Chris Wood has failed in his attempt to get the election of vice-president of NAEA Propertymark halted.
He had made a formal request, and had also asked NAEA Propertymark chief executive Mark Hayward about the due process that had been followed when his application was not allowed to proceed.
Cornish agent Wood attended an interview panel after he applied, but subsequently received a letter from Propertymark executive chairman Christopher Hamer, essentially telling him he is too controversial in the trade media.
Hamer’s letter, below, said in part: “As we discussed at the outset of our meeting, the role of President and the Presidential Team is very important to NAEA Propertymark with the President being a figurehead for the members and an open channel of communication for all members.
“It is also absolutely vital that the President, President Elect and Vice President do not court controversy but promote unity and understanding amongst members.”
It continues: “… There has been a lot of exposure in the trade media about your views on certain matters and we feel that whilst there has been no open conflict between Popertymark and you, members would consider that a more consistent line between the two parties should exist for a successful presidential term.”
The letter concludes: “I do suggest that a further passing of time before submitting an application would be the best approach.”
Wood went on to express his concerns at his rejection, but has now received this from Hayward:
“I can confirm that the Board and Chairman of Propertymark have been made aware of your request to halt the process for the election of Vice President, are aware of the interview process, are aware of the content of our telephone conversation before the interview and are aware of your concerns as outlined in your previous emails.
“They are completely satisfied that the process was correct and robust, therefore the election will move forward in the normal manner.
“Please consider this to be our final response with you on this matter prior to the AGM.”
Wood yesterday afternoon told EYE that his interview leading to the refusal to allow his name to go forward was unconstitutional.
He claimed: “There is nothing in the memoranda and rules that they can do that.
“I also query whether all the other candidates were subject to the same process.”
However, Hayward told EYE that the memoranda and articles are available online, and do cover the ability of the board to make decisions as to the appointments process of vice-presidents.
Wood has countered, saying that NFoPP must be using Section 30 to stop his candidacy going forward.
Section 30 reads: “The Board may constitute such Divisions of the Federation as it may from time to time consider fit and shall make Rules and Regulations from time to time as to the constitution and regulation of such Divisions and, if currently constituted, the representative Members’ Advisory Forum(s) of such Divisions.
“There shall be a President, President Elect and a Vice President of each Division who shall each hold office for a term of one year. At the end of such term, the President Elect and the Vice President shall automatically become President and President Elect respective unless good reason is demonstrated to the Board as to why they should not be elevated to that position.”
Meanwhile, the election of vice-presidents at ARLA is also looking unusual, with the standing down of Claire Lloyd, who would have become President elect from Friday next week. She is going to a new consultancy position at TDS, and this has been cited as the reason for her departure – although it is entirely commonplace for ARLA Presidents to have ‘day’ jobs.
Her departure, announced just days before the AGM, has left four candidates vying for two vice-presidency positions.
The two will then have to decide between themselves which of them immediately steps up to become President elect.
The four candidates are: Ross Jezzard; Michelle Niziol; former ARLA President Peter Savage; and David Votta.
Comments (27)
What really twists my melon about this is the smugness of the tone of that letter
thank you for your interest ( actually we don’t )
unity and understanding amongst members ( our type of members, not your type of members )
identify themselves to the public ( wut? they no care! )
organisational strategy and ethos ( corporate speak handbook chapter one page one )
a successful presidential term ( oh, the grandeur )
those that can, do
those that cant, preach
Better luck next time Chris.
This appeared on another thread but was meant for here: As usual the fault here is NAEA lacking communication with its members. Seen so many clubs run by handful of people for their own benefit …. who hasn’t. On the other hand seen many a member who you would not want in a position of power! There are always two sides to a story and in this case NAEA are looking like the old boys/girls club. We don’t want you if you will answer us back, we only want “Yes people”. Sometimes a person who is willing to fight their corner is good for an organisation or you are seen as burying heads in sand when it gets tough. From what I know of the other candidates ….. nothing and that says a lot. What is without doubt an issue …. who are the NAEA? and that needs changing.
Dear NAEA
I formally request that you change your mind and let the public decide.
Your Faithfully
I joined three years, had nothing but a glossy magazine for a year and didnt renew, i’ve seen nothing since to convince me that its worthy of joining again. The public care not a jot that you have fnaea on your business card, its only known about in our industry and very few in the industry care about it.
Tow the party line or else
Is it just me that thinks Chris sounds like a spoilt child who’s throwing a tantrum as he didn’t get his own way?
Yes Chrispy. It is just you.
Yup. Just you.
Just you.
Do you lot really have nothing better to do than sit on here all day ranting?
Just you.
Looks like Chris has been Properlymarked by a leader who has simply watched and allowed two of the most audacious ownership strategies to take place in the history of this industry at the considerable future expense of the vast majority of their members.
No wonder they do not want Chris anywhere near their decision making as he would likely shake things up for the better and shame this woeful leadership into some action?
Chris has a plan do the NAEA?
Clearly the requirement for NAEA is to have taken a vow of silence on all things property related.
From time to time we get posters on here asking
“Why do you post under silly names, why can you not post under your real name?”
Here is a prime example of why it is not safe to post under your real name.
Chris has only ever looked to enforce government and legal policy.
He has never (to my memory) courted controversy. He has only ever looked to improve a clearly flawed system within the current constants of the law / rules that bind us all.
Commentating an industry news site and posting under his real name has cost him the chance to run as president (he may not even have won!).
As the NAEA or whatever they call themselves these days clearly read PIE, Why not act on the concerns that are raised on here time and again?
Oh instead you want to reduce the voting rights of members by manipulating the number of seats on a board. And when a candidate comes along who may be able to unite the organisation and actually change it from a profit making boys club and move it into 2017, you are so scarred by this you do not let him stand.
Well done, Naea (or whatever you are calling yourself today).
Brilliantly put !
I agree totally that Chris standing up in his own right, for what we all believe is right, has cost him. In every other walk of life or industry it would have propelled him to the very top !
I guess ‘de management’ can be reassured they are very popular with one section of their membership……the online listers. They refuse to condemn or say anything against the advertising propaganda perpetrated by these against the majority of smaller members.
On top of this they have now eliminated the possibility of election of a VP who would have stood up for the majority smaller members.
Is this all part of them cosying up further to their new found friends? Perhaps they should put forward a change of name proposal to ‘National Association of Online Listers’?
It is on days like this that I am inexpensively reassured I made the right decision to quit my Membership a few years ago.
Me to PeeBee waste of time effort and money and has not affected myself or my busness one jot.
“…waste of time effort and money and has not affected myself or my busness one jot.”
If you think seriously about that single line, it is a really, really telling statement.
Unfortunately, NO-ONE at Arbon Towers will give a fuppenny.
Utterly ridiculous non democratic decision by an arrogant organisation more interested in protecting its ruling elite than doing anything for the benefit of the majority of its members.
It is fast becoming an irrelevance.
Start up a new one Chris, that will truly represent the best interests of Full Service Independents. I can see within a couple of years it being far more relevant and respected with a substantially greater membership.
AgentV
“Utterly ridiculous non democratic decision by an arrogant organisation…”
There lies the problem – it never actually got a chance to be an ‘organisational decision’ – did it?
“Start up a new one Chris…”
I’ll bet you already have an acronym for it, AgentV! ;o)
Of course!!!
A few years ago I came up with the Federation of Local Estate Agents, but that one was shelved for obvious reasons. Did change it to the Local Estate Agent Federation or LEAF, but unfortunately the word local has now become asscociated with being misleading by the online listers…. as in LPE’s who are often as far from the ‘E’ as they are from the ‘L’ covering a 50 mile radius.
I am still working on the lastest candidates but would like to include FSI for Full Service Independent in it somewhere. How about some other suggestions from everyone?
You could try………NAEA “Nice About Estate Agents!
Oh hang on, I think I can see the problem with that one.
They want a yes man. Not someone who speaks freely.
Chris wood, I have no doubt, would have been a perfect fit. Except for he is not a yes man. And will speak his mind.
Better to be controversial, than shackled.
Disgrace.
Why not let the members decide?