Awarding "Winners"

September is the annual meeting here at BLMH. It is also election month for the Board of Managers. This is an opportunity to make a few observations on the subject of elections and voting. Voting that is, by unit owners for representation and also debate and voting by the board during association meetings.

We have at least one current board member who has used the term "the majority" or "we the majority" when advocating specific positions here at BLMH.

I beg to differ.

The current system is one in which about one-half of the unit owners DO NOT vote, and about 10% of the unit owners and renters belong to the "Neighbors Club", including three or more board members. The numbers indicate this does not represent the majority. I am unaware of any recent board member achieving a vote of 51% of the 336 unit owners; specifically, achieving votes of 171 unit owners here at BLMH. Some of our board members are appointees, appointed by the "winners."

The voting system here at BLMH suffers from majority failure and is a plurality system.

So I think it is at best an exaggeration and at worst, untruthful for any board member to state or to believe that by election they represent the majority here at BLMH, and have achieved a mandate for "change." That is truly political! At best, being elected is "an opportunity to perform" and is an opportunity to "be of service."

The system merely produces "winners" who after collecting sufficient proxies have the privilege and opportunity to serve the unit owner body as members of the Board of Managers. I find it appalling that some seem to use their positions to enforce "fairness" in accordance with their own narrow and skewed definition of such. I also find it somewhat ironic.

I'll be publishing a post on the subject of "fairness" in the near future. I'll also be looking at how board action creates "winners" and "losers." This has been written while observing two years of "change" here at BLMH. (Note 2).

It is very important to realize that "silence means consent." That is why, on many issues, I am not silent. It is why the members of the board must be engaged at all times in a thorough debate. I have observed that when things go wrong, there are always those who will say "how could this happen?" I suggest we look in the mirror.

During our association meetings "Robert's Rules of Order" are not followed, referenced or adhered to in any meaningful way. I'm aware that the complexities of these "Rules" limit their application and that many organizations handle this by using abridged, published versions of the "Rules".

However, the point of the rules is to promote meaningful debate and to maintain order while that debate continues. It provides structure. However, it seems that the goal here is to limit debate and to toss out that which we don't understand. If that were taken to extremes in, for example, our finances, that would mean no balance sheet; simply a check book. The unit owners would simply be given a statement of the account balance at the end of each month. I'm waiting for the argument "that would be simpler, wouldn't it?" Besides, "everyone could understand THAT!" and finally "Is it FAIR to publish anything that unit owner's can't understand?"

I suspect that about two decades ago, that is how this association was managed. How else to explain years of 0% fee increases and even a "negative" fee increase? If this were a co-op or some form of social club, I suppose "giving back" of surpluses might make sense. But this isn't.

Our former architectural director was chided or criticized for "talking too much." I didn't always agree with his sometimes lengthy presentations, but I did understand he was attempting to communicate the "why's and the wherefore's" of what he was doing. He clearly understood that he was a representative. Of course if you believe you represent the majority, then I suppose you also believe that whatever you do is the will of the majority. That seems to fit the statement and position taken by certain board members.

For a group that has made the rules a focus and spends a substantial time talking about fairness and those "rules" its interesting to me that our board has for two years, "thrown out the book". As a consequence, debate is limited. The board seems to have forgotten that "committee" or "focus group" reports are merely recommendations!

It is only when presented to the assembly and the question is stated, that debate begins and changes occur. We don't get debate. We usually get quick presentation and then group voting in which it seems that the majority had made a decision prior to the association meeting. For any board member and particularly for the president to "vote with the majority" is a disservice to the association and to the unit owners.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References, Miscellaneous News
Note 1. I don't mean debate in the form that we see most frequently in our politicized society, or in legal dramas. I mean debate in which an open inquiry is made in which all aspects of a subject are explored and argued, including the benefits and potential problems. One of the purposes of such debate is to reveal or unconceal hidden flaws. We are all in the same association, aren't we? As unit owners, we are all equals. So board discussion should be from the perspective of how any measure will enhance or detract from all aspects of ownership and living here at BLMH, and if such motions may disturb that equality.... Shouldn't it? Board failure to thoroughly debate these issues creates winners and losers among the unit owners. It also creates enmity and feeds frustration and jealously. This may or may not be intentional.

Note 2. Here's a sneak preview of a post in progress. "Fairness" is a very subjective term. I see it frequently used to justify a position and to get a specific response, agreement and sometimes achieve a specific board vote. One particular manipulation is the statement "That isn't fair" or "That would not be fair." When I hear this, I always ask the question "Not fair to whom?" and "What specifically are they talking about?" All unit owners are equal in this association. If we are treated equally, uniformly and consistently, isn't that the "fairness" we should be striving for? If our board was really interested in "fairness" they would prioritize the promotion of that which supports such "fairness". Board members are supposed to be non-political. That, to me, means altruistic, which in this case is unselfish representation. In elections that would mean promoting the association which includes the active promotion of participation to achieve increased voting. If they don't promote such equality, then what are they promoting? And who benefits by this?

Our attorney made a presentation to the board and to unit owners. He stated that such things including lax collection procedures are "unfair" to all unit owners. But using someone else's definition, as spoken in this association, vigorous collection would be "unfair" to a few. In particular, those who are currently struggling to meet finances. Last year a unit owner told me "You are a hard man." Am I? Is it being less than considerate if I oppose spending association money to the specific benefit of a very few? Ineffective collection procedures benefit whom? I've suggested that those who are concerned take up the hat and pass it around. I'd like to get the "vote" tally of the number of hands that deposit something. However, talk is cheap as they say; particularly when it is someone else's money that is being spent.

Another question to ask: If I am in arrears with my payment of association fees, and our association follows published procedures for collection, is that "board repression?" I believe, based on statements made, that some here do believe that it is "repression." Would it be appropriate for anyone to run for the board or to use this as a justification to replace another board member? Who is really being "fair" in such a situation and who is not?

Some think that "fairness" is measured by how it is applied to "me" and by how "I" benefit from such application. Several years ago, the fact that the building occupied by the board president was the recipient of a a new roof, was alluded to as a glaring example of "unfairness" at BLMH. We have had three buildings with their roofs replaced. The list of the next roofs for replacement has been released. I haven't heard any of the loathing and nasty statements that were made under earlier, similar circumstance, although the current board president is in one of the buildings. Strange how this was so significant, but now "it's perfectly okay." I have stated repeatedly that if an association doesn't have written policies and procedures, and if management isn't significantly involved in the selection process for such upgrades, then people being people, such animosity and jealousy are frequently the result. Some previous board members, who have been replaced, understood this and a list of driveways most in need in 2009 was prepared by management. It would be wise to promote "fairness" that is not subjective and is unquestionable. Wouldn't this be a much better place to live?

Regarding our collection procedures, I did suggest an alternative to the board during an association meeting earlier this year. An alternative which would improve our collection procedures with no onerous methods that could be construed as "repression." The board did not respond and nothing happened. So I suppose our Accounts Receivables continues to increase. That is money owed us. Under the law, this association may never collect all of it, and perhaps only a small fraction. That was explained to the board and to the unit owners who were present, by our attorney. Is it "fair" that fee paying unit owners should carry the burden of the unpaid fees of others? Our attorney says "no."

Note 3. My goal here is to provide information and stimulate debate. I also want to provide uniformity. Everyone should hear or be told the same thing. I'm not tailoring any of this to YOU specifically, so your neighbor won't be reading something different than you are, on this blog. However, saying one thing and then another, in other words, telling people what they want to hear, that's politicking, isn't it?

I once received an email from the president of the board requesting that I send an email list or statement rather than a copy of this blog. I declined because this blog and for example, the post on "Increasing Unit Sales" was intended to engage you and to solicit a reaction and perhaps some action from you and the board. If nothing more than to ask "why not?" It worked, and got my point of view to at least one of the board. There wasn't any public board debate. It didn't result in any specific, committed action.

Note 4. I understand that the "Neighbors Club" stated that about 90 people attended the "summerfest" picnic in 2009 and that this year, the attendance was about 65. Why the lowered attendance? The party was posted in the lobby of my building and I assume, in the lobby of all buildings. I could not attend because of an out of town conflict. I can't speak for others. I understand that vacation travel is 'up' this year. Perhaps there were fewer residents in the area the scheduled weekend? Or perhaps simply less interest? Pick the statement that supports your position, that's the way things are usually done here!