These are highlights of the June 12, 2009 Association meeting. The meeting ran from approximately 7:00 until 9:45 and exceeded allowed time. The meeting was attended by approximately 15 unit owners, which represented 4% of the unit owner population.
I didn't report on the May Association meeting. It has become apparent that information from the meetings will not be included in the Association Newsletter, and has been replaced by topics selected by the Communications Director and the Newsletter Committee.
I have decided to routinely present the highlights of all meetings that I attend in this blog, and I will attempt to attend each monthly Association meeting.
At the conclusion of this post I have some comments on the meeting and also some comments regarding the state of official communications in the Association.
Board of Managers discussion topics included:
- Block Party Status, issues and concerns.
- Treasurer Report and concerns regarding association legal and financial liability and budget overruns .
- Landscaping Director request for approval of funds for special projects.
- Architectural Director presentation of roofing shingles, approval of color and window types.
- Landscaping Director and Architectural Director discussion of Bid Procedures.
- Discussion of Budgeting. Treasurer will give update on funds spent but not budgeted. This will be presented during the July meeting.
- Newsletter discussion including content, materials, costs.
Unit Owner Forum discussion topics included:
- Unit owner landscaping requests and demands.
- Unit owner discussion of newsletter printing and materials.
- Unit owner complaints of dead and dying trees, and condition of gazebo.
- Discussion of conflicting requirement by Unit Owners placed upon the Board, including contradictory financial demands.
- Threat of legal action by a Unit Owner regarding current schedule for upgrading patio railings.
- Discussion of damaged roof section by Unit Owner.
- Request for discussion by Unit Owner regarding inconsistent bid procedures.
At the conclusion of this specific post, there are some general comments pertaining to the meeting.
Here are the meeting highlights, presented in two sections:
Board of Managers Discussion of Association Business
Report by the Communications Director to the Board regarding the status of the Block Party. She advised that the date, time and location had been determined. The board President stated that the party would be as agreed by the board, not the individual. When asked about the results of a follow-up on insurance, the Communications Director acknowledged that there were insurance company stipulations. Liquor was totally prohibited by the insurance company. During the discussion it was apparent the Board of Managers were uncomfortable with possible liability by the association. The differences between off site and on property parties were discussed. Off property location at the park across the street was discussed. All residents of BLMH will be invited and that includes renters and owners. However, it will be impossible to restrict access to unit owners only, and neighbors may choose attend even if not invited. The Landscaping Director made a statement regarding his personal experience at another location in which a party was held on public property, rather than Association property. It seems that the party will require additional insurance, at additional cost to the association, perhaps $1,500 for an insurance rider. During the discussion several unit owners repeatedly booed, jeered and expressed other forms of verbal intimidation of members of the board when they did not immediately and without question agree with the position of the Communications Director, and as the board asked questions about when, where, how and how costly this event might be.
The discussion continued and the Treasurer gave a brief summary of liability issues to the Board and to the Unit Owners who were present. The Board discussed the specific concerns regarding the Block Party. It was stated that the Association can be sued in the event of mishap or if any member attending the party did not adhere to the stipulations of the insurance company, as reported to the Board by the Communications Director. The Treasurer expressed concerns the insurance could be voided and the association would be liable for any financial consequences. He stated that “we live in a litigious society”. His statements were met with boos and jeers from some of the unit owners present. [Comment: Financial burden and responsibilities pass first to the Association, and then to the individual Unit Owners. In the event of a dispute which is not covered by insurance or if it exceeds insurance coverage or insurance is voided, judgment would collect from the Association reserves first, and if those were not adequate, then individual judgments would be made against each unit owner. These would result in a lien against the property. Until the judgment is fully paid, the unit owner would be prevented from selling his or her unit.]
Request for funds by the Landscaping Director for special projects. Apparently a bid was solicited from one contractor for a list of projects. The list was provided by unit owners who attended the May meeting and the Landscaping Director’s personal observations. About $18,000 is expected to be spent at 16 addresses. The Landscaping Director discussed this with the Board of Managers, requested approval of funds, but it did not come to motion or vote.
Discussion of the roofing project with a presentation of samples of the shingles by the Architectural Director. Shingle color was approved by the Board. The Architectural Director made a presentation of three window types. This is a deviation of the original plan, but cost would remain at $500 per window for the originally approved window type. He stated that on reflection he realized that a Unit Owner may have a preference of a different manufacturer's window, and would like to use them throughout the unit. The director researched the alternatives and decided to provide the Unit Owners with a selection of slider windows with brown (or "bronze") exterior and white interior. This was also prompted when the director discovered that the original bidder did not make a patio window. This decision permits the B unit owners to be given the opportunity to choose a window from one of three manufacturers, which could be used throughout their unit. The colors and use of three window manufactures was approved by the Board.
Discussion on bid procedures and certain aspects of the roofing project. The Landscaping Director confronted the Architectural Director about the issue of bids for adding a concrete pier under the wooden beam supporting the gazebo roof entrances or the new shed roofs. As has been discussed at several association meetings, the roofing project will include some concrete work when shed roofs are added, or support beams are repaired. This may include drainage work at the entrances and possible sidewalk entrance replacement. It has been stated that this will be determined on a building by building review. The Landscaping Director stated he could not understand why this work did not go out for competitive bids. The Architectural Director advised that the amount of concrete for the pier, for example, was less than one-half yard. He stated that there were issues of practicality. This did not satisfy the Landscaping Director.
Budgeting. The Treasurer provided his report and advised the Board that he is planning on presenting information about cost over-runs in different areas. Decisions must be made about how to modify the budget to move money to those accounts. Where will it come from? All unit owner fees for 2009 have already been assigned to budget areas. The treasurer pointed out that this is not his decision alone and that when board members decide to spend money, they need to also have a discussion of where that money will come from.
Newsletter. The Board discussed cost increases in the newsletter, and a request was made to reduce gray space and photo areas and consideration be given to non-glossy paper. The Communications Director agreed to look into this. At the mention of modifications there were boos and jeers from some unit owners. A discussion of cost increases resulted in shouts from the audience. One individual pointed out that at one time the Association paid a fee to an individual to deliver the newsletters. Volunteers now do the delivering. However, apparently the cost has doubled. We’ll know more at the July meeting when specific budget items and over-runs are discussed.
Unit Owners Forum
As usual, among the unit owners there were cheerleaders or proponents of one agenda or another. Some come prepared for the topics such as the newsletter or to pass their requests for landscaping improvements to the Landscaping Director when this topic comes up, as occurred during the May meeting. How do these people know? I assume they have had advance conversations with the Communications director or the Landscaping director. As there is no formal announcement, the vast majority of us are unawares.
There was a discussion by unit owners about how well the newsletter was received and a conversation was related with someone who thought the newsletter was “very professional” . A unit owner who stated that he was on the city's Environmental Commission stated that the newsletter was wasting paper and suggested non-glossy, less expensive stock. He also requested that the newsletter include recycling information. It was pointed out that the local Sun newspaper includes the same inserts he wanted the Association to use, and that this would be redundant.
A couple complained about a dead or dying tree and the condition of the gazebo. They were belligerent and stated "Where does all the money we give each month go? What do we get for all the money we pay to you people?" They stated they would not serve on the board, but prefer to criticize, or words to that effect.
This and other statements by unit owners about newsletter costs, gaps in the maintenance of the grounds and the complaint “what do we get for our money” resulted in a brief discussion among the board members, led by the Architectural Director and Treasurer, about attempts to hold the line on maintenance and landscaping expenditures. However, it was noted that there are conflicting demands by unit owners. In this meeting there was a discussion about $18,000 for landscaping improvements beyond the spring maintenance and so on. It was pointed out that critical repairs such as roofs take a precedent over landscaping. [Comment: It is my observation that the purpose of the unit owner outburst was to intimidate the board in an attempt to get approval of the $18,000 landscaping projects. ]
A unit owner threatened legal action to get a new style railing on his patio. Standard association policy is and has been to install a mesh over the existing railings for any unit owner who is concerned with the dimensions of the openings in the existing railings. In response to this unit owner’s complaint, mesh has been installed. However, the unit owner was still dissatisfied and pronounced the railings to be “unsafe” and also threatened to pursue this with the city. The Architectural Director and the professional manager stated that it is the policy of the association to pro-actively upgrade all of the railings to a new style, and on a rotational basis determined by the painting schedule of the balconies. This upgrade was not prompted by any threats or by city enforcement of new codes. However, the unit owner was unwilling to accept anything other than a new railing. The President stated that the entire Board would revisit this issue.
The writer advised the Architectural Director that a section of shingles was noticed as missing from a roof. I volunteered to email a photo with particulars and that was accepted.
I advised the board that I was confused. This was prompted by the interchange between the Landscaping Director and the Architectural Director. I asked for a brief explanation of the inconsistent bidding standards; for example, the Landscaping director had received a single contractor bid for an $18,000 project. But he had stated during the meeting that he could not understand why there were not competitive bids on what were small architectural projects, which the Architectural Director stated to be $500 on up. The professional manager attempted to answer, but we were out of time and he was not allowed for that reason.
General Comments:
It is only natural for unit owners to come to an association meeting with the intention of promoting their favorite project or agenda. It is also natural that each unit owner wants the opportunity to speak and to be heard. However, the meetings are frequently disrupted, and not everyone has the opportunity to express themselves. During the June meeting, the Unit Owner Forum occupied about 30 minutes. Unit owners were given as little as one minute to say whatever it was they needed to say. Some took 5 minutes, others were not given the opportunity.
The President uses a gavel to attempt to control the meetings. However, some unit owners refuse to comply. I asked several to "shush" at the last meeting and I was given verbal insults as a result. I simply want to hear what the Board of Managers is discussing. It seems that some of our Unit Owners feel they have rights and entitlements which are not for the rest of us.
The Board of Managers attempts to continue their discussions of Association Business even with the disruption of boos, jeers and other verbal assaults. I find it interesting that when the Treasurer, for example, is booed, he attempts to address the issue with the unit owner. This is a form of defense of the board. Similar events occur with the Rules and Regulations Director, the President and the Architectural Director. At such times, certain members of the Board usually sit quietly and allow this to occur. I realize that the members of the Board of Managers have their personal agendas. However verbal jeers, boos, etc. directed at any one member of the board are in actuality attacks on the entire board, and an attempt to manipulate the entire board and the association.
I would think that other board members would address their "followers" or proponents of their position and ask for silence, a return to order and decorum. We are all equals and there are oaths and laws directing the Board of Managers. However, when I am present that has never happened. In the worst case, this leads me to the opinion that certain members of the Board of Managers are using unit owners in an attempt to manipulate the remainder of the board to accomplish a specific agenda.
In recent meetings, that agenda has included a campaign to fire our professional managers and to fire or replace our maintenance company. Allegations include insults or rude behavior with unit owners, inadequate communications, cost issues, etc. If communcations needs to be improved, there are ways to achieve that without firing the management company. I have yet to see or hear any rational conversation by the members of Board of Managers who are promoting the firing, of what characteristics and services are expected of the professional managers and of how these are to be prioritized. For example, is communications more important then financial acumen? Is management and professional guidance of the Board of Managers, all volunteers with varying skills, less important than letters to unit owners? I'd like to see a comprehensive specification of what our professional manager is to provide to our association. How many hours per week? A 24 hour phone dedicated to BLMH, whatever. It is my experience that anything is achievable. But it takes time and money. We can have a dedicated 24 hour receptionist; we can have a 40 hour per week dedicated manager. But we will have to pay for it. Are we willing to pay for what we expect or demand?
It may be that promises were made prior to the most recent election. However, there are special rules under the Illinois Condominium Act that apply to our representative body, our Board of Managers. Agendas used for election purposes cannot be used once a candidate is elected. Once elected, the candidate is bound by oath and by law to represent each and every unit owner uniformly and fairly. That means campaigns waged against suppliers, contractors or other should only occur if the majority of unit owners agree with the position. Underground or covert campaigns by members of the Board of Managers inherently support the few and undermine the many. If specific members of the Board want to revise the bidding procedures, or fire certain supplier to BLMH, they should state so in writing and also state their case in such a manner that all unit owners are equally informed and represented.
That has not and is not happening. I stated my concerns about this to the board during my one minute at the May meeting. If you read the official Association Newsletter, you would have no idea of the attacks on the board, on our professional managers and of the various special agendas which are being surreptitiously promoted, but are quite visible during meetings, if one attends them regularly. Patterns are difficult to discern unless one observes for a period of time. So it is with mighty rivers, which in photograph may seem to have no current. So too it is with people who when observed over time, the character and direction of which also becomes discernible.
Communications was an issue during the most recent Association election. The official communications of the Association has improved in form, but not in substance. In fact, I allude that the communications actually obscures items of importance and in that respect, is actually a step backwards. We live in a society bombarded with information. We are being provided more to read, about our fellow unit owners, about architecture in Europe, etc. But we aren't be informed of the issues and of the various sides of the issues. Everthing at BLMH takes time, talent and money. Our Board of Managers are unpaid volunteers. They have lives to live and limited time to spend on Association business. They are a very valuable and scarce resource. We shouldn't squander their time or their talents. Money is available to be spent on needed and critical maintenance items and certainly some is available for other things. However, it requires a prioritization of budgets. Do we want roofs and driveways, or do we want enhanced landscaping? Do we want reserves for emergencies or not? You and I may have a personal preference, but it is the Board of Managers that is enacting policies and spending money. Do we really know what the priorities are for each member of the Board of Managers? They each vote on financial matters and it makes sense to me to know what each of their priorities are. But our Newsletter and other forms of "official" communications does not provide that information.
So any individual member of the Board of Managers can say at any time that they are acting "for the good of the association". But at any moment, what is that really? Will they, on an individual basis support our roofing project 100%? Will they defer the budgets for "their" areas of responsibility "for the good of the association" to complete the roofs and get our driveways resurfaced, or will they simply give lip service and attempt to move dollars from someone else's budget? The truth is, I don't know because candidates don't offer specifics of how they will run this business once elected, and neither do all of the members of the Board of Managers. Some unit owners would like a reduction or elimination of assessment and fee increases. How is the Board of Managers to prioritize spending to accomplish that? What are we as unit owners willing to give up to get such a reduction? I'd like to know where each member of the Board of Managers stands on this and what they each would specifically "give up" to achieve a reduction in the rise in assessments or fees.
As a unit owner, I think each one of us would like to really know the answers to these questions. I'd like a published, written statement from each member of the Board of Managers on this and every other important issue facing us, and with specifics of how they would go about achieving the solution. However, communications is controlled by an individual who has other interests and ideas for our association. After eight months, I know no more than I did at this time last year. In some respects, I may actually know less. That is a real failure for a group that gave us all such high hopes and expectations, and promoted an association in which "we could all be heard". I'd like to hear the Board of Managers who make the day to day decisions to run this business, our association. But noisy unit owners are opposed to that. I'd like specific answers to specific questions about how this association is to achieve the agendas before it. But the newsletter and other "official" communications does not contain that information. There are times when I read the "official" newletter and blog that I feel that I am being treated like a mushroom.
If I were to obtain that information and published it here, I must ask "what's the point"? To do so could be pointless because the "official" position of our Association and the Board of Managers is that this blog does not exist. You are directed by the Association to the "official" blog of the association, the last post on which is dated February 3 and announces the Association meeting of February 12, 2009.
