perceives to be happening now against his history in GBREB, which has included stints as a director, chair of several committees, being named Realtor of the Year and serving as head of the Brokers Institute.
“The old neighborhood has changed and I don’t like what I see, so I’m moving to the suburbs,” Galvin said, declining to name which local board he will now belong to.
“I haven’t heard of that,” Shanahan said referring to Realtors possibly dropping their GBREB memberships. “We’re staying focused on providing the highest level of service to our membership. We’re a top-quality producer and we’re always looking to improve, and our membership acknowledges that value.
“Some members may see things differently, and that’s a decision they have to make. But I think the majority will look at the quality of service and remain with the organization,” Shanahan said.
Galvin took issue with the way he said Meyer and other members of MAR’s leadership ran the June director’s meeting. “No one was allowed to speak that didn’t hold office. No one was given the opportunity to speak the truth, and I find that unconscionable,” Galvin said. Galvin did not actually attend the meeting because he said he knew beforehand that he would not be allowed to speak.
“That was done to eliminate any supporters [of Nash] and misguide any new directors in the voting process,” he charged. “[The newer directors] were uninformed and did not know Nash was acting under the directive of the membership.
“Nash has his faults, we all do. But did he do anything wrong? Absolutely not,” Galvin said. “Fred [Meyer] was doing what the Boston board wanted, and that’s not his job. He should be representing the state association, not his local board.”
Galvin called the meeting “undemocratic” and said it was conducted under “authoritarian rule.”
Meyer last week declined to respond to Galvin’s comments publicly.
“I have not heard from Bill Galvin, and I’d be glad to talk to him directly, but I’m not going to do it through the pages of Banker & Tradesman,” Meyer said. “If he has a problem. I’m always available and willing to speak with him.
“What is appropriate is direct communication by the membership to the leadership of the association, rather than … airing concerns to a newspaper reporter,” he added.
“This motion [to dismiss Nash] came from all over the state,” Marquis said. “This is not something Fred wanted to happen while he was president. This would have happened no matter who was president.”
Galvin pointed out that despite what he said were efforts to influence votes against Nash at the June meeting, the 61-57 decision to oust Nash was only one more vote than the minimum majority number needed.
“My intent … is to let other members of this association know that even when they’re handcuffed in making a vote, and it was still that close of a vote, something is wrong,” he said. “If others wish to speak about this, they should speak up now.”