Chicago Agent Magazine followed up on our questioning of the Chicago Association of Realtors (“CAR”) commitment to the standards of professionalism set forth in the Realtor Code of Ethics by interviewing the two individuals mentioned in our post.
Mabel Guzman, President of the CAR Board of Directors, and Director Matt Silver of @properties both pleaded “human error” or “miscommunication” to explain their misuse of REBAC’s ABR designation.
To some, “human error” is just another name for ethical lapse.
And “miscommunication” is perhaps just another word for “I didn’t read it or didn’t understand what I read.” The REBAC site is very clear on when agents are entitled to use and continue using the ABR designation.
Chicago Agent Magazine quotes Silver as saying “The last two or three years I’ve been ABR-designated, but I didn’t want to be active anymore.” Silver’s Web page at @properties tells a different story. It was amended yesterday, after YoChicago’s follow-up post, to read “Matt held the Accredited Buyer’s Representative (ABR®) designation from 2000 through 2003.” Is that 7-year discrepancy a miscommunication or a human error?
Silver’s bio at @properties and his description on the CAR Board page still contain instances of “miscommunication” and / or “human error.”
At @properties, he’s identified as being QSC certified. The CAR Board page also identifies him as QSC certified, and as being a member of FIABCI. We’re unable to find Silver’s name in the database search on either the QSC or FIABCI site.
Where this leaves me is repeating my original question: is the CAR Board setting a bad example on ethics? Will it verify that what Guzman told Chicago Agent is accurate? Why did it delete only the reference to Silver’s ABR without verifying his other claimed credentials? Is claiming human error or miscommunication a sufficient defense to any ethical violation?
No related posts.