CAI-NJ Sep.2016

LICENSING... from page 32.

imposed upon anyone who was engaging in the practice of provid- ing community management services. The license requirements would not apply to an officer or member of a community association who per- formed management services for no fee/compensation or an attorney, CPA; engineer or other licensed pro- fessional. One would not need to obtain a license if they were a direct salaried employee or performed only ministerial or clerical functions such as bookkeeping for a community associ- ation or management company, also another issue of importance to the task force members. A superinten- dent employed by such a community association would also not need to be licensed. Much debate occurred during the task force meetings with regard to licensing requirements and qualifica- tions. It was decided that a candi- date for the license would need to be at least 18 years of age, have successfully completed an approved training program and examination. It is anticipated that any manager who had acquired a CMCA from CAI or AMS from IREM would be grandfa- thered for a short period of time and not be required to take the examina- tion to be developed by the Board. A nonnegotiable requirement from CAI National was that the proposed legislation would impose a man- datory insurance requirement. An employee dishonesty policy in at least the amount of the monies under the control of the community association manager would be required. The policy would be applicable to a

anticipated because the only focus of the legislation and any Board subse- quently created was to implement and monitor the requirements applicable to a community association manager in New Jersey. In addition, CAI attempt- ed to explain that expense required to implement the omnibus legislation enacted in Virginia (an estimated $1.2 million), was not an apples to apples comparison of the scope and effect of the limited manager licensing legislation which had been proposed in New Jersey. The original proposed legislation would create a Community Manager Board consisting of 9 members, all with 3 year terms and a 2 year term limit. There would be 2 pub- lic members, 1 member from the executive branch of government and most importantly, 6 members who were licensed community association managers. All members of the Board would serve without compensation. The requirement that a majority of the Board consist of those in the commu- nity association manager industry was of utmost importance to those on the task force. The requirement to obtain a com- munity association man- ager license would be

residents of community associations. This bill was passed by the Senate on January 9, 2014, passed by the Assembly on January 13, 2014 and pocket vetoed by the Governor on January 21, 2014 due primarily to an estimated annual expense of $1.2 million dollars which would impose an unwarranted financial burden on the State. This annual estimated expense was both a surprise and mystery to those who had been working on the pas- sage of the bill. Following a discus- sion with the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs a short time after the bill was pock- et-vetoed, it was made clear to those attending that the DCA expected the floodgates to open with regard to the receipt of owner complaints and that additional staffing and technology would be required to handle the large increase of complaints anticipated to be received. CAI-NJ has

attempted to convince the DCA that staffing increases and techno- logical upgrades would not be required

to the extent

that they

"Much debate occurred during the task force meetings with regard to licensing requirements and qualifications."

CONT I NU E S ON PAGE 35

© iStockphoto.com

34

S E P T E M B E R , 2 0 1 6