The California Association of Realtors’ proposed board restructuring has become a test of whether organized real estate can demand transparency from others while preserving meaningful representation within its own institutions.
At its fall business meetings in Long Beach, CAR discussed a proposal to reduce a board of more than 800 directors to 511. Supporters describe the change as a way to make the association more nimble and adaptable. Critics argue that it concentrates authority among existing insiders.
CAR’s first comprehensive Governance Review in three decades matters beyond California. As a national bellwether for trade associations, the proposal exposes a central trade-off: whether administrative efficiency justifies weakening member access to power.
Efficiency is not the same as representation
The case for a smaller board is straightforward. Large governing bodies can be slow, expensive and difficult to coordinate. Reducing seats may improve decision-making and create clearer accountability.
The harder question is who gains and loses power when those seats disappear.
According to figures presented during the governance debate, local association seats would decline by 65.5%, while seats for the existing insider group would fall by only 11.6%. The proposal would also increase the insider group’s voting power to nearly half of the new board and use staggered Executive Committee terms to preserve continuity.
That distribution suggests the likely winners and losers. Established leaders would surrender some seats but retain a substantial share of the smaller body. Local associations and members without direct access to that leadership would lose proportionally more influence.
Efficiency has limited value if the people affected by a trade association’s decisions have less ability to shape them.
A 1.02% response rate is not a mandate
The proposal’s consultation record makes the representation question more difficult to dismiss. CAR’s official member survey generated 1,840 responses from roughly 180,000 members—a reported response rate of 1.02%.
That low turnout does not prove that members oppose the restructuring. It does mean the Task Force had limited evidence of broad consent.
Low participation is also not a blank cheque for leadership to redesign the board without scrutiny. The task force said the review had a broad mandate, but the survey data offers a much narrower view of engagement. No plan for meaningfully engaging frontline members or granting them decision-making authority appeared in the review.
The task force deserves credit for allowing debate on the full proposal before more than 1,000 directors and members at the All-Director Town Hall. Open discussion is better than closed deliberation. It is not, however, a substitute for direct authority.
CAR’s openness claim faces an internal test
CAR champions public accountability and sponsors open governance for HOAs through SB 1238. That position makes its internal practices especially relevant.
The contradiction was visible beyond the town hall. At the 2026 Association Presidents Forum, a session officially designated as open to membership, CAR CEO Phil Hawkins asked everyone except Presidents, Presidents-Elect and Association Executives to leave before President Tamara Suminski’s address.
CAR’s press office said the exclusion was part of the program design, while also noting that the forum was intentionally intended for a specific leadership audience. That distinction may be reasonable operationally. It does not resolve the broader governance concern: dues-paying members excluded from a leadership forum cannot easily judge whether the association is advancing their interests.
Transparent observation rights are important, but observation is not influence. If access to governance proceedings remains controlled by the people being observed, openness becomes a communications exercise rather than a check on power.
Why this matters for members and the wider industry
For brokers and agents, the practical issue is representation. A smaller board may still produce effective policy, but members should expect a clear answer when organizational priorities conflict with the needs of ordinary practitioners.
For other organizations in the industry, CAR’s review is a warning about incentive structures. “Nimble and adaptable” can sound member-first even when the redesign primarily preserves continuity for incumbents. The relevant test is not whether the board has fewer seats. It is whether members can identify who receives authority, who loses access and how leaders can be held accountable.
Restrictive eligibility rules also raise questions about consistency. If CAR expects public governance standards in the marketplace it influences, its internal rules should be able to withstand the same scrutiny. That does not decide any legal question; it identifies the standard the association should apply to itself.
Decision checklist for evaluating the proposal
Members and governance observers should ask:
- Does the restructuring reduce administrative friction without reducing member influence?
- How are board seats allocated among local associations, individual members and leadership groups?
- What powers will remain with the Executive Committee?
- Are leadership positions open to every member in good standing?
- Can members vote directly on leadership appointments?
- Will eligible members have enforceable rights to observe governance proceedings?
- How will CAR explain the conclusions drawn from a survey with a 1.02% response rate?
The task force’s reports, proposals and FAQs are available through CAR’s Governance Resource Hub. Members should use them to compare the present structure with the proposal rather than judging the reform by its headline goal alone.
What to watch next
The final proposal is the first test: whether it adds direct member authority or simply preserves an inner circle under a smaller label. Watch the eligibility rules, seat-allocation formulas and Executive Committee structure.
The Town Hall also warrants a written response. CAR should explain which objections it accepted, which it rejected and why. Candidate access and member voting rights will reveal more than another assertion about efficiency.
A smaller board can be efficient without being legitimate. CAR’s review will ultimately be judged by who retains power—and whether ordinary members can affect that power.
Key takeaways
- The proposed reduction from more than 800 directors to 511 requires proof that efficiency gains justify concentrated authority.
- A 1.02% member-survey response rate is too thin to treat as broad consent.
- Direct voting rights and open eligibility for leadership would provide a stronger member-first test than consultation alone.
Frequently asked questions
What would CAR’s proposed governance restructuring change?
It would reduce the association’s board from more than 800 directors to 511. The proposal is presented as a way to make CAR more nimble and adaptable.
How many members responded to the official CAR survey?
The survey received 1,840 responses from roughly 180,000 members, a reported response rate of 1.02%.
When and where did CAR discuss the governance review?
CAR discussed it during its fall business meetings held from October 6 to 9, 2026, in Long Beach.
Why is CAR’s position on SB 1238 relevant to the debate?
CAR advocates greater transparency and open governance for HOAs through SB 1238, which makes questions about openness and member representation within CAR especially important.
