A recent opinion piece argued that real estate boards have “lost the plot,” suggesting that Realtors are being left behind in one of the most challenging housing markets in recent memory.
While the article raises valid concerns about governance, communication, and member engagement, it offers a narrow view that overlooks the broader realities and growing responsibilities of organized real estate.
The truth is more nuanced. The system isn’t broken, it’s evolving.
Boards don’t control markets — but they do shape resilience
Real estate boards are not economic policymakers. They don’t set interest rates or lending criteria. What they do control is how they lead, how they govern, and how they support members during times of uncertainty.
That’s where strong governance becomes essential. While some boards may have missed opportunities to comment on larger economic issues, others have embraced a more strategic approach by choosing informed, deliberate action over reaction. In turbulent times, effective governance isn’t just helpful; it’s essential. Strong boards focus not on short-term headlines but on the long-term health of the profession and the associations that support it.
It’s also important to remember that board directors are Realtors themselves. They face the same pressures of fluctuating markets, demanding clients, and economic uncertainty. Because they share these experiences, they understand members’ challenges firsthand and are better equipped to guide the organization in a direction that benefits the broader membership.
Governance isn’t about being louder; it’s about being thoughtful, accountable, and resilient. And part of that resilience is rooted in meaningful member engagement.
Member engagement: Your voice matters
Concerns about disengagement, such as low voter turnout and governance decisions made without broad input, are real and deserve attention. These issues aren’t unique to real estate; many membership-based industries face similar struggles.
But governance is a two-way street. Boards and associations can offer opportunities for involvement, but it’s up to members to participate. If we don’t vote in elections, attend meetings, or engage with board communications, are we truly holding leadership accountable?
Boards want to hear from us, not just during times of crisis, but continuously. They rely on our input to make informed decisions that reflect the needs of the entire membership. To have a voice, we must be willing to use it.
Reform is welcome — and already underway
Saskatchewan is a powerful example of what happens when reform is rooted in transparency, trust, and genuine engagement.
In 2017, a proposed amalgamation vote failed. Members felt the process wasn’t transparent enough. They didn’t feel heard, and they wanted more consultation. The message was clear: it was time to regroup and do it right.
The governance leaders of the legacy associations listened. They launched a province-wide engagement effort such as town halls, one-on-one visits, and open consultation. The result? In early 2019, members approved the amalgamation. And on Jan. 1, 2020, the new provincial association officially launched.
The first couple of years weren’t without challenges, but the foundation was strong. They stayed focused, and accountability to members was embedded into every decision. And decisions were made with a long-term vision, looking ahead, not just reacting to today.
Across the country, boards and associations are recognizing the need for stronger governance and deeper member involvement and many are taking action.
We’re seeing governance reviews, structural audits, and improved communication strategies. Boards are prioritizing member-driven policies, refining election procedures, and embedding transparency into every layer of decision-making.
These reforms aren’t radical, they’re responsible. They reflect a growing awareness that members expect more than just representation; they expect a voice, a vision, and a seat at the table.
When governance is done right, boards can get it right
Good governance doesn’t make headlines, but it lays the foundation for progress. When paired with active member engagement, it becomes a powerful catalyst for lasting change.
We’ve seen the benefits:
- Investments in long-term tools, education and technologies deliver meaningful value to members
- Transparency in decision-making builds credibility and trust
- Strategic foresight allows boards to prepare for future challenges instead of reacting to every market fluctuation
- Two-way communication keeps members informed, engaged, and empowered
Together, good governance and active engagement create an environment where boards can lead with purpose and give members the tools to thrive. Through stronger engagement and more thoughtful governance, we can build a more resilient, responsive future for organized real estate, one that serves the profession and the people behind it.
Progress takes all of us – are you doing your part?
Leadership must commit to transparency and accountability, and members must commit to showing up and speaking up.
Progress doesn’t rest solely with those in leadership roles. It begins with each of us. Good governance and member engagement equal a strong Realtor community – one we can be proud of.
- Are you reading your association-to-member emails?
- Are you showing up to education days and town halls?
- Are you providing feedback to your board when things are done right? Or only when expressing dissent?
- Are you volunteering for task forces and committees?
A stronger, more resilient real estate profession isn’t built by boards alone – it’s built by all of us, together. The future of organized real estate depends not just on how we’re led, but on how we show up.
Sheri Willick is a REALTOR® and Associate Broker with Coldwell Banker Signature in Saskatoon, with over a decade of real estate experience following a successful career in media advertising and fundraising. A respected industry leader, she has held key roles in organized real estate, including service on the Saskatoon & Region Association of REALTORS® Board of Directors and as Chair of its Government Relations Committee. Sheri played a pivotal role in the successful province-wide REALTOR® amalgamation and was recognized as Saskatchewan REALTOR® of the Year in 2019. In 2021, she served as Chairperson of the Saskatchewan REALTORS® Association Board of Directors, and continues to contribute to the profession at the local, provincial, and national levels. Beyond real estate, Sheri is an active member of the Saskatoon business community and has served on numerous non-profit and charitable boards. Tim Otitoju is the President of Realty Hub Brokerage, bringing over 15 years of real estate experience to the role. He has held numerous leadership positions at both the local and provincial levels and continues to contribute to the industry through active service on local and national committees.
Tim Otitoju is the President of Realty Hub Brokerage, bringing over 15 years of real estate experience to the role. He has held numerous leadership positions at both the local and provincial levels and continues to contribute to the industry through active service on local and national committees.
Well said !
Excellent article. Well said. What has changed, that is never written about or addressed, is that Brokerages have changed. It is a market place of , “Independent Contractors”. This is when every sales rep went to work from a basement office and stopped going to an office environment. I would guess that 98% of all important information from associations is never heard of by members. Every meeting I have ever attended when a controversial issues is being addressed, I hear the following statements. “When did this happen?” “No one ever told me about this.” “Why were we not informed about this?” I guess these members never saw the regular news letters, the regular emails sent to them, the notices sent to brokerages, the group social media posts. And so on. Typically ALL the information has been passed onto members through effective communications, but falls on deaf ears. Maybe it is time to start point the fingers in wards.
Sheri and Tim: I appreciate the engagement with my previous piece, but let’s be honest about what’s happening here. Rather than respond to the argument I made, your piece builds a softer version of it and then sets about refuting that. You haven’t rebutted my claims , you’ve reframed them into something more comfortable.
You call my view “narrow,” but I’d argue the opposite. What’s narrow is continuing to evaluate board performance based on intent and effort rather than outcomes and accountability.
Let’s take Saskatchewan. The example is positioned as a model of member engagement, but the initial amalgamation vote failed, precisely because the process lacked transparency and member trust. Change didn’t come from internal foresight. It was forced by backlash. That’s not evidence of a system working well. It’s proof that reform happens in spite of the system, not because of it. What evolved was the willingness of the boards to engage. What remains archaic is the structure that gives boards disproportionate power over determining member priorities.
You also present member disengagement as a root problem. But that flips cause and effect. Members aren’t disengaged because they don’t care; they’re disengaged because they’ve learned how little their participation impacts decisions. Proxy stacking, low quorum thresholds, and procedural theatrics are all features, not bugs. If you want to talk about accountability, start there.
And while I respect that many board directors are working REALTORS®, that alone doesn’t make governance effective. I was one of those. I was also staff. Familiarity with the challenges of the business doesn’t address the deeper issue: the structure of organized real estate doesn’t require boards to be accountable to their members. There is no real mechanism for consequence. That’s the agency problem. That’s what’s missing from your response.
I stand by what I wrote: boards have lost the plot and members are paying for it. And until we’re willing to talk about governance in terms of power, control, and structural insulation; not just tone, participation rates, and isolated reform stories, we’re not evolving. We’re deflecting.
Great piece, Sheri and Tim. At Four Pillars Community Housing, we agree that organized real estate isn’t broken — but we also believe it must keep evolving if it’s going to stay relevant and valuable to members.
Today’s REALTORS® can’t just be salespeople. We need to be housing advisors, market interpreters, and community builders — and our boards need to equip us with the tools, education, and advocacy platforms to deliver on that expanded role.
It’s worth remembering that most boards are governed by volunteers, often elected through popularity rather than proven governance experience. That doesn’t diminish their commitment, but it does mean we all have to be intentional about ensuring the right skills, perspectives, and forward-thinking strategies are represented at the leadership table.
We know boards can do better — and so can we as members. If we’re going to meet the challenges of our changing housing landscape, it’s going to take engaged REALTORS®, relevant services, and governance that reflects the realities of our profession today and tomorrow.
Until boards and associations use term “ mandatory” there will be no two ways communication. It’s force, not communication.
Until boards take members to court for descend opinions, there will be no two ways communications.
Until boards do not stand at the members side and listen, rather then sell something, there will be no two ways communication.
Until boards realize that MEMBERS bring bread and butter to the table, not tools that boards provide, there will be no two ways communications.
Plain and simple.
Real estate will evolve, but into what?
This is the question.
A well written, and well thought-out article, thank you. In turn, my response may sound very simple and (possibly) ignorant. I’ve been licensed for 13 years. For the past decade, give or take, I’ve been in the top 10, 5, 3% …depending on the year. I mention that not to brag (it’s not in my personality) but to mention that I’m a realtor that does fairly regular, consistent business. All that aside, I must confess (perhaps embarrassingly) that I still don’t fully understand what it is that the board does. I understand that we’re provided an mls system (I use Realm – nice,) and documentation, and I know that our E&O provides insurance for when we make the very occasional booboo. But, that’s it. I honestly don’t know what else they do. I know, and have seen, the usual platitudes (for lack of a better word) of governance, advocacy, etc.. But those words don’t mean much to me. And, perhaps, therein lies an issue. I just don’t care.
If it’s just me, please feel free to disregard my comment here and I will have no qualms about it whatsoever (no hard feelings at all.) But, I get the feeling that it isn’t just me. I read the emails (ok – maybe I skim most of them,) and I’ve attended many of the meetings. Outside of a market report, most “items” on the agenda don’t interest me at all. Almost every meeting I’ve ever attended left me wondering if I shouldn’t have just stayed home and made some more prospecting calls. Some folks at the meetings get really fired up about this or that subject, and I’ve seen some very confrontational situations in board meetings even over the past year. But, all of them were over subjects that I (candidly) didn’t care much about at all. In all honesty, is it just me? Is this a me problem?
When it comes to business, my day is absolutely full. I’m prospecting, I’m working on advertising and marketing, taking care of customer service, admin work, etc, etc.. I look up, the day’s done, and I go to spend time with my family. I don’t know how any of that is affected by the board. Or, better stated, I don’t understand (again – forgive my ignorance) what it is that the board does. I could say the same for many of the other acronym groups and associations I pay money to every year (I don’t mind – I just pay and go.)
To sum up, and please forgive the longer-than-necessary response, what is it about the board (or CREA, OREA, etc…) that I should care about? I ask that sincerely. It’s been over a decade, and I still don’t know, don’t particularly care, and often wonder what the fuss (if there is any) is about.
This is the most honest thing written relative to all these opinion pieces in defense of the boards, albeit unintentionally. It goes hand in hand with the first two paragraphs by Val.
You sum up the first part of the problem:
Apathy. You and far too many board members, just don’t care.
Val, sums up the result of that apathy:
Adrift boards imposing mandatory and unnecessary edicts on the private affairs of their members and lawsuits to silence dissent is radical reform. Town halls where questions are met with canned answers or deflection and zoom meetings where questions are screened and sanitized isn’t transparency and engagement, it’s a propaganda platform.
It is not an excuse to hide behind the directors being volunteers since firstly, there is no alternative, there being no outside directors or advisory board allowed. Such a comment presupposes that all realtors are immune from immorality. As much as that will chafe some, it has to be said. The truth of that lies in discipline proceedings and court actions, nationwide.
Secondly, that the directors who step forward have a vested interest in the outcomes may be true, however that does not mean that those who are elected by virtue of popularity or brokerage number influence, are versed well enough to be effective governors of policy. Being an owner of a small private brokerage reliant on fees, does not translate into being a good governor of a larger yet still small, private association reliant on fees from diverse private brokerage members. This is not to dismiss the many who do try to do their best.
Thirdly, the system is not immune to those who seek to use it for their own gains. With volunteered directorships comes a stipend, hefty in some instances for some, several paid events sometimes used as boondoggles and free media presence that provides recognition and therefore self-promotion. It has no checks and balances to exclude those who may want to misuse it or are influenced to use it nor to allow as much review and control as possible from the few members, who do engage, care to pay attention, vote then express their open opinion about it to the membership. To paraphrase John Lusink of Ontario’s, perhaps even Canada’s largest brokerage, in his previous commentary, some use it as a vehicle to flit between lassociation directorships.
Lastly, What happens at board level stays at board level for the most part as little is reported out. Executive meetings are entirely kept from the membership. That is not transparency, only a veiled attempt at same that uses the curtain of laws which shield private and not-for-profit corporations from scrutiny
Maybe Saskatchewan’s amalgamated boards is considered evolution, but what has been happening here in Ontario suggests the evolution of the governing. not of the governed body or thr governed and it doesn’t appear Saskatchewan’s approach is being given much attention.
Some may sanitize it as much as they want, and those who do certainly fit in somewhere in the annals of multiple association directorships or leaderships. But the truth is, if this industry wishes to be seen as a forward evolution looking at all the positives espoused by this opinion piece, then the sanitizing and attemps to wrest control from the membership will have to stop. Education at new and renewal members level teaching the governance of organized real estate will need to be incorporated and, generating ways to incentivize agents like Andrew to want to care, will need to be found and implemented.
It is good that dissenting opinions are being papered now provided that further attempts to silence those do not arise.
Andrew:
Insightful are your comments.
The article in defending present (and inferred past) governors and governance, points the arrow at the heart of the individual members. Your remarks refocus the attention onto the role that governors are supposed to be in service to the shareholder and not in service to their own ideas alone. Your remarks emphasize, if there is a lack of member engagement, the resolution is one the governors are to make and encourage away from simply accusing us members of failing.
Confessing to not fully understanding what ORE does may be taken as if you have sinned, yet it is the lack of understanding many feel and it confirms the responsibility lies with ORE…and not so much to explain as it is to align themselves with the needs and fundamentally important wants of members.
It is not your or as you put it a “me” problem.
You correctly note the day is important at serving clients and apart from those tasks, the other time is important to family. Your client services are affected by ORE, all too often there is much that hinders and limits your service, but we all go on because really, change is not inevitably possible…so as you say, we just pay and go on.
For what one should care about?
Money horded by Boards under the guise of “reserve” funds; these have existed for over 30 to 50 years and so remarkably rarely used as to make their continued collection a visible failure to be accountable and in service to members (and their financial resources).
Rules and regulations for the performance of professional trade services which, arguably, are not mandated by law. While proposed as providing the fairest systems for trade and intentionally identified as necessary for clients, it begins to feel like our boards and our regulators too, are more interested in our clients welfare than we are perceived to be….and that is a serious problem that ORE seems to ignore. if we are so failing at service to clients, kick us out and have a fair and judicious system for doing so. I do not need a parent looking over my now 25th year in real estate.
Get out of the way of brokerages. Someone in this thread noted its the brokerages that have changed and infers therein lies the reason for the state of the ORE union. All that means is that ORE has failed to appreciate and act in respect of a regulatory framework that makes brokerages responsible, they are not in the way, they are in law the way and that they make money in the doing as a business model seems entirely fair and appropriate.
What is lacking is that ORE is an avenue for rank and file, non-brokerage, members to also be economically rewarded. However, they horde funds and charge for everything including that which we can either buy ourselves in a more competitive, non mandatory marketplace, or do not need at all.
For me it is not what should ORE be doing, it is more about what it should NOT be doing.
Well written opinion commentary from you. Appreciate the opportunity to listen to it and offer some related perspective.
To sum up, and please forgive the longer-than-necessary response, what is it about the board (or CREA, OREA, etc…) that I should care about? I ask that sincerely. It’s been over a decade, and I still don’t know, don’t particularly care, and often wonder what the fuss (if there is any) is about.
This opinion piece responds with an opening criticism of another opinion piece as being a “narrow” view of broader ORE realities of increasing responsibility, adding the system of ORE is not broken. Supporting this perspective are a few broad observations in defense of ORE which the authors here make is if they are fundamental.
The following is why those observations of the supposed nuanced circumstance of ORE ring hollow.
Apparently strong governance is essential in times of uncertainty. ORE does not control markets; they shape the members responsive resilience to tough times. Strong governance is evidenced by a “strategic approach” of action not reaction, focus on “long term health”. Yet the authors do not cite any fundamental change examples of action that was not reaction and improved the business interests of REALTORS®. What is noted is the Boards of ORE are REALTORS® who aware the “pressures of fluctuating markets, demanding clients, and economic uncertainty….” and “….are better equipped to guide the organization…”. That wonderfully democratic and strategic sounding logic should mean we are way ahead at exceptional governance, for over a century ORE has been governed by REALTORS®. Air Canada does not have as its governing directors only pilots and flight attendants, nor does Chrysler, Ford, GM, etc. have as its governors only those who build them or only those who buy them, and it is without exception that Canada Post only has its postal workers on the Board. The idea we are governed better because of who the governors are is folly, for if that is true we should not have to be evolving towards member engagement improvements, ORE should be the epitome of best practice.
The use of an idea that governance is not louder, and is more thoughtful, accountable, and resilient is an appropriate observation. Hard to see how ORE is accountable when it can mandate an unequal service to members and require equal payment therefrom.
ORE in Ontario likely has collective net assets of $120M to $150M even though being subject to the income tax act requirements this should be zero. Never mind this is allowed by non enforcement by CRA, the lack of use of those funds to increase the net worth of each member, even in a collective arrangement, seems not thoughtful, not providing means for individual member resilience in economic uncertainty, and surely is not particularly accountable.
The suggestion members voices matter includes an admonishment of members. No doubt many directors believe and the authors certainly believe, ORE has an open door and active means for member engagement. Surely they jest. Again, look at the OREA implementation of the ORWP the implementation of which had less than no ongoing input and when a significant amount of resistance was raised it went merrily toward implementation, without a pause or a care for the facts of the situation (which with respect to those who believe differently, and despite my own belief the facts of the decision making process hold true to it…it is my opinion). Or consider how many times and in what productive manner does ORE reach for member input?
I have yet to see a paper mail in ballot for any ORE elections, but have seen it many times from the corporations where I am a shareholder and get a return on my equity. to toss a rebuke, subtle thought it may be) at members voting records falls short of fairness.
It is disingenuous to suggest the lack of member participation is because of the members and not because they have found it wasteful to act engaged and only to discover acceptance of input is lip service.
ORE suffers a fundamental dichotomy, at least in the Ontario experience. The regulator framework places responsibility for professional conduct upon the brokerages who are legislated as employers of the registrant. The resulting business model is a brokerage must outperform minimum standards for training and offering aimed at securing above average compliance in their employees’ performance of client service. When ORE takes on that role, as they do, it becomes a competition between ORE and some of its members, principally the brokerages and also the individual registrant for they too are forced to accept the governors decision of required resources, software applications, and apps that we use in service of clients above what arguably can be obtained in the market on our own (which is not to say that the MLS systems could be individually managed.
Boards duplicate services brokerages and individuals would be better suited to supply and choose, resulting in members having to pay twice for redundancy. Please tell how that is thoughtful, accountable, and forward-thinking governance?
It used to be that we had in our MLS® system a thing called REALTOR® remarks. In that we could put information about showings, about the property that might be better understood and communicated to buyers by other registrants, about making offers, about any nuances related to commission, or warranties, and more. Today we have a field for showing remarks, a field for offer remarks, a field for REALTOR® remarks that is prohibited from including some aspects of showing remarks, offer remarks, commission nuances, and god forbid you mention that the seller will not accept some warranty liability. In the most fundamental and practical way, how did the supposed evolution of and the reform of ORE help when the governors made those decisions?
Boards have monkeyed with internal content to the MLS systems when a single provincial, never mind national, system is the most sought after and critical need of REALTORS®. Tell us how that is thoughtful, accountable, and positive governance.
Defending the status of ORE because it is reforming itself or is improving member engagement, and defending ORE slow to reach the ultimate best practices on the premise members are not doing their part is simply a false narrative. Members, me and many others among them, have sought change for many years and the brick wall of we have always done it this way got in the way.
I respect good people, REALTORS® provide meaningful, intentional effort, have the best of motivations, and are out to only improve ORE. Unfortunately, the system IS broken. No amount of good will of ideas and motives will have the necessary effect of real change and real progress. It will not in the next few years as it has not in the last 20-50 years. At least without revolutionary change, the molasses running uphill will attract our interest and yet not salve the taste need.
Am sure the many well intention directors in ORE appreciate the support of this opinion piece. Some may have felt maligned by the other opinion(s) in REM. Maybe the authors here felt the other remarks harsh and required balance, and that is fair balance is good. Still when we are looking into the eyes of the enemy it is us.
Here is an idea, rid ORE of its members as governors and put in its place real specialists in financial management, strategic planning and implementation, return on investment expertise, service improvement specialists with a penchant for getting value for input dollars, and put them to work on improving our organizations and let REALTORS® go back to doing what they are trained to do: help clients attain real estate results.
I love your comment. I am getting tired of every single detail that you get fined for. God help you if you put a comment in the wrong “realtor section”. Chaching….Also, let’s not forget that TRREB forced a FB group to shut down just because thousands of people were opposing the ORWP and the court case referred to as “grannygate”.
Bravo!
“Strong boards focus not on short-term headlines but on the long-term health of the profession and the associations that support it.”
Boards of directors decisions are made from a different vantage point than that of the general membership. This can create a gap in understanding why certain decision are made leading to frustration from the membership. Board decisions are made based on what is best for the majority of its stakeholders as well as the sustainability of the organization that supports them. To further add to the frustration, REALTOR’s are independent business owners with different needs and one size does not fit all. Boards of directors are challenged with these conditions knowing that their decisions will impact a percentage of the membership negatively, even though the decision is best for the greatest percentage of the membership. This reinforces the need for strong and informed members to step up and volunteer as directors in this time of rapid evolution. The successful launch of the Saskatchewan amalgamation in 2020 was proof of this. Well done Tim and Sheri.
100% Jason! Organized RE needs strong and influential members to get involved in plotting the course of our industry. Often you hear “I’m too busy” to make time and that is a real problem. It’s easy to point out problems from the cheap seats, but that accomplishes nothing. Before you offer criticism, ask yourself what have you done to help.
My challenge to my colleagues across the country is if you see yourself as a leader in your market and if you are unhappy about how your membership organization is being run or decisions made… Do something about it and make time for it and I guarantee you that you won’t regret it.
Great article Sheri and Tim!
Two ways communication will happen only when third party ( in this case OREA) cease to exist.
Only then there will be TWO ways, not THREE ways communication. That’s when accountability is established.
Otherwise we have double. Double forms as example, double reading emails, that we REALTORS suppose to react, read and be aware of. It’s like we have extra time on our hands, more than other humans do.
Moreover the need to dump guilt of wrongdoing ( and they know pretty well the issue with so called wellness program) will be eliminated. Two ways is two ways.
To the best of my knowledge MORE requirements are put on simple MEMBERS. The amount of paperwork is getting bigger, not smaller. These are merely facts. We are the ones that have to stick to more requirements, not less. Again, we are the one’s who have to understand and evaluate our clients needs. Based on that criteria we use the tool. Again, tools should not rule,
Another question arises… are we really a stakeholders?
In my understanding stake holding is partnership where partners understand unique needs of each other otherwise it’s two separate entities.
Jason, Jeff: I respect the intent behind your messages, but I fundamentally disagree with the premise that simply “getting involved” is the fix.
We’ve long been told that if we want change, we should run for the board. But let’s be honest: what power does one Director have in a system where five- and ten-year contracts are already locked in? Where legacy decisions are protected by institutional memory and legal insulation? A two-year term doesn’t undo a decade of opaque governance. One voice in a room bound by board solidarity is easily silenced or sidelined.
More importantly, we should ask: do boards actually know what’s best for their members and their associations? To govern well, you need good information but is the information Directors receive complete? Is it neutral? Or is it shaped by staff, legacy agendas, or consultants who are already committed to a certain path?
Do boards routinely ask members what they need? Not through carefully worded surveys, but in ways that allow uncomfortable truths to surface?
When members tell you that something isn’t working: that a decision has alienated, harmed, or ignored them, do you listen? Or do you explain it away, calling it a fringe opinion or a one-off case?
Further, you’re often required to volunteer for years just to be considered “ready” to serve. At some boards, that means being tapped on the shoulder by insiders. That isn’t democratic. That’s gatekeeping.
The truth is, when members raise concerns publicly, it’s not because they’re sitting in the “cheap seats.” It’s because the seats at the table are bolted to the floor. If the only path to influence is through years of unpaid service and selective vetting, then we haven’t built a representative system. We’ve built a fortress.
The call to participate only holds weight if the structure welcomes participation meaningfully. Until then, criticism from the outside isn’t apathy, it’s a symptom of disenfranchisement.