My Comments Prior to the Board Election

Here is my perspective about the candidates and the core issues which influence my vote.

Since purchasing 6-1/2 years ago at BLMH our property values have consistently increased. I attribute that in part to the city we live in but also to the fact that the board has a program in place to preserve or enhance the value of our condominiums. To put it another way, the value of our units is in large measure due to the excellent condition of the BLMH complex and it's current financial health. At present, our financial reserves are growing, the complex is well maintained and the board has plans in place to handle some of the major maintenance issues, such as the repair of the roofs. This complex is 30 years old and there will be increasing challenges ahead as the BLMH infrastructure ages and continues to deteriorate. It is our board that will be charged with making the difficult choices we face ahead. It is our choice as unit owners to invest in BLMH or not. Either way, there will be consequences. I would hope that this association will continue to be well maintained so that my property values are protected and we will continue to have the wonderful grounds and views from our windows and balconies. However, these are privileges which are not guaranteed. They are purchased with the funds I put in my assessment envelope each month. The decision of how to use those funds will rest with the board we elect tonight.

For this election, there are two groups, comprised of members of the existing board and a new group called the “Residents of Change”. The ROC is represented by three candidates.

I have two sources of information for making my selection and voting. I have my observations of the actions of the current board, the budgets, the monthly newsletters and I have a campaign letter mailed to me by the ROC. In response to that campaign material I wrote a four page letter to each of the ROC candidates on September 11. The ROC response included comments to my letter, an email, a “FAQ” and an “ROC Survey”.

I conclude that this election is about resources, communications and possibly misplaced anger. This association has finite personnel on the board, volunteers and limited funds to address the concerns of the unit owners. How these resources are allocated determines the quality of life here at BLMH. As I have stated elsewhere (in my blog) and in my letter to the ROC, I see the unit owners as a diverse group. I also view “change” as not always a good thing. The unhappiness about increasing assessments is an expression about unwelcome change.

Each board member has what I call an “open ended” agreement. They have to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the “Powers and Duties” of their position and they have limited time each day to do that. So if there is anger or outrage on the part of some unit owners, perhaps it is because we have failed to support the board in fulfilling their duties. If there are complaints about “being heard”, then a larger question is what can we as unit owners do to assure that our board members are available to be heard? The issue is not about making other people wrong but about seeking solutions. The board is in the hot seat of providing the time and making the critical decisions. I am but a unit owner, mostly an observer, sitting in the audience and expecting it will all turn out to my personal satisfaction.

The ROC Candidates, in their material, make statements from which I conclude that they feel they would do a better management job than the current board. The only way to know is to elect them and find out. There are risks in doing so.

It is very easy for things to get out of hand, and simple decisions made with good intentions by our board can have consequences for many years. The assessment decisions made in the period 1982 to 1998 have today affected each and every unit owner living at BLMH. During that period, a decision was made to hold the increases in assessments to a low value, an average of 2.59% per year. During that period unit owners were apparently happy, even though the association was going broke. However, when my spouse and I conducted informal interviews of residents while making our decision to purchase, there were complaints about the increases to assessments in 1999 and 2000!

In my letter to the ROC candidates I asked a lot of questions about their positions regarding assessments and budgeting. Why? Because I don’t want a repeat of the decisions made in 1984 to 1998 and which culminated in the financial condition of this association. There is every indication that the board was the “voice” of the unit owners in that period and as such, some poor financial decisions were made. The ultimate result was last year’s meeting in which to quote the ROC candidates “outraged residents demanded a reduction in the proposed 8% increase”. I wonder if there were any outraged members attending meetings in 1984 after a 10% assessment increase? The following year, the assessment increase was 0%.

Unfortunately, the ROC candidates have not revealed to my satisfaction how they will provide better management of the BLMH. On the issue of rising monthly assessments which resulted in a stormy association meeting last year, the ROC has stated in a written response to my letter of September 11 that “Interestingly, you are only the second person to ask about the rising assessments! We've been surprised that that topic is not first on everyone's mind, but it seems that the other issues surrounding the board have taken precedence”. The ROC candidates stated in the response to my letter that “Our election is not about expenses and assessments” and in that same e-mailing to me, the ROC candidates also stated that the ROC was formed at “last year’s budget meeting when outraged residents demanded a reduction of the proposed 8% increase” [to assessments].

The ROC candidates also have stated in their communications to me that “being heard… is really what the residents care about now”. In that same response to my letter, they further stated that “The current system allows no communication. Again, see our [enclosed] FAQ”.

The ROC candidates say that communications is not possible, and people aren’t being heard. But they also say in their published material that we, the residents were heard and as a result the proposed 2008 assessment increase of 8% was reduced to 5.5%!

I am a bit confused by these and other conflicting statements made by the ROC candidates. It may well be that the ROC is a good idea, but their candidates aren’t up to the task of board management.

As a resident, I have successfully communicated with the current and previous BLMH boards. By “successfully” I mean that I received responses that included letters, memos and telephone calls. I have attended several monthly meetings and all but one annual election. Sometimes what I was writing to the board or the management company was acted upon in the way I wanted and sometimes it was not. However, whether or not the board and our management company do what I want as I express my complaints or requests is not a measure of successful communication. That is about outcome or results, which is a different matter entirely.

After receiving the response to my letter to the ROC candidates and reading it several times, I debated about meeting with them but I decided against it. It is my position that they need to generate this, and not simply echo back my letters to me. For example, I noticed that the printed material they issue is not dated and I suspect that the “FAQ” and “Survey” were generated by the ROC candidates from my letter of September 11.

I must admit that some of what the ROC candidates have stated in their letter and publications did concern me, and the tone seemed undermining. There are five items in particular. There is the statement about “a majority of us” in their first mailing to me, but their unwillingness to even give me the number of units in that alleged majority, their slate to champion what they think are “forward thinking ideas” and possibly repress what they construe as backward thinking ideas, their agenda of fear; i.e. the current board is to be feared and will “retaliate” on unit owners, their statements that “there is no communications with the board”, and their opaque agenda regarding the projects they would fund from our assessments.

After reading their response and their materials, I find the ROC candidates to be an enigma. There is no doubt they want to place themselves on the board. Their primary agenda seems to be “trust us” and we’ll do a better job than the other candidates and the current board.

Things at BLMH are not perfect. I know communications could be better. So the choice is to vote for a group professing change and who thinks they can do a better job and hope it all turns out, or vote for the existing board. Either way, I now have the knowledge that there are some unit owners who are very unhappy and will continue to press their agenda, whatever that is. As an individual who has made a living successfully “managing change” I know it isn’t easy and I also know as a successful businessman that some of the choices facing this board are “mutually exclusive”.

As for the ROC, I am most disappointed that they have chosen to use the fallout and consequences of responsible decisions made by this board as a springboard for their candidacy. Most notably the “outrage” of unit owners over the assessment increases. In their material to me, the ROC candidates have not promised that they can or will reduce assessments or expenses. Merely that they will “keep our assessments as low as possible”. Which implies that it is the belief of the ROC candidates that the current board is not. The ROC candidates unwillingness to make promises about the management of BLMH that affects the bottom line, that is, my assessments, leads me to conclude that they know the board is hamstrung by decisions made nearly 25 years ago or they are oblivious. Either possibility is chilling.

There is the problem of “outraged” unit owners and how they treat our volunteers. I must have missed most of the confrontational meetings. I wonder how our board has been treated by “outraged” unit owners or those who harbor “bad blood” as the ROC calls it? Would these “outraged” unit owners been less “outraged” after last years budget meeting if the assessment increase had not been reduced? Is this about “being heard” as the ROC candidates say, or is it really about getting our way?

Honesty and the ability to manage are my greatest concerns about any of the board candidates. Hindsight is wonderful and forward thinking may be desirable but what we really need is foresight.

Quoting Gandhi in the ROC literature was a nice touch but for the business of managing and running a condo association with a million dollar annual budget, I think the following is more appropriate:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana.
“A goal without a plan is just a wish”. Antoine de Saint-Exupery.