A new structure has been agreed for the NAEA, replacing branches with regions.
The decision, announced as being to do with ‘the future of communication’, was approved last week by the Members’ Advisory Forum, and the NAEA says the new structure is to be implemented shortly.
However, the original aim, to abolish all branches, has been tempered by a decision by some branches effectively to reprieve themselves. Several successful branches which have well-attended meetings were unhappy with the restructure proposal.
The NAEA is now recruiting for posts of regional executives. The application forms give a job description but do not say whether the posts will be paid or voluntary. Each is expected to take up around 16 hours a month and the appointments will last for two or three years.
There are ten regions proposed, of which the smallest geographically is the London area and the largest is the whole of Scotland. Other large regions include the South-West, which takes in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, whilst East Anglia includes Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire.
Applications for the new regional posts have to be returned to Arbon House by April 27, and interviews with shortlisted candidates will be held in the weeks commencing May 9 and 16.
Former NAEA president Stewart Lilly said: "The reognisation will prove a turning point in the history of the NAEA - unfortunately, I feel, the wrong turning.
"They are now advertising for area/regional directors to spend approximately 16 hours per month working for nothing. The main job of these people will be to inject enthusiasm into members, including the very same members who are now being told they are unable to use the NAEA logo unless they are licensed. The new structure also means that Arbon House has financial control of those regions/branches. The previous independence that branches enjoyed is now lost. Very sad.
"Many members have written to me objecting to the reorganisation and are very angry. Members appear to be totally disenfranchised by those whose salaries they pay. All members seem to receive are rules and costs. I feel it is indeed tragic, but time will tell."
Comments
The truth is that the NAEA is wilting in its appeal
In a time of cost cutting by agents and now cost management, agents are less prepared to subscribe, nor do they want to give up a days vals and viewings to treck miles for an NAEA day etc.
The correspondence courses are really good, so maybe the NAEA should concentrate on being a training organisation.
It has wasted so much money on Property Live that the agents cannot get behind, because the public have never heard of it - (perhaps shares in this could be sold off to raise funds to promote it in order to replace RM etc)
Press releases are more about the fame of PBK than promoting NAEA agents
Sorry guys, reducing the number of meetings is the tip of your iceberg
@Ian
The NAEA was not set up to be inferior to the RICS.
It was started to represent the interests of those specialising in the SALE of residential properties when the RICS was trying make this a 'closed shop' for themselves.
The RICS up to then did virtually nothing to actively market residential properties (look at old newspaper ads and pictures of premises) Residential tenants were treated as low life. I know, I was there!
Unfortuately the NAEA has completely lost the plot which was primarilly to look after the interests of its members - not to be a consumer protection organisation - although consumers were always a major consideration..
Solve the NAEA- Remove the silly paid for initials, make a serious qualification and barrier to entry, insist on CPD and compliance to ALL regulations and the law of this land, then its a meaningful organisation not just a marketing con to fool the public.
Could even become respected enough to be able to run a redress scheme like the RICS. Less is more.
The NAEA was set up to be inferior to the RICS, it's achieved that at least, but time has changed, it has not.
Just a thought .... if the stats are to be believed, apparently local meetings are attended by less than 8% of the membership these days. For me, that says that for over 90% of the sub paying membership, the current branches structure, local as it is, is ineffective for their needs. Is it therefore so wrong for NAEA to take notice of this and to try to find a way to better engage with 90%+ of its members? Wouldn't it be irresponsible of them to ignore this? Has anyone come up with any viable alternative scheme (other than 'keep it the same' which is clearly not working, if the aim is to engage/reinvigorate the majority, or at least a larger minority of the membership)? I haven't yet read anyone suggesting a constructive alternative from the membership.
I would say lets see if the new structure improves the view of the membership around how it communicates with/delivers membership value/benefits to its members, before condemning it. If we're not careful, we will project an image to our public of a whining bunch of change-phobics desperate to keep reliving the good old days, when times have moved on.
Q: How many NAEA members does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: 'CHANGE???!!!'
Has anyone else noticed that past big cheeses eg. Messrs Lilly , HDH and Kent seem to have very little time for the NAEA?
It seems very, very strange. Normally past presidents of any organisation remain held in esteem - and hold a mutual view of something they were part of.
With the NAEA, its the opposite.
Honestly - does anyone really care?
As an Exeter boy, I have always regarded the South West as Cornwall (almost another Country), Devon, Somerset and Dorset. Gloucestershire (South Midlands) and Witshire (Southern England) don't really fall into this region and require a car service before venturing that far! I can envisage tribal warfare at Branch (sorry Regional) Meetings at this rate. "The natives are revolting!!"
Better story would be NAEA Axed.
Region 3 - East Anglia
This region covers 5 counties, an area from the Humber to the Thames and the variations in the market culture within this area are very wide.
The idea behind this reorganization is to have better 'communications' and attendances at meetings.
However, how is just one 'regional executive' going to communicate with members within a huge area better than if done direct from Warwick? Also members will have very long journeys to attend meetings and many will not have the time to do so.
I do not know the answer to the problem as it is above my 'pay grade' but It seems to me that in this age of the internet Warwick can impart much info. and obtain feedback direct. to and from members very effecively.
So, the branch structure doesn't work but a regional structure will? Can someone explain. I thought this was meant to be the age of localism!
Also, if these new regional posts really are to be unpaid, then the only applicants will be the 'old guard', as they will be the only ones with sufficient time on their hands and the only ones able to afford to donate that time. I have nothing against the 'old guard' at all, indeed every respect, but is this really the future of the NAEA? I doubt it very much.