Monday, August 13, 2007

Bar association works to put softer, friendlier face on maligned profession
This is what I was talking about earlier in reference to CAI--a trade association that constantly works to improve the public image of its membership and the clients they serve. Here we have a professional association, the Allegheny County Bar Association, trying to improve the public image of its membership by hiring a flack--excuse me, a director of media and public relations--to change the way people perceive attorneys. Nothing wrong with trying to do that. It won't work, though, because people's minds are already made up. The big difference is that the bar association admits what it is doing, and CAI always seems somewhat reluctant to admit even the undeniable fact that it is a trade association, much less that, like every other trade association, it is trying to shape public perceptions.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

CAI's reluctance to clearly hold itself as a trade association is primarily due to two reasons.

First as you detailed in your 1994 book "Privatopia," CAI was not formed as a trade association when it was founded in 1973. Rather, its founders envisioned a "big tent" organization that could serve as an information clearinghouse for all interested stakeholders on common interest developments and their governance. As you wrote in "Privatopia," by the early 1990s CAI had transformed itself into a 501(c)(6) business league. By the end of the decade, CAI's founders admitted the "big tent" vision was unrealistic because the various stakeholder groups have varying and often conflicting interests and agendas.

The objective of a 501(c)(6) business league is to influence public policy improve business conditions for its members. In CAI's case, the public policy goal is preserving and expanding the privatization of local government in order to provide a stable and expanding market for the services and products its rank and file members provide to HOAs.

CAI is likely reluctant to openly state such a public policy goal. It would be potentially disruptive and threatening because it could spark a public dialog on the merits of local government privatization.

You have correctly stated this public discussion should have taken place four decades ago. It is now even more urgently needed due to the rapid growth in the number of privately-governed CIDs, (which increased from just 10,000 in the U.S. in 1970 to 275,000 according to CAI's most recent estimates) and their accompanying governance and fiscal management problems that are garnering increasing attention from the media and public policymakers.

Evan McKenzie said...

Fred:
That's an interesting point. I realize that you think CAI is advocating for privatization of local government. I see them as more interested in the micro issues of how associations operate than the macro ones of how governance should work.
I wanted to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with CAI or any other trade association mobilizing to influence public policy or public perceptions. The First Amendment protects "the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances." That's what they are doing, but many Americans equate that with some sort of conspiracy, and it isn't. It is just what all professional, business, and labor interest groups do, along with a whole lot of other groups. Remember Ross Perot talking about banning lobbying? That sounded good to the folks who voted for him, but it is complete nonsense. I'm not against interest group politics--but I do think it can produce distorted policies if there is too much of an imbalance in the power relationships, so that's why all interested parties need to get organized.

Anonymous said...

"I see them as more interested in the micro issues of how associations operate..."

Yes, but in service of what larger policy goal? It's the protection and expansion of the current public policy favoring the privatization of local government upon which the community association industry depends.

Community association industry organizations like CAI are naturally going to resist any increased regulation and government oversight of HOAs because each proposal represents a slight move in the direction of local government deprivatization that cumulatively over time could erode the policy of local government privatization itself. Especially when policymakers begin to realize the problems of HOA governance are not easily addressed with more laws and regulations and begin to directly question the merits of continuing the current pro-privatization policy.

Anonymous said...

"I wanted to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with CAI or any other trade association mobilizing to influence public policy or public perceptions. The First Amendment protects "the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances."

It would be nice if they were held accountable to the constitution in many of their member institutions. Our developer run HOA recently passed a dissemination of information ccr that appears to violate the first amendment and they have used SLAPP-suits to silence those living in their communities as well as bogus violations. In light of the NJ supremes recent ruling I'm very concerned about the trend towards violation of the middle class in these private communities. Many residents do not want to get involved or battle these fights. Home is supposed to be where we "get away" from the daily stresses.

Anonymous said...

Well, I think the Twin Rivers case certainly gave us some direction on the application of the constitution to private contracts. It was clear from the court's findings that HOA's are not governments and therefore the private contractual relationship between an association and its owners is not subject to constitutional limitations.

And of course CAI tries to influence public policy. That is the purpose of any organization such as ours. The unique difference is that while most organizations such as the Bar Assocation represent a very homogeneous group (i.e. just attorneys) CAI represents all of the components of a very broadly based industry including association boards and homeowners, professional community managers, and a wide variety of business partners including attorneys, insurance professionals, painters, landscapers, and many others.

Anonymous said...

Quote: I realize that you think CAI is advocating for privatization of local government.Unquote

Good point Evan. The reality is the ship has sailed on the creation of HOA's. And the economic and personal disruptions associated with a 180 degree reversal would be unfathomable. Our purpose and the reason we educate thousands and thousands of homeowners and managers every year is that these folks (particularly the volunteers) are tasked with running these organizations and should have the tools to do it as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Unfortunately, for most people who volunteer on their boards it is a no-win situation. Some folks want the rules enforced strictly, others not at all, and still others want rules to apply to everyone but them.

Anonymous said...

The reality is any public policy -- including the privatization of local government expressed via state authorizing statutes and local government land use policies -- can be altered to any extent up to and including a 180 degree reversal or some other course of action. None is set in stone nor should they be in a dynamic, democratic society.

Anonymous said...

Tom Skiba said,

"CAI represents all of the components of a very broadly based industry including association boards and homeowners, professional community managers, and a wide variety of business partners including attorneys, insurance professionals, painters, landscapers, and many others."

How can CAI claim, as a tax exempt 501(c)6 business trade group, to represent consumers? And the consumers of CAI member services, such s management firms and attorneys, are the HOAs and homeowners whose interests conflict with the business interests of the trade group. Wouldn't you agree that board memebrs are in a conflict of interest position between fiduciary duties to the HOA and their their support of CAI as a member of CAI?

Or, does CAI see HOAs as a business, and board members have the duty to the business entity, the HOA, not to homeowners as are all truly democratic representative public governments, who truly repesent the people?

Anonymous said...

I can't decide if Mr. Staropoli just can't read or his misinterpretations are nothing more than willful deceit to somehow advance his arguments. He quotes a line from one of my previous emails and then gives it an interpretation that defies logic and the English language.

I never claimed or hinted that we were a "consumer" organization. I stated very clearly who we represented in our membership. In fact, over 50% of our membership is made up of homeowners in community assocations. Some of them are board members and some are just homeowners in their communities. And just like the managers and other members, homeowners have a full voice in our organization, participating in policy development, serving on the board, and leading the organization.

And no I don't think there is a conflict of interest on the part of a board member who is using their CAI membership to educate themselves in the proper operation of the association for which they have a fiduciary responsibility and an ethical obligation.

And of course HOA's are businesses and the board has express legal and fiduciary responsibilities to the organization and by extension to all of its owners. HOA's are not governments despite the fact there is an elective process to select the board. Decades of legislation, case law, and practice have made this perfectly clear. Just recently it was further reinforced by the NJ Supreme Court's decision in Twin Rivers. Interestingly, although the Court applied a much broader and "liberal" legal test re: speech in relation to the NJ Constitution, they also quickly and almost casually dismissed the argument that associations were governments.

Anonymous said...

Tom,

The past CAI president hired by a large land development company has been doing their bidding and not the homeowners in our community. We had over a thousand signatures against an action by our developer run board that would hurt our collective home values yet the CAI former pres and GM, hired by the developer, over-ruled us on ever attempt to get compromise. They did not and DO NOT represent my or thousands of other owners interests, but there own, only!