List of Illinois legislators opposing manager licensing
I don't understand how any legislator who has the slightest concern for the public can oppose licensing of CID property managers. However, this just came in from the Illinois Chapter of CAI:
House Bill 271/Senate Bill 1579 - Community Association Manager Licensing Act. This measure is pending as House Bill 271 and Senate Bill 1579. Both bills have been approved in each Chamber. Senate Bill 1579 is now in the first reading in the House. The Senate passed this bill by a vote of 52-0. However, some Representatives apparently did not vote to approve the earlier House version of this bill. This bill will require that all individuals who are community association managers to be licensed in Illinois by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. This would also provide for disciplinary proceedings and loss of a license for illegal activities. The Illinois Chapter of CAI supports this bill.
House Representatives who serve Cook and other collar counties voted "No" are listed below, along with their corresponding district. ILAC respectfully requests that members of The Illinois Chapter of CAI contact these legislators urging them to vote "Yes" with respect to Senate Bill 1579 which is currently pending in the House.
Patricia Bellock (R) - Westmont; 630-852-8633, F 630-852-6530
Franco Coladipietro (R) - Bloomingdale; 630-582-0045, F 630-622-0406
Sandy Cole (R) - Grayslake; 847-543-0062, F 847-543-8862
Michael Connelly (R) - Naperville; 630-579-4848, NO FAX
Fred Crespo (D) - Streamwood; 630-372-3340, F-630-372-3342
Jim Durkin (R) - Countryside; 708-352-7700, F 708-352-7702
Keith Farnham (D) - Elgin; 847-841-7130, F 847-841-7140
Michael Fortner (R) - West Chicago; 630-293-9344, F 630-293-9785
John Franks (D) - Westchester; 815-334-0063, F 815-334-9147
Paul Froelich (D) - Schaumburg; 847-985-9210, F 847-891-8772
Emily McAsey (D) - Crest Hill; 815-588-0085, F 815-838-9460
Rosemary Mulligan (R) - Des Plaines; 847-297-6533, F 847-297-2978
Harry Osterman (D) - Chicago; 773-784-2002, F 773-784-2060
Sandra Pihos (R) - Glen Ellyn; 630-858-8855, F 630-858-8857
Harry Ramey (R) - West Chicago; 630-876-0703, F 630-231-3742
Dennis Reboletti (R) - Arlington Heights; 630-530-2730, F 630-530-2792
Tim Schmitz (R) - Geneva; 630-845-9590, F 630-845-9592
Darlene Senger (R) - Naperville; 630-219-3090, NO FAX
Ed Sullivan (R) - Mundelein; 847-566-5115, F 847-566-5155
Mark Walker (D) - Arlington Heights 847-640-8645, F 847-640-8690
14 comments:
Of course it can't be a good idea if CAI supports it right? Actually you might want to ask Shu about this as she was essentially the only person to testify against the Virginia manager licensing bill.
Actually, Skippy, Shu wasn't the only one.
Go to richmondsunlight.com and search for "house bill 516" in last year's session.
Google "delegate terry suit."
homer j owner
I can't think of any good argument for allowing property managers to remain unlicensed. It will not solve all the problems, but there no way to improve their performance without as a first step requiring them to have a state license. Then you can attach conditions to it, such as education, ethics, disclosure, etc. Right now, here in Illinois we have unaccountable BODs being guided by unaccountable managers.
So, it is like the old saying about elections. Elections are a necessary condition for democracy, but not a sufficient condition. In other words, while it is true that you can have elections and still not have democracy, there is no way to have democracy without elections.
Actually Tom, you misunderstood, or were misinformed about a few things. First of all, I was NOT the ONLY person to testify against HB 516. Ask Pia, she was there but I do not recall seeing you walking the hallowed halls of the Virginia Capitol. Also, several people wrote to both house and senate committee members asking them not to pass HB 516, out of their respective committees - they copied me on their emails. And thanks, Homer J Owner, I had forgotten about all the comments on Richmond Sunlight. They are available to the public, check 'em out. Here is the link, http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2008/hb516/ . Please note when you go to that page that of the 143 people who voted on whether they supported HB 516, 96% said NO and ONLY 4% were in favor. I suspect the managers, realtors and CAI made up that 4% vote. BTW, Tom, you are mentioned by name on that page.
And I don't think any of us testified against licensing managers, we DID testify against the ENTIRE bill which was a "Dear Santa I want" list co-written by the Virginia Association of Realtors, the VA Association of Managers and CAI. There was something in it for every industry, the managers, the realtors and of course, CAI. The only people left out were the actual owners. They were not even invited to participate or comment on the bill as it went through the industry writing machine. What a surprise! Even one of the committee chairs tried to block comment at the public hearings. So much for openness, integrity and a sense of fair play!
If licensing the managers had been the only thing in HB 516, I really wouldn't have wasted my time on it. But you guys packed a lot of punch in those 98 pages. I personally have nothing against licensing. I've even had one or two myself. I just don't buy into the notion that by sending a check to the state in return for a piece of paper that you are any smarter, more honest or better able to manage. The ONLY thing you are is a little poorer. Without some oversight and an enforcement mechanism, what good is a piece of paper? You'll say the Common Interest Community Board is tasked with overseeing the managers. Who is on the CICB? All the members of the industries that feed off the owners in associations. Absolutely a case of the fox guarding the hen house. How much oversight are we really going to have? Have the AG or some other arm of law enforcement provide the oversight and I might feel a little more comfortable knowing that the decision to investigate allegations of wrong doing are not left to friends and business partners/colleagues. It is too incestuous a relationship. HB 516 provided a lot of sizzle but no real meat.
Anyway, I am not going to rehash all the garbage that was in that bill. It passed last year and has been the law for almost a year now. And associations have never been in such bad shape as they are right now.
HB 516 is a typical example of how broken and corrupt our government’s legislative process works at all levels. Legislators have long forgotten the meaning of what Evan referred to as, the condition for Democracy, it’s participation by everyone and in the world of CIDs this seldom happens.
Consequently CID legislation is no different because most often it’s authored the same way as CIDs are created with the participation of everyone except the owners. Furthermore what aggravates this situation is the fact that all industry lobbying is 100% funded by the association members who never gave their consent. While association members themselves have no lobbyists or equal opportunity to participate in authoring the legislation that will bond them in perpetuity and this needs to change.
Finally what we must all understand especially our legislators, is the difference between the mission of the CID industry and their purpose. The mission is to educate and foster better communities but their purpose is to take control of the CID and leave the association members essentially powerless from the moment they take the deed to their property.
There is an imbalance between the political power of producers and consumers, especially in interest group politics. That is one of the best-known findings of political science. It is true in every policy area you can name. It is is true in housing policy, and it is most definitely true in common interest housing policy. Here in Illinois, there is no owner organization with any legislative power at all. There is CAI and the Association of Condominium, Townhome, and Homeowner Associations (ACTHA). Both are producer/industry organizations with hardly any owner members.
That said, there are times when consumer and producer interests can converge. One of those is licensing of property managers.
CAI and ACTHA and other organizations will benefit if licenses are required, along with testing and education. Their members won't have to compete with a horde of fly-by-night operators, and these organizations will end up training people to prepare for the exam.
Owners benefit as well. It is obvious that owners are at risk from unlicensed managers. Many of them--and I mean people who are actually making money here in Illinois right now--are ethically and educationally unqualified. Yet, with a business card and an email address, they are good to go. They are giving bad advice, creating stupid conflicts and litigation, and causing all sorts of other problems. Licensing won't solve all the problems, but it at least it creates a lever to exert some control over the bad practitioners. They can lose their license and their livelihood. Right now, they don't even need a license, so they don't have any incentive to be ethical or knowledgeable.
So--CAI and the owners should be on the same side on this issue.
But whatever CAI does, anybody who cares about the owners in CIDs all over Illinois should be in favor of manager licensing. There is absolutely no intelligent argument to be made against it.
But I have to admit that there is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face. People actually do things like that.
"It is true in housing policy, and it is most definitely true in common interest housing policy."
There is no such thing as "common interest housing policy" at least insofar as PUD-style interest developments (CIDs) are concerned.
Housing situated within CIDs doesn't represent policy itself expressed by state enabling statutes and local land use requirements to privatize local government in the form of mandatory membership HOAs and have property owners pay for local government entities and services via HOA assessments.
You mentioned years ago there was never an informed public debate on whether to privatize local government. Unfortunately, that will contiue to be the case if the issue isn't accurately framed.
Board member, property manager, or whatever, The industry NEEDS educated individuals who support the homeowners, who are the ones paying the bills and not the best interest of some greedy, sociopathic, individuals who have strong armed themselves into many of these positions. Licensing?
who is doing the licensing and who are they accountable to? Where is the homeowner to go to get justice, when their lives have been destroyed? Having a fair bit of knowledge concerning those targeted, terrorized and victimized by abusive boards/board members and their associates, for what appers to be motives of fraud and greed, I would expect licensing may be a beginning to accountability. The vulnerable populations, who appear to be a large percentage of those "easiest to get," are advised by Attorney General's Offices at conference on fraud, scams, and abuse to NEVER, NEVER deal with any "group," who self credentials! Do we know of a group in this industry that does this?
I am assured by many that there a are decent, law abiding, non abusive industry professionals and board members who do not utilize property theft practices and employ terror tactics and fear.
Someone should post a list. The abusive members within this industry have destroyed the trust of the homeowner/home buyer. ANYONE who even consider purchasing within one of these groups at this time in history, is uneducated and being lied to by those developing/marketing/managing/ many of these communities. The risk is prezsented. Like Shu Bartholomew says, "you are only one election away."
Live in one of these groups, when they "go bad." The "influenced," board becomes the dictatorship from hell utilizing lies, ongoing harassment, stealing, terrorizing, discrimination, fraud, property damage fabricated lawsuits and whatever else can be made up.
"Licencing of managers" does sound like a worthy goal, but if CAI supports this bill, one must ask "why?" For years, CAI has argued that NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT is needed in HOA's.
Virginia's 2008 HB 516, discussed abobe, was CAI’s attempt to turn the Koger Management Company debacle in Virginia to its own advantage by securing several of their long-time objectives:
-Control, by CAI, of the “oversight” of all owners associations in Virginia
-Prevention of such “oversight” by any independent government agency
-Denial of any source of genuine redress or consumer protection to homeowners aggrieved when their associations violate the POAA or their governing documents
-Control over the licensing of association managers through requiring managers to obtain “credentials” conferred by CAI (requiring, as a practical matter, CAI membership and thus enhancing the political and financial base of their trade association)
-Delegation by the legislature, to a CAI controlled panel, of authority to prescribe “regulations” for owners associations outside of the legislative process, and
-Delegation by the legislature, to a CAI controlled “panel, of authority to intercede -- under color of governmental authority and with funding provided by the Commonwealth -- into litigation between homeowners and their associations, thus enabling CAI to “shape” the development of Virginia case law for the benefit of the trade association.
If I mischaracterized the specifics of Shu's testimony then I apologize. That is how it was related to me by individuals who were present. And good for her for engaging in the process.
As Evan points out, manager licensing benefits owners and their associations directly. The Virginia bill specifically requires education, testing, and regular recertification of managers, thus establishing a minimum standard of competancy and providing a mechanism to remove bad actors from the industry. This is how licensing works for almost every other profession, be it realtors, accountants, or attorneys.
Perhaps more importantly, it also significantly increases the mandatory insurance/bonding that management companies must carry. This provides a recourse for associations and owners in the case of financial or other malfeasance, a recourse that they have not had previously. This is all in addition to providing associations and homeowners with a forum for complaints about specific managers and management companies.
I won't waste time trying to correct the numerous factual errors in some of the other comments. Frankly some folks will believe what they believe and no mere fact is going to get in the way of their beliefs. I will point out one mischaracterization in Evan's latest post though. CAI has almost 29,000 members across the US. Slightly more than half of them are homeowners in associations and not providers of services to or managers of assocations. They may be board members, committee members, or just plain homeowners interested in learning more and making their communities better. CAI's governance, including our boards, legislative action committees, and chapters require participation and membership from all of our membership groups including homeowners.
Anonymous above writes,
Correction;
"the risk is prezsented," should read, "the risk is never presented."
And to Mr. Skiba,
Please waste out time by correcting the "numerous factual errors in some of the other comments," above.
Really, how can you even begin to
understand the devastation to a family, or property owner, when they fall victim to one of these "abusive," boards and their associates, unless you have lived through it? Where is the justice for these people? In my experience, "some industry educated/influenced professionals," are the most destructive, horrible people breathing air on the planet. They seem to believe the only people, within the community, who have rights are themselves! They will tell you that too! They lie, lie, lie while instigating terror and fear, amomg other property owners. It is sad, but true! Then again, LIVE IT and possibly you will understand. Talk to some former board members who ran their association legitimately! Find out what happened to them for being competent!
Mr. Skiba,
Professor McKenzie's post was about an issue affecting property owners in the State of Illinois.
You have stated that there are 14,500 individual members in CAI that are not service providers etc.?
Could you please check the member directory for the State of Illinois?
Could you then please share with us EXACTLY how many "individual members" of CAI there are in the State of Illinois?
I have maintained my directories from the last few years, therefore I would urge you to count VERY carefully.
I think the readers of The Privatopia Papers will be VERY surprised with your figure for the EXACT number of CAI individual members for the entire State of Illinois.
Thank you,
One of those VERY few "individuals"
P.S. One would assume that you will not include the "individual member" legislators, in the State of Illinois, who have been generously "gifted" with a CAI membership, this year, or for years past.
You still DO that in the State of Illinois, as well as other states, don't you?
Evan, you said: "So--CAI and the owners should be on the same side on this issue." and as Tom always reminds us, the devil is in the details.
It's those pesky details that must be considered before jumping on the bandwagon. Absent any unbiased, third party oversight, all you have is a sham, a placebo, yet another meaningless frill.
The founders understood the importance of a separation of the powers so why today's state legislators are having such a hard time with it is a mystery
I think Homer did a pretty good job of spelling out the major issues with HB 516. So to reduce that bill to whether or not managers should be licensed is a total disservice to all your readers.
By the way, there were also other problems with that bill but Homer's list is a good start.
I posted something about the Illinois bill to require manager licensing. It is all by itself, not bundled with anything. It is a good bill that I support.
I was not involved in the Maryland bill that Tom and Shu and others are posting about, and I don't have an opinion regarding what was good or bad about what was or wasn't bundled with manager licensing in Maryland.
All I am saying is, managers need to be licensed and regulated. It is insane for the state of Illinois, or any other state, to allow people to act as community association managers with no license of any sort. I hope this bill passes.
Post a Comment