Workings of Our Board - Renters and Unit Owner Involvement at our HOA

Returning to the issue of renters attending HOA meetings, the core question is, "What are the advantages and disadvantages of such attendance, and what is our Board of Managers doing to promote such attendance by unit owners and renters?" Another question is, "How is such promotion of attendance of renters consistent with the requirements of the Board of Managers; specifically that they act at all times in accordance with the fiduciary duties?"  I'm going to use this particular agenda and vote to look more closely at the workings of the majority of our Board and under their "leadership" the workings of the Association.

This occurred during the March 2010 association meeting. Our board President was not in attendance. This item was brought to the table by a member of the Board. It was not on the published agenda. During the meeting it was discussed among our Board of Managers for less than five minutes! After listening to unit owners, including objections and concerns raised during the "homeowners session" by former members of the board and a "landlord", it was motioned, seconded, voted, and passed by the board majority. Our Treasurer cast a "No" vote.  During that meeting, more time was spent discussing the contents of the “Welcome Packet” than were spent on this issue by the board.

The member of the Board of Managers who is responsible for the welcome committee now wants to expand that packet to include our Balance Sheet and Financial Statements. Question: Why are we giving that information to renters, etc.? Ref: (1)

It's my understanding that a statement in the Welcome Packet was cited as the reason for discussing this item, superseding all other business, and bringing it to a vote at this time. A document in that packet states that "Association Meetings" are open to "all residents except during Executive Session." Apparently the majority of our current board believes the "Welcome Packet" transcends our Rules and Regulations, the By-Laws of the Association and the Illinois Condominium Act. This is consistent with a group, which appears to be the board majority, which believes their purpose is to run this organization based upon some nebulous definition of "neighborliness". It would seem that it is the will of the majority of the Board of Managers that BLMH is not a business, and is not to be run as one.   Ref: (2)

Before proceeding, I want to define the word “involvement” as I use it in this post. I view "involvement" as unit owner "participation" in the matters of this association. Those matters include the "duties, responsibilities and liabilities of a unit owner."  I do not include participation in the "Neighbor's Club" or "Homeowner's Club" because it is not officially affiliated with BLMH and our association. It might be useful to be aware of some statistics which indicate the level of involvement by unit owners, who are our voting members and stakeholders in this HOA.

1. Nearly 50% of voting members do not vote at the annual meeting.
2. Fewer than 25% attend the annual meeting.
3. Of those members who do vote by proxy, some reputedly have their favorite candidate fill in the signed ballots. Would you define that as unit owner “involvement” or not? If not, then the statistics for voting are possibly fewer than 50% of the owners.
4. About 4% of the voting members attend association meetings.
5. Our HOA has about 20% rentals.

Why does the majority of the board, including our CD and R&R Directors, want to expand the association meetings to include renters? Let's think about this, and I have a few questions concerning the position of these Managers regarding unit owners:

1. Would it be beneficial to the association if more unit owners were involved?
2. Would or could such unit owner involvement include attending association meetings?
3. Would or could such involvement include increased voting by the members?
4. If such involvement is a desirable thing, and everything I have read indicates that it is, then how should the members of our Board of Managers go about attracting more unit owners to become more involved and attend the association meetings? Note: I can and do cite my sources. See recent posts on “Fiduciary Duties”.
5. If our board wants to include renters in the circle of unit owners, then I suggest that the Board of Managers actively promote the purchase of units. There are several for sale here at BLMH. Wouldn't that be consistent with acting as a fiduciary of the Association? Ref: (3)
6. If our board wants to support and expand "ownership", unit owners acting and operating as "owners" which is to say, acting in accordance with "the duties, responsibilities and liabilities of a unit owner", then why isn't the majority of the board doing just that?  There is no component of "ownership" which exclusively includes attending parties and being "neighborly." That is the lowest level of participation in any community. Be it a retirement village, a rental building or whatever. Is that sufficient criteria for unit owners? I think not. So why is that the emphasis of the majority of the Board? Why do they persist in this path? What is the underlying commitment? 

Concerning the attendance of renters at the association meetings of our voting members:

1. A member of the Board of Managers stated during the discussion of this issue during the most recent association meeting that allowing renters to attend the association meeting “is a good thing” and should therefore be voted “yes”. Other comments and arguments used in support of this agenda included “renters are members of our community” and “renters may not be comfortable with the landlord.” Are these relevant arguments for a member of the Board of Managers in fulfilling their fiduciary duties? What about the Illinois Condominium Act? Answer: Section 18.4 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act states in part that “In the performance of their duties, the officers and members of the board, whether appointed by the developer or elected by the unit owners, shall exercise the care required of a fiduciary of the unit owners.” The board is not empowered to act for or on behalf of the renters.
2. Is it possible that the board by acting for or on behalf of renters, can be in breach of its fiduciary duties, if they interfere in the contractual agreements between the unit owner as landlord and the renter? Whether knowingly or unknowingly? Answer: Yes.
3. Who has a contract with the association? The renters, or the voting members which is to say, the unit owners? For example, if there is a violation by a renter, who is cited and fined by the Association? Is it the renter or the unit owner? Answer: the unit owner.
4. Does a renter have something at stake here at BLMH? If so, with whom? For example, if there is a problem in the unit occupied by the renter, or it involves the limited common elements, who is responsible per the renter’s contract? The association or the unit owner who is the landlord? Answer: the unit owner.
5. If a renter breaks the rules and regulations of this association, or damages the property, who is responsible? Answer: the unit owner. The association will levy fines, etc. against the unit owner for tenant breach of the rules and regulations. 
6. Who is responsible for damage to the unit, other units or common elements either by accident or by negligence? The unit owner as landlord or the renter? Answer: the unit owners. For example, should the tenant flood the unit, damaging the common elements and/or adjacent units, the unit owner is held accountable by the association and must pay for repairs to correct the damage to the common elements of the association as well as other units affected. According to the Illinois Condominium Property Act 2010, the “unit owner may not assign, delegate, transfer, surrender, or avoid the duties, responsibilities and liabilities of a unit owner.”
7. Who is required to carry insurance by the Association? The renter or the unit owner? Answer: the unit owner.
8. If the renter doesn’t like the tree outside his unit, wants a bench along the walk, would prefer better carpeting in the hall, or wants to have a garage sale, etc. who would he or she approach to discuss this? The unit owner who is the landlord or the association? Answer: the renter’s contract (lease) is with the unit owner, who is the landlord. The renter will discuss this and should only discuss this with the landlord. It is the discretion of the unit owner to discuss renter comments about the common elements or rule changes with the Board of Managers. Why? Contracts and all else aside, whose money will be spent to address any and all of these issues? The renter’s or the unit owner's? Answer: the unit owner’s fees will be spent by the association, in accordance with their fiduciary duties on behalf of the unit owner, and only the unit owner.
9. Association meetings are held “for the voting members”. Are renters voting members? No.
10. If a renter is in violation and the unit owner is being fined, what are the possible consequences if the Association puts itself in the middle? For example, the association fines the unit owner, but the renter comes to the association meetings. The association “controls the interests” of the unit owners. Does the association "control the interest" of the renter? No, because the renter has none in the association. How will the attendance of renters enhance the interest of the unit owner so controlled? How will it detract from that interest? If it detracts from that interest, the board of managers is in breach of it’s fiduciary duties. According to the Illinois Condominium Act, "the board....shall exercise the care required of a fiduciary of the unit owners." If the board puts itself in a position to support renters over the "care required of a fiduciary of the unit owners" then the board is in breach. Could this happen? I have the perspective that "if it can happen, it will happen"; what we do not know is "precisely when it will happen." Ref: (4)
11. Our Board of Managers could have an "open house" once or twice a year for unit owners and board members alike to meet the renters. That could be similar in venue to the "Meet the Board" coffees or, it could be included in one of the parties held by the "Neighbor's Club". Better still, it could also be a part of a "Spring Cleanup" drive here at BLMH. During the March Association Meeting, one of the unit owners complained about "wood chips" left on a sidewalk during a tree felling about six months ago. Well, let's all get our brooms, unit owners and renters alike, and go for it! What better way to meet OWNERS, who are acting and behaving as OWNERS.   Ref: (5)

Concerning the involvement of member of the Board of Managers who are promoting this:

1. Why, instead of working with and expanding unit owner participation at our association, are members of our Board of Managers working diligently to expand the participation of our renters?
2. Is is possible that it is a goal of certain members of the board of managers to increase the number of rentals here at BLMH? If the actions of the members of the Board of Managers encourages rentals, and that number increases, making sales here at BLMH more difficult or, if that number reaches or exceeds FHA guidelines, making it impossible for potential buyers to obtain financing, thereby preventing the sale of units, is such involvement or activities by the Board in breach of their fiduciary duties?
3. Why aren't our CD and R&R Directors working diligently to get more unit owners to attend the association meetings, to vote at our annual meetings, etc.?
4. What other things could our Board of Managers do to promote unit owner involvement? Why isn't this part of an ongoing discussion at our association meetings?
5. Why would members of our board obstruct, or not support such efforts?
6. Why are our CD and R&R Directors pursuing renter involvement in the meetings, when to do so is not a part of their duties and job description as members the Board of Managers of our HOA?
7. Is this really a part of the "fiduciary duties" of the members of the Board of Managers; that is, are they acting as those "entrusted to make decisions for, and control the interests of, another person or persons?" Are they acting "in good faith, in a manner each director believes to be in the best interest of the association, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as a prudent person in a like position would ordinarily use under similar circumstances?" Are they acting "with undivided loyalty to the association and its membership?" Where such membership is defined as the unit owner? Or are they acting in their own interests or with a conflicting interest?
8. What information does this association need to provide to renters so that they will be "good renters" and will be so informed? Isn't that all that the association should provide? To put it another way, using language familiar to the majority of the board, isn't it the duty and obligation of the Board of Managers to support the renters in being "good renters" and nothing more?  In other words, support the renters in keeping their agreements and that includes their rental agreement with their landlord, as well as keeping the Rules and Regulations of BLMH? And nothing more?
9. What would be the political consequences to certain members of the Board of Managers if more unit owners became involved? Does this have a bearing on their actions?
10. If doing "the good thing" is the principal criteria for the majority of our board, then these members of our Board of Managers should be working day and night to increase the involvement of the unit owners. Unless, of course, they don't perceive that as "a good thing."

I want to state that I consider renters to be or have the potential to be "future owners" at BLMH. As such, and as members of this community, it is beneficial if they be kept "informed". Such information would and does include our newsletter. However, the renter has no duties and responsibilities to the Association other than acting in accordance with and keeping the Rules and Regulations of BLMH. The Illinois Condominium Property Act 2010 states the “unit owner may not assign, delegate, transfer, surrender, or avoid the duties, responsibilities and liabilities of a unit owner.” It would be obvious that the Board cannot assign or transfer those responsibilities to the renter, either. Keeping renters informed does not require our balance sheet, or participation in events paid for by the voting members, or participation in activities such as our association meetings, which are defined in our By-Laws as "Meetings of the voting members", nor attending the "Meet the Board" parties organized by the CD over at IHOP for unit owners and at unit owner expense.   Ref: (6)

The renters could certainly join the "Homeowner’s Club" or "Neighbor's Club" which is not officially associated with this HOA. The "leadership" of that club can actively promote such attendance by renters; that leadership has no fiduciary duties and are not so bound. They can party to their hearts content using the funds provided by their membership, until such funds are expended. Perhaps that has been a problem for the club, which I understand has fewer than 20 paying members, and would be a powerful motivation for the creation of  the "Meet the Board" events, which have to potential to replace some of the club meetings and reduce the club expenditures.    Ref: (7), (8)

I consider involvement in a leadership capacity in the “Homeowner’s Club” by any member of the Board of Managers as both irresponsible and a conflict of interest. The members of our Board of Managers are having difficulty performing their core duties and responsibilities. Some (most?) are woefully uninformed about the Illinois Condominium Act, or simply ignore it. I can't tell which. Some don't know the Rules and Regulations, and if they do, they prefer to see that they are not enforced; such enforcement "makes people uncomfortable" or to "feel unwelcome" or is "un-neighborly." As for the By-Laws? We can pass changes to the By-Laws by simple vote of the board of managers, can't we?  Ref: (9)

More questions, or questions paraphrased differently:

1. If this is not being completely and openly discussed by the board in view of the unit owners, why isn't it? Why are members of our Board of Managers discussing this with renters? Why would certain members of the Board of Managers pursue this and similar agenda items behind the back of and out of view of the unit owners? If such activity is occurring, is it "legal"? Is it consistent with their fiduciary duties? Answer: No.
2. If members of the Board of Managers have the time to enroll renters in attending the meetings, why aren't they putting that effort into attracting the unit owners to the meetings?
3. Why not expand the current association meetings to include the informal "meet the board" session and invite unit owners?
4. If the Association Meetings of "voting members" were expanded to a "meet the board" session, would that increase the attendance of unit owners at association meetings, reduce costs (no free donuts and coffee) and achieve both goals; i.e, increased participation by unit owners and informal conversation with the board? What would be the disadvantage to the association? What would be the political disadvantage to board members?
5. Would a Spring "community cleaning day" and a Fall "community prepare for winter" day be beneficial to this association? If so, why have our activist socialites never suggested such a thing?
6. What are the disadvantages to unit owners, who are landlords, if the board changes the By-Laws and allows renters to attend the association meetings? Consider that at present, if a renter has an issue he or she is to discuss this with the landlord, emergencies excepted.
7. What is the purpose of having renters attend meetings of the voting members of the association? The member who proposed this, stated that this was a "good thing" and other, but not all, of the members of the Board of Managers agreed. None of the proponents stated "how" this would be good for the association. Nor did they heartily discuss the "down side" or possibly detrimental issues. Is that consistent with "reasonable inquiry?" I think not.
8. If renters are invited to the association meetings, by change of By-Laws, then what is the protocol? Why wasn't that discussed and resolved before the rush to vote?
9. If renters do attend meetings, are they to remain mute during meetings? If not, how are they to act?  Renters can't vote and shouldn’t address the members of the Board of Managers during meetings of the voting members. They shouldn’t be given the opportunity to speak during the “homeowners session”. Why? Because they aren’t “homeowners”, that's why. So why are they there? If they can’t make requests, or demands; if they can’t discuss “homeowner issues” then what? Consider that the entire length of the “homeowners session” is usually less than 20 minutes. Frequently, unit owners are not given an opportunity to speak to the board because of a lack of time. Let's consider the problem when renters take up the time allotted to unit owners during the “homeowners session”. Would that cause any hard feelings and promote an environment of divisiveness? If so, then why would the board promote this? How would YOU feel as a unit owner if you attended a meeting and were not given an opportunity to address the board during the "homeowner's" sessions while renters were? How would YOU feel as a renter if you were invited to a meeting but, because you are not a unit owner, you were treated as a second class citizen? 
10. If renters truly shouldn't and can't participate as owners during the Association Meetings, then perhaps the meetings should be video taped and these made available for a modest cost, or "rental" to those who want to view the proceedings. There are other tangible benefits, including a clarification of "whom" said "what" during the meetings, so they can be properly and accurately documented. 

No discussion of protocol, of how to really make this work, was discussed. Is that a "reasonable inquiry?" Or are we just going to "wing it" and see how it all turns out? This from a group that is opposed to enforcing the Rules and Regulations. Can you see where this is possibly headed? If you can, then you  too possess a reasonable amount of common sense.

It is possible that members of our Board of Managers, who are proponents for this and many other changes which they say are "good" or "better" or "nice" or the ultimate justification "I have read somewhere that this is a good thing" will take any and all positions necessary to have this change take affect by decree. It is possible that they will "decree" that it is not a "By-Law" change, or a Rule change. They may say that because our "Welcome Packet" invites everyone to association meetings that it is the law. They are incorrect. The hierarchy is:

1. Illinois Condominium Act
2. Our By-Laws
3. Our Rules and Regulations.

The "Welcome Packet" is just that, an assembly of documents for distribution to unit owners and possibly to others, including our renters. Perhaps the language needs to be revised. Members of the Board of Managers are required to use sound business judgment and common sense. One can always hope for "change".

=============================
Errors, Omissions, Comments, References ( ) :

On occasion, the majority of our Board will push measures through the meeting to a rapid vote. There is little deliberation on those issues, and because of the method employed, the members of the Board are given no opportunity to research these proposals, or to consult with professionals. Unless there is some legitimate urgency, why can't these non-critical issues be discussed, tabled until the next meeting so the board can their homework and become "informed" about all aspects of the issues, the pros, the cons and so on? When unit owner objections to these proposals are raised, there are sometimes supporters who "talk over" and "talk down" the speaker. When board member concerns or objections are raised, they are countered with ambiguous and unsubstantiated statements such as "this is a good thing" or "I have read somewhere that..." The word "good" when evoked by the board member in support of their agenda, seems to be some sort of code, or trigger which stimulates an automatic response from other members of the board and demands a "yes" vote for the proposal.

Of course, "good" people would never vote against a "good thing" would they? And if they did, then what are they? I suppose the answer is obstructionists or "bad people?" Usually, the board member who is promoting these "hot" issues will only discuss or promote one side of the issue. In all issues there are costs and benefits. There are also those who will benefit and those who will not. A member of the Board of Managers should have the capacity, and the willingness to discuss all sides of an issue. That is not occurring here at BLMH. I interpret that as one of the signs, or evidences, of an individual operating in accordance with their personal agenda. Our professional manager is consulted during the association meeting, but such consultation on an issue is often cursory and limited to a single comment. This was the method employed to vote on the budget. In the example contained in this post, most of the board members were given no opportunity to prepare for this question. That is to say, they "officially" were given no opportunity. It is possible that sub-groups of the board had discussed this issue and had pre-determined their positions, as a group. In such a situation, who wins and who loses? This type of activity by board members "squeezes out" other members of the board, and as a consequence the group does not make a decision; individual board members make the decision. The "losers" are the unit owners. The "winners" are the members of the board who are promoting the agenda.

(1) I understand the necessity of providing this information to unit owners and to qualified buyers. A renter is neither. If a renter wants this information; i.e Financial Documents for the Association, he or she should contact a realtor and make a bona-fide offer to purchase a unit. Such information is available to all qualified buyers. Question for the Board: How is publishing or uncontrolled distribution of these documents promoting the interests of the membership of this association; such membership defined as "the unit owners?" Publishing this information is effectively advertising how deep our pockets are to those with nothing at all at stake. In this litigious society, when they have that unfortunate accident, they can whip out that "Welcome Packet" and hand it to their attorney, who can readily calculate exactly how much we are good for. While we are at it, why don't we include a copy of our association insurance policy for "good measure". Using the logic of the board majority, we should make it easy on them. After all, that would be the "good thing" to do, wouldn't it?

(2) In our December newsletter it was stated "As of November 2009, a new procedure for handling violations went into effect." This went on to say that "we hope that this new protocol will reduce the number of violations and subsequent fines." The only method of handling violations that I am aware of that will reduce the number of violations, is simply to ignore them and to "look the other way". This occurred during the Association Meeting when a unit owner who reported a violation and asked for an inspection was told by the Rules and Regulations Director "That isn't Part of My Job Description." The terms "arbitrary and capricious" and "creation of multiple classes of unit owners" comes to mind when these types of things occur.

I have concern for our Treasurer. He has years of experience as a member of the Board of Managers, was called upon by the board to fill an empty position, and accepted the appointment. I really don't know how he deals with these questionable practices.  "Those who are most qualified to serve, such as architects, accountants, and attorneys, and those who are best equipped to make decisions and stand up to unit owners, don't want to serve."*** Gee, I wonder why that is? Second question: if those who are "best equipped" to serve don't, then who does?
[***I believe this statment was made by Tom Skweres of Vanguard Community Management].

(3) I realize that the "landlord" would be unappreciative if his tenant left at the conclusion of his or her lease and purchased a unit. However, that is always a possibility with a renter. It is always in the power of the landlord to work with his or her tenant to keep them happy and encourage them to recommit to another lease. It is also a reality that renters do periodically move on, whether it be to another rental or to a "home."

(4) I'm paraphrasing "Murphy's Law". I am a businessman and a mere mortal and I don't have the godlike powers which some on our board believe they possess. They can not only foresee the future, they can control it!

(5) Per the instructions of the Board of Managers, per several discussions held during Association Meetings in 2009, the "Neighbor's Club" or "Homeowner's Club" or whatever it is called, is not affiliated with the BLMH Association and all outdoor parties are to be held off of the property. This was decided in part for liability and insurance reasons. Or has that decision been reversed behind the backs of the unit owners? It's a question that needs to be asked.

(6)    I attended the most recent "Coffee with the Board" meeting at IHOP. I abstained from the "free" coffee and donuts because I was uncomfortable spending our unit owners' funds this way. There were about 20 attendees. I stated my concerns during the next Association meeting, and stated that I would make a "donation" to cover my expenditure during such "coffees" but I would not accept the "gift" of my fellow unit owners, who were not present. The former AD objected to the use of Association funds on the basis that he had to fight for funds for every limestone window-sill he installed and that if funds were that "precious" then they should not be spent frivolously. His point: What are our priorities at BLMH? and what are the priorities of the Board?

(7) Our Board majority has specific definitions of "neighborliness" which are manifested in different ways and apparently requires staging coffees and parties. There are unit owners who are very enthusiastic about attending these "freebies". It is common knowledge among "experts" that many condominium owners buy a condo because they don't want to do the outside work or maintenance; they want someone else to do it. They also want someone else to do the board work, and all other work, too. These individuals will not attend "spring cleaning" events. Nor will some of our renters. However, does that relieve our Board from organizing and promoting such events? Why the emphasis on "entertainment"? Is it possible that the core issue of one or more members of the Board of Managers is about themselves, their self esteem and self worth, which is predicated on have people around them who "make them feel good" or "important" or "agree with them"? 


(8) At the time of the formation of the "Homeowner's Club" or "Neighbor's Club" or whatever it is currently called, the professional manager recommended to the Board that the Board of Managers  review of the rules pertaining to the posting of notices at BLMH. These rules currently prohibit postings and advertisements, including the notification of unit owners about the meetings of the "club." This did not occur, and the majority of unit owners are now excluded from such notifications. Instead, the members of the board who had promoted such a club proposed the "Meet the Board" coffees and now promote those coffees. Why? Was this change due to the issues of funding for the club?  


(9)  I have written to the board many times, with instructions to the professional managers to forward my letters to the Board of Managers. For the most part, the majority of these communications were never acknowledged or responded to. Some are directed to the CD or other specific members of the board. I now continue to send letters to the management for forwarding, but I only send emails to specific members of the Board of Managers who are gracious, courteous, and sufficiently professional and aware of their fiduciary duties to at least acknowledge that they have received them. Officially we are encouraged by the board to send such communication. The reality is different. Using my personal experience as a guide, I suspect many of the board never read these unit owner communications.

It's Not in My Job Description

That was the response of our "Rules and Regulations" Director to a Unit Owner request to inspect an alleged violation to the rules. This is a direct quote from our Association meeting of March 11.

Sounds like "open season" for rules. Oh, but our CD and the R&R Directors are so concerned about making our "renters" welcome here at BLMH! To put it bluntly, they seem to have a problem with determining what they are supposed to be doing, as members of the "Board of Managers".  Or perhaps we should rename this the "Board of Social Directors"? For example, let's make the renters and our friends feel warm and fuzzy while vandals run loose in the streets, water sprouts destroy our trees and the streets disintegrate. But we have funds for "coffee and donuts" for our friends to come visit us at the IHOP!! Gee, just like the city of  Wheaton. Makes one feel simply wonderful, like the Mayor, doesn't it? Well, this will continue for as long as each unit owner sends that check each month for $300. That will fund a lot of "discretionary items" even if they aren't in the budget, and even if the reserves are underfunded. But these are "good things", or so they believe, and so they tell us, and so it will be. And that is the only critiria. What they "believe" is reality.

I have a few questions for our most illustrious and beneficent board. Do our renters send that money to the lock box each month? No, they don't. Do our renters have perhaps $190,000 invested here? No, they don't. And when our renters are behind in their payments, who "eats" this? And who is held accountable for payment of that association fee and the real estate taxes? Certainly not the renter or "occupant". It is the Unit Owner, who is a Member of the Association, who pays his or her association fees, the taxes and the mortgage. That's who. So why the emphasis of our CD for our "poor" renters? It seems that to be a renter at BLMH  is to be "the flavor of the month". Perhaps our CD, R&R Director and others on the board are merely fully committed to flushing the money of the unit owners, and at the unit owners expense. Who knows? Her official position is that this is "a good thing". Really? and for whom? And why should I or anyone else who has a vested interest at BLMH ever believe this individual?

Frankly, where in anyone's job description does it say anything about this kind of behavior?  Oh, I forgot, here at BLMH our board members are allowed to create their job titles, and to pick and choose their job responsibilities and duties. So the person who makes the Newsletter becomes our "Communications Director", our R&R Director states to unit owners that inspections or rule enforcements "Isn't in my job description", etc. One member of the board doesn't have even have any specific duties. Obviously, even without a "Landscaping Director" we have more than enough people on the board to carry out all of the ephemeral duties of the board.

Apparently, if the member of the board doesn't want or like a task or if there are tasks that we consider as "unpalatable", or difficult, those duties are simply "dropped out" or pushed over to the board president or some other responsible member of the board to do. As members of the Board of Managers, we'll pick our jobs and do that which works "for me". Part of what works "for me" is making the people I choose to champion feel welcome here; by shirking our duties, ignoring our responsibilities and just as the little children we are, by not doing the things we don't like to do, simply because "I'm not going to and you can't make me - so there."

So the person who decided to be "responsible" for the newsletter selected the title "Communications Director." Based on her actions and my observations, I really do think that "Social Director" would be far more appropriate. Too bad this isn't a retirement home. However, with the latest change in direction, perhaps "Director of Rentals" would be more appropriate. It probably doesn't matter, as long as the title is "Director" of something. How about "Grand Poobah"; yes, that sounds simply "grand".

It truly is amazing how capable some of our directors are, why, they can do anything! Anything that is, that has absolutely nothing to do with "fiduciary duties" or any of the other aspects of running this business. Administrators simply "administer", they hire and fire and let the minions or lesser members of the board "do the work" and "do the heavy lifting". Isn't that wonderful!

Returning to the subject of this post, I can understand that people take on responsibilities they aren't equipped to fulfill, particularly if they are sold a bill of goods by their "friend" on the board.  When the going gets tough, or uncomfortable, or I simply don't feel like it, all one has to do is turn to the unit owners and say "It's not in my job description".

Board Operation, Some Examples and Fiduciary Duties revisited - Part IIb

An Interesting Case Study:

(1) "Among many other obligations, an Association, acting through its Board of Directors has the absolute duty to manage, operate, maintain and repair all common areas and to keep them in a safe, attractive and desirable condition for the use and enjoyment of its owners. In fulfilling this obligation the Board of Directors also has the duty to prepare a budget and establish assessments for the Association adequate to meet the financial requirements necessary to maintain the common areas.

[HOA Services Group] was recently awarded the management contract for a large 25-year old condominium community.....This community could easily spend $500,000 just to address the obvious deficiencies. And, of course, their reserves are $0.

[A]tremendous opportunity for [HOA Services Group] and That's exactly what we believed as well. Unfortunately the easiest and very first step in beginning to clean up this community, the landscaping, still hasn't been addressed because the Board is trying to get the contractor to reduce his quote for an initial cleanup of the entire property from $900 to $750, a whopping savings of $150....

...we've pointed out that this “band aid” approach will ultimately cost the owners substantially more in the long run......According to the Board we just need to keep any special assessment to minimum, and be careful about proposing any increase in the monthly dues even though they haven't been adjusted in years. Is it any wonder why this property is in its present condition, and what exactly is the likelihood that we'll be able to convince this Board to properly address their many needs?

A Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to always act in the best interests of its members. Unfortunately many Board members make decisions based on their personal situations, and sometimes forget that service on the Board carries with it the obligation to represent the interests of all the owners in the community. Failure to meet this duty will often result in decreased property values, dissention among the owners, and quite possibly lawsuits against the Association and its Board members. Defense of these types of claims against the Board of Directors can be both costly and time consuming, and typically compounds the already existing animosity between the owners and the Board of Directors.

We still have hopes that we'll be able to better educate the Board members of the community mentioned above. Unfortunately, while our efforts could be directed at returning this community to a well-maintained and desirable place to own and live, we'll first have to devote a substantial amount of time to changing this Board's philosophy. Hopefully we can do that before they have the opportunity to test out that new Directors & Officers Liability policy."

In the above, there are several interesting items, from which I draw a few parallels.

1. [The] "Board of Directors has the absolute duty to manage, operate, maintain and repair all common areas and to keep them in a safe, attractive and desirable condition for the use and enjoyment of its owners."
2. "[The] Board of Directors also has the duty to prepare a budget and establish assessments for the Association adequate to meet the financial requirements necessary to maintain the common areas."
3. The experts who wrote this stated that it was their perspective that this was an opportunity for the "Board of Directors to make a real impact on this community and to dramatically improve the property values of the unit owners."
4. The Board of Directors in this case study were having great difficulty establishing priorities and were, for example, improperly embroiled in a negotiation with a contractor over a difference in perspective which was "a whopping savings of $150."
5. The authors went on to state that it was the perspective of the Board that "we just need to keep any special assessment to minimum, and be careful about proposing any increase in the monthly dues."
6.  The authors then went on to state "we've pointed out that this “band aid” approach will ultimately cost the owners substantially more in the long run."
7. They also stated that "A Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to always act in the best interests of its members. Unfortunately many Board members make decisions based on their personal situations, and sometimes forget that service on the Board carries with it the obligation to represent the interests of all the owners in the community. "
8. The authors closed with the statement that "We still have hopes that we'll be able to better educate the Board members......our efforts could be directed at returning this community to a well-maintained and desirable place to own and live, we'll first have to devote a substantial amount of time to changing this Board's philosophy."

Here at BLMH, everyone including our paid managers, who were put on notice, have taken the perspective that it is best to keep their collective heads down and keep their jobs, while in 2009 our new board argued in favor of parties and garage sales which benefit the few, glossy newletters, $500 bids for concrete, championed semi-trailers on the property, etc. What will 2010 bring?

In coming posts, we'll take a look at the aspects of Fiduciary Duty.

Oh, and as I promised, I will be posting an interesting chart pertaining to the condition of our reserves. This is as promised in 2009. I decided to delay this until after the new board had completed its budget "planning", which they did. According to the overwhelming majority of our board, our finances (Operating and Maintenance, as well as Reserves) are in sufficiently good condition that there was absolutely no need to raise our fees this year. In other words, we are accumulating reserves at a rate adequate to fund all the roofs, driveway paving and street repairs, etc. in a timely manner so as to "maintain and repair all common areas and to keep them in a safe, attractive and desirable condition for the use and enjoyment of its owners." Well, it seems our Treasurer wasn't as certain of this as the others on the board. As they say "follow the money". So what do the numbers say? What? Base our decisions on numbers, rather than on our constituents? Is that any way to run a political organization based on "change"? Oh, but this isn't about politics they say, it's about running this HOA.  Okay, I'll go with the flow and we'll see what the numbers tell us!

If you enjoy slick presentations and colorful charts, "you are gonna love this" as they say. According to our official HOA Communications Director, the majority of our members love our new shiny and expanded newsletter, so this post should be enthusiastically greeted by all. Frankly, more information and less pap is my approach and it seems some new leadership is guiding her in that direction. It's my perspective that the more information and data that is available to ALL of our members, the better our association will function.

===========================

References, Errors, Omissions, Additions:

(1)  HOA Services Group - A leading provider of reserve studies and maintenance plans

Board Operation, Some Examples and Fiduciary Duties, revisited - Part I

I'm going to provide a few quotes and links to illuminate the subject of "fiduciary duty" as it applies to an HOA with some insights into these duties as they have been and are being applied in this HOA. Because of the length and richness of this subject, I’ll provide this in three parts. Part I will serve as introduction, Part II will include references and review of “fiduciary duty” in the words of "experts" and certified "professionals", and in Part III I’ll look at some of the practical application of  "fiduciary duties" as currently and previously applied in this association and I'll draw some conclusions and perhaps make a few recommendations. 

First, some background information. If you came here for entertainment, you came to the wrong place. I don't think this subject will be particularly entertaining, but I suppose it could be. I should also state that one of the forces that drive us is the desire to remain in the dark, and unenlightened. That way, we can continue on our merry way and do untold mischief, and feel good about ourselves at the same time. Yes, it is true that "ignorance is bliss" and if you crave that, you have also come to the wrong place. 

Our board is comprised of many newly elected, or inexperienced members. That is to say, some have no prior experience on the board of an HOA, or any board, for that matter.  Some have no “professional” or business experience. So it would be presumptuous on my part, and arrogant on theirs, to assume that they know their true duties. Most of us, and that includes myself, operate more as technicians than as leaders. That's a natural way for most of us to be. We all have immediate tasks and responsibilities to perform, and we can and do become readily absorbed in the day to day minutia. However, to do any task well requires some critical thinking skills and the willingness and ability to keep "the big picture" in perspective, and to prepare for the part. That preparation can take years; some of us prefer to think like the Nike ad, which purports that all it takes is a nice expression such as "Just Do It" and we are ready for the task at hand. Reality has a way of deviating from 30 second sound bites. If you have read about Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger, the pilot who landed a disabled aircraft in the Hudson River in January 2009, you quickly discover that he was unusually trained. That training, some on his own initiative, allowed him to accomplish what some people think was a "miracle".

For the members of the Board of Managers of an HOA in Illinois, part of the training is an understanding of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, another is a comprehensive  understanding of the Bylaws of the HOA and the Rules and Regulations. Another and perhaps most important is an understanding of their “fiduciary duties”. Finally, each member of the board  must possess sufficient education to exercise common sense, make sound business decisions, and perform their specific duties and assignments.  If we are to assume that an HOA is first and foremost a business, which it in fact is, then some rudimentary arithmetic and accounting skills are required. How else to review, approve and execute budgets? And so on.

It is the responsibility of candidates for the board to determine their suitability and  to either possess or rapidly acquire the fundamental skills necessary to function as members of the board of managers. They all vote on all matters, and they begin voting at the first association meeting. So it would be common sense that the members each possess these fundamental skills. Of course, if they don’t then they must rely upon “professionals” who are experienced in these matters, or they must rely upon other board members. In either case, the quality of the board is impaired. In the first situation, a board can become over-reliant upon the judgment of a single manager or professional. In the second case, the board may become the expression of one or several “powerful” board members. In both cases, the results can be less than satisfactory. For example, at one time, this association relied upon a manager who provided guidance on budgeting and reserves which was, to understate it, less than adequate.  We have the historical data to substantiate this. 

The opposite extreme is also possible. In such a situation the board decides that it is far too reliant upon the “professionals” and is eminently and inherently qualified to make more or most of the decisions.  At our HOA, the term “larceny” is sometimes used by some unit owners to describe past boards and management. There is no proof of any of this; it's simply innuendo and character assassination. I do have to wonder how people can think and say that the past situations were so terrible, and then in the next breath promote a position founded on the belief that our current board is so eminently capable, qualified, trustworthy and honest that such a situation “could never occur here”. This type of flip-flopping is not rational and certainly doesn't adhere to any definition of  "common sense" that I am familiar with. Any manager is somewhat familiar with the “Peter Principle” and if people are seriously considering this route, I suggest all unit owners read Tom Peter’s management book “Thriving on Chaos” (sorry for the pun, Mr. Peters). I do have a copy of this excellent book in my library.  But again, the fiduciary duties of a board would prohibit certain aggressive actions. 

Of course, a board could take the approach that they are first and foremost "administrators", hire professional threesomes in all categories, and then sit back and allow or direct, depending upon the skills of the board, the professionals to argue each position and present for each situation. The board would then simply select the two that, in the opinion of the board, are most satisfactory and vote on that. Using this approach could be prohibitively expensive and would run afoul of "fiduciary duty" issues. After all, could anyone really state that such an approach was a good and prudent use of association fees?

The members of our board are mandated and required to put the association first, at all times. Upon becoming members of the board of directors of BLMH, they gave up certain personal rights as a unit owner, because they must now act in the interests of all the owners of the association. They are prohibited from creating or supporting groups or sub-groups in an HOA. For example, as a unit owner, one can ignore the rules and assume this is primarily a social club and press for block parties, garage sales, street fairs and socials and coffees. However, a member of the board of managers, who also may have similar beliefs and agree with a specific group, is required to put their personal wants, needs and desires aside. They must view this solely with the perspective of an impartial member of the board of managers. That perspective should include a consideration of  the impact on all unit owners, which may include but is not limited to the cost of insurance for these public parties, the consequences of accident and possible litigation, direct and indirect costs, the problems of traffic and parking and possible hazards with visiting people driving our, to them, unfamiliar streets, and finally the consequences and desirability of the imposition of these events upon all unit owners. (Note: We don't have a sidewalk along our streets so most unit owners and their pets walk in these main streets, which because this is a PUD, are narrower than the usual, and cannot readily accommodate pedestrian traffic and two-way vehicular traffic).  A member of the board must weigh the possible benefits to all unit owners, as well as all costs both direct and indirect, as for example "wear and tear" on association property, and any and all possible liabilities. The personal position of the board member is of no relevance. Members of the board must  actually transcend the issues and view everything from the perspective of their fiduciary duty on one hand and the Illinois Condominium Act, the Bylaws and Rule and Regulations of the Association on the other.

What's best for the association is not necessarily the result of formal or informal polls. As an example, what if the majority of this association, as the result of a poll, decided they wanted no reserves and that all monies paid should be returned? This is an extreme example, but I think some of our board would be inclined to say "return the money" because that's what they believe the "majority of us" want! That’s one of the dangers inherent in an HOA in which a member or members of the Board of Managers are unfamiliar with their true “duties and responsibilities”.  If any member of the board assumes they have a broad political or  “social mandate” and their duties encompass ambiguous “change” and their specific tasks are the administration of  the Landscaping contractor, Maintenance contractor or even simply preparation of our Newsletter, then they are operating out of a personal perspective, not a fiduciary one.

To look at this a little closer, it is perfectly appropriate for me, as a unit owner, to express my "outrage" over what I perceive as "injustice" or infringement upon my personal “rights” or the rights of others, and I can threaten, cajole, or solicit agreement to change the rules which don't work for me. And in so doing I can ignore all or most of  my neighbors. However, as a member of the board, I must publicly and privately uphold the current rules and regulations and see that they are applied fairly and impartially to all unit owners. The board may openly discuss the issues inherent in the current Rule and Regulations, but is bound to uphold those rules fairly, impartially for all unit owners, no matter what their personal situation, relationship to the member(s) of the board or even their proximity as neighbors.  There is a method for altering the rules and regulations, but again that method not only encompasses open discussion but it also requires the members of the board of managers to view this from the perspective of their “fiduciary duties”, which includes the rights and privileges of all unit owners.

To overstate this, I can also, as a unit owner, operate from the perspective that I want to be as popular as possible. I can schmooze and "ooh and ahh" and express "oh, you poor dears" to my heart's content. However, as a member of the board of managers I must remain somewhat aloof and avoid entanglements and promises. I can only promise that I will always be objective, will do my best to use sound business judgment and common sense to guide this association in such a way that divisiveness is reduced, that the property (common elements) is well maintained, and that I will evaluate budgets encompassing both current and future needs when preparing and voting for assessments, fees, promoting capital projects and the funding of current operations and maintenance. 

It is unfortunate but in the real world, not all of us operate from integrity and it is also true that individuals seek seats on boards for personal esteem, personal reward and to promote personal agendas. If you doubt me, then you are truly naive. I recommend that you spend about $100 and talk to a good lawyer who specializes in condominiums and HOA law in Illinois. I can recommend one.

As individuals and unit owners, we may perceive our duties and obligations as the member of a board of managers of an HOA in a certain way, and there are many possible interpretations, but only one is of any significance, and that is the legal interpretation as it applies to our HOA. Winning a seat on the board of managers is nothing more than an opportunity to be a steward. Some say it is to work for the good of the association. But what truly is the "good of the association"? That is an area of mischief. Only by becoming intimately familiar with the concept and realities of one's "fiduciary duties" and by using that as a beacon to guide a board member's actions, is it possible for the board members of an HOA to navigate through the problems which face them.  If the board member is capable of exercising common sense and good business judgment, it is then a possibility that the board member will successfully complete his or her tasks, but will most likely not be universally popular.  

Actions by a board to put the board first is not putting the association first; power in a democracy does not give one the power to do whatever one pleases. It does provide the opportunity and that can be coupled with private agendas; ergo the need for the Illinois Condominium Property Act, for observers, and for point of law. Of course, what does one do in an association when members of the board have the unflagging opinion or belief that their position always conforms and aligns with the "right" position? That is, of course, in accordance with their personal beliefs, standards, judgments and evaluations.  It may also be aligned with those of a group of unit owners which is forever promoting and reinforcing these unshakable beliefs, to the benefit of course, of that particular group. In such a situation the board member occupies the center of the universe, and we the unit owners, in particular the "silent majority" of us are, I suppose, simply dust and detritus orbiting around them!

When posing some of these questions, I have been told that a good paper trail is always a handy thing to have, and there are any number of organizations that provide "independent and objective evaluations of fiduciary compliance".

  In part II, I’ll take a closer look at what exactly are the “fiduciary duties” that guide our board and how they guide and enable a member to do “the right thing”, no matter what their personal viewpoint may be. 

Rights and Responsibilities as Published by the CAI - Part I

In your October/November newsletter, you received a copy of the CAI "Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities".

I made a preliminary comment on this in the blog posted October 26, 2009. The document which was included with the newsletter was published by the CAI with this disclaimer, reprinted from their website (Reference 1):

"Rights and Responsibilities was developed as an ideal standard to which communities could aspire, a goal-based statement of principles designed to foster harmonious, vibrant, responsive and competent community associations. The principles were not designed to be in complete harmony with existing laws and regulations in 50 states, and in no way are they intended to subsume existing statutes. Where there are inconsistencies, community associations should adhere to the spirit and letter of all applicable laws. If you have a question, we suggest you consult with your attorney."

The bolded words are mine. For our association to adapt the CAI document, it should be reviewed as suggested and a revised document submitted to unit owners for comment. Of course, that may not happen. A reader of another HOA with whom I correspond recently had this to say "The more one learns about HOA boards (horror stories abound online), the more one is shocked by the dictatorial tendencies of otherwise ordinary people.  Perhaps it’s in the genes of the human race…"

In reading the "Rights and Responsibilities" you will notice some items which are similar to the Illinois Condominium Act, and our bylaws. I'm not going to take the time to compare the three documents, but if there are any disagreements, as stated in earlier posts, the order of precedence would be the Act, then the bylaws and finally the Rules and Regulations. Publishing the original, unedited CAI document leaves interpretation in the hands of the reader.

You might be wondering what is the source of this document. Our board has been enrolled in the Community Associations Institute for a number of years. This is a dues paid subscription, paid by our association. The CAI is considered by some to be a trade organization, which provides "education, tools and resources to people who govern and manage homeowners associations, condominiums and other planned communities." (Reference 1).  The CAI markets and provides training and certification materials for professional managers and also promotes managers who meet CAI's qualifications. It has an elaborate series of "awards" and certifications for such managers. The CAI sales materials state, in part: "Do you want to gain a competitive advantage, earn more money and obtain valuable experience? Learn how you can stand out from the crowd and enhance your career. If you already have a designation, you can download redesignation forms and stay on top in your career."


 The CAI has about 29,000 members. To provide some perspective, the CAI states that there are an "estimated 57 million Americans who live in more than 286,000 community associations."  Using the CAI numbers indicates that their membership could be as high as 10% of the HOAs in the U.S.


There are other organizations that provide training materials to HOAs. For example, the 
Community Association Training Resource Center




Reference 1: http://www.caionline.org/Pages/Default.aspx

The Newsletter Has Arrived!

Got my copy of the October/November newsletter today. Here are my initial observations.

The newsletter was further expanded and uses the same "upgraded" glossy paper. Photos are dark and I assume that this is because the original documents are being sent to the printer in color. Hint: conversion to "gray scale" and tweaking for contrast prior to submission would significantly improve the quality of the photos. Now that the "old" board has been removed, there are no longer any excuses about the newsletter, website, etc.

Did you notice that our CD is now our "Secretary, Recording Secretary and Communications Director?" I'll use the title "Communications Director" so as to provide continuity in this blog. For those who are interested, the "Secretary" is the named representative on legal documents for the association. According to the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals, the "Secretary" of a corporation has a "key responsibility to ensure the the board has the proper advice and resources for discharging its fiduciary duty under state law, and to ensure that the records of the Board's actions reflect that the Board has done so." Reference 5.

The newsletter stated that for the present we don't have a treasurer. However, as stated the board is planning to fill a vacant position, unless unit owners create a petition as specified in the newsletter.

The newsletter confirmed that our former Architectural Director "declined to fill the one-year term." Reference 1.

The new president made a statement encouraging unit owners to attend association meetings. The president stated that "the more engaged each homeowner is in the association's affairs, the better the board will be able to understand and address our community's needs." I underscore this. In a statement pertaining to the 2010 budget, the president stated that the board expects "there to be no increase to your 2010 assessment." That underscores the information and statements made by management at previous association meetings. So the new board concurs. That should make people happy, or not? There was no mention of the "reserve study". I am very interested in seeing the details of the study and the budget. But the study has been one of those "secrets" I guess.

The association website is coming "soon".  One of our unit owners has volunteered to do this. I am not certain if that is the same gentleman who was acknowledged during the annual meeting.

In the "Director Reports" our outgoing Architecture Director stated that driveway replacements were approved during the September association meeting for 1600T, 1601T, 1604T, 1706L, 1725L, 1733H and 1774G. I had written to management in the first week of October pertaining to the apparent delays to this work as well as to the roofing project at 1730-1732H.  My letter stated,  in part "...the board has authorized the driveway work and the roof...The Communications Director was the only board member who voted "NO" regarding the driveway repairs. However, it would be an inadequate excuse for the board to forego [sic] its responsibilities, and it would seem necessary for the board to act in compliance with the wishes of the vote." etc. I closed with the comment "I am very concerned about the current state of affairs at BLMH."

In the "Management Report" section of the newsletter, the statement was made that "There are several projects underway and scheduled for completion yet this year."  The newsletter went on to state that "The asphalt replacements and drainage improvements will be an ongoing project for the next several years until all of the driveways are completed." One aspect stood out. That was the statement that several projects are "scheduled" for completion this year. A careful observer will note that the languaging was "scheduled" and not "will". So perhaps we should keep our fingers crossed, and hope the work is completed. As a unit owner who gets a bill each and every month for the payment of my fees, I don't think our board and management would accept my statement that "I am "scheduled" to send you a payment each month." What is expected each and every month is that I "will" send my payment. For those who are about to quibble, the difference is significant and is one of "commitment".

I found it interesting that the new "Rules and Regulations" Director made the statement that "I suggest that instead of regarding our R&Rs as annoying restrictions, we think of them more as responsibilities that we share with our neighbors." Gee, I thought that is what the "old" board kept telling us. Now it was not only stated, but it was actually PRINTED in the newsletter. How did that get past the censor?

Pertaining to the "resetting of storm drains" you can see photos at Reference 2.

It was stated that the maintenance company will be "coming around in the next few weeks to break up the garage salt buckets and fill them for the beginning of the winter season." I thought that was performed by our snow removal contractor. But then, I am a relative "newbie", so perhaps I am mistaken. My building has a 50 gallon plastic container. Perhaps I am lucky and the rest of the unit owners have "buckets" in their garages. There is an explanation, of course. I have a large container because this is "another perk for the favored few." Oops, sorry for blowing it for the other three unit owners who share the garage. Perhaps we'll be demoted or whatever to a "bucket" this winter.

The newsletter stated that "Monthly assessments can be paid automatically". That's attractive, but would filling out a debit form also provide for "automatic" collection of fines, etc.? No explanation was given in the newsletter. I'd be unwilling to have fines automatically debited from my bank account. I'll explore this further with a letter to management.

The newsletter contained a reprint of the "Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities" as made by the CAI, which is online at caionline.org. These are "Principles for Homeowners and Community Leaders."  There was no statement accompanying this document. On its website, the CAI states that "By encouraging community associations to adopt Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities, CAI strives to promote harmony, community, responsible citizenship and effective leadership.

The CAI website makes the following recommendations for adopting the "Rights and Responsibilities":

"Adopting Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities is easy!

• Download the Rights and Responsibilities document.
• Distribute the document throughout your community, announcing and publicizing where and when adoption will be considered.
• Explain why this is important to your community and the benefits it can create.
• Review and discuss the merits of the principles at an open meeting of your board.
• Solicit input from homeowners.
• Have your board vote to adopt a resolution endorsing Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities. The principles will be more meaningful to homeowners and community leaders if they are formally adopted."

The newsletter does not indicate this is to be a process, with unit owner input. There are several possible explanations:

1. There is no intention for formal adoption at BLMH on the part of the board. The "R&R for BC" is merely a suggestion.
2. Our board intends to adopt the "R&R for BC" by decree.
3. Input is being solicited, but only from specific unit owners.
4. This will be posted as part of the agenda for the next association meeting, thereby continuing a bias in favor of unit owners living on the property.

I'll be providing more on the CAI "R&RforBC" in a later post. You are encouraged to go to the CAI website and review their statements about the use of this document and recommendations for boards, unit owners and professional managers. Reference 3.

The newsletter did not provide a statement about the oaths for our Board of Managers. It is unclear if the newly elected members of the board signed the oath. Reference 4.

The Communications Director provided a "Meet Your Neighbor" page and the following statement at the bottom of the page: "NOMINATIONS: If you'd like to nominate someone you know for the "Meet Your Neighbor" column, send the name and address of your nominee to: [our Communications Director] or email __________. Nominees will be contacted and asked if they wish to be interviewed." From this, am I to conclude that my earlier request to the "Communications Director" regarding the interview of current and former board members did not occur because they declined the interview? Or perhaps my request was simply ignored??? Nah, that wouldn't happen here, would it? I'll resubmit my nominations with addresses, but I won't be holding my breath.

In the "Meet Your Neighbor" interview for the month, the selected nominee stated that her personal motto is "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger".  Choosing to paraphrase Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was interesting and I can only say, "you have come to the right association, lady."

The "red stuff on my shoes" article does "officially" answer the question brought up by a unit owner at an earlier association meeting.

No mention of the "vandalism" or recent theft brought up by a unit owner was made in the newsletter. If you want to be informed of some of these items, you will have to attend association meetings, or be fortunate to spot a piece in the local paper. Of course, you may also use one of the rumor mills in operation at BLMH, including the "official" and board member sponsored and "unofficial". However, in so doing you will possibly not get accurate information and you may also be spreading gossip. I appreciate that in the absence of published statements, unit owners have few choices.

Did you notice the statistics for unit owners who cast their votes? The statement is on page 1 in the second paragraph.   I'll state this "positively": 57.14% of the unit owners at BLMH aren't apathetical about their association, and did vote. The remaining 42.86% just don't give a hoot. Gee, and it was only a year ago that "a majority of us" were up in arms, according to the Communications Director. Amazing what a difference a year can make. Now nearly 40% are simply going about their daily business. I guess things aren't that bad here, are they? I state that because in my limited experience, most people go about their day to day business unless something personally significant intervenes in their lives.

The newsletter does not provide a current list of contractors. At several association meetings, unit owners have asked about "Ron's TV" which has left the downtown area. Their replacement is used for work on TV and coaxial cabling in units, maintaining the rooftop and in-attic antennas, etc. The new information for contacting "Ron's TV" was promised to be included in the newsletter. I suggest that unit owners contact the professional management for this information.

Sorry, but I've got to go. Despite what my critics say, I do have a full time job and I have spent the last 40+ years improving American industry, "committed to the elimination of all preventable industrial accidents in my lifetime", etc. Besides, I've got a  "quick banana bread" to remove from the oven. I prefer the recipes in a January 1967 version of the Rombauer-Becker "Joy of Cooking", you know, the version prior to the time they took butter out of the recipies and became "politically correct". So this bread was made with honest to goodness real "shortening". As we are approaching winter, I'll soon be making home-made cinnamon rolls. However, as I am currently working on a project about 650 miles distant, that may interfere with my baking schedule. Blogging however, can be accomplished from anywhere. From personal experience, I have been able to "carry on" from 7,000 miles away "as the crow flies."

Reference 1:   http://briarcliffelakes.blogspot.com/2009/09/post-election-2009.html
Reference 2:   http://briarcliffelakes.blogspot.com/2009/10/somebody-is-on-job.html
Reference 3:   http://www.caionline.org/info/help/Pages/RightsandResponsibilities.aspx
Reference 4:   http://briarcliffelakes.blogspot.com/2009/05/board-of-managers-part-2.html
Reference 5:   http://tinyurl.com/ygodh6n