When is a Bench, More than a Bench?

A bench appeared in the common area adjacent to 1700. Here's a photo taken on October 10:

I'm not sure precisely how this bench got to where it is, but I suspect an owner put it there. I'm going to make that assumption for this purpose of this post. We have had an owner make "requests" of the board for a bench for a year or so. This was observed during the homeowner's forum of several association meetings. That owner also approached other residents and stated his and her case; I was approached.

On first glance, one might be inclined to say "well, if they want a bench, why not allow one?"

To answer that question requires an inquiry into the "ownership" of BLMH, and some of the definitions, and responsibilities of that ownership, and the role of the board in these matters.

The bench is in the "common area" of the association. The "common area" is one of three areas, which denotes ownership and responsibility. These are:

• Unit
• Common Element
• Limited Common Element

The "Unit" is owned and under the control of each owner. It's my property and it's everything contained within the walls of my dwelling space. Each owner is fully responsible for everything in his or her unit. However, "my responsibility" extends beyond the wall of my unit. The windows, interior of the walls including finish painting, electrical, plumbing, garage door, etc. If something in my "unit" fails, it is my personal responsibility to repair it. Further, if there is damage to the building or to our neighbor's unit, caused by any failure of something which is a part of my "unit" or by the utilities solely serving my unit, such as water, waste plumbing, electrical, etc., such repair is entirely my responsibility. That means, it is my responsibility to make such a failure right, and I will be obligated to pay any sum to do so. I will be required to pay for any and all repairs to my neighbor's unit and the building or "common elements," if failure of my "property" is the cause. It's not a choice; it's an obligation.

The "Common Elements" are anything which does not serve or service my unit exclusively. It's generally the grounds and everything outside of the interior of my unit. However, structural elements of the building, even if within my unit, are part of the common elements. (Note 1). Common elements are owned and maintained by the association. They are not "my" property. They are association property and the use of these commons elements is available to and shared by all unit owners. Maintenance, which is to say the cost of maintaining anything and everything in the common elements is paid by your fees, and is shared by the unit owners. The bench in the photo is in the common elements.

The "Limited Common Element" is the "grey area" which isn't in my "unit" and also isn't part of the "common elements." It's anything that isn't within the walls of my unit, but which may be there for the purpose of serving my unit. This includes my patio, the air conditioning compressor outside my unit (which I own, but is situated in the common elements) and all the plumbing and the electrical service that serves my unit. For example, once the water main leaves the "T" in the water closet in the garage, and through "my" water meter, that plumbing is my responsibility, because it serves my unit exclusively. It's of no matter or consequence if that plumbing is outside the walls of my unit. It is "my" plumbing because is serves my unit, and mine exclusively.

So, what is the significance of the bench?

The bench is in that area called the "common elements". It doesn't serve a specific unit, nor is it in any way connected to a unit. That means the bench in the photo is now a "common element." It is now a part of the property of the association. 

If a unit owner placed it there, have they, in fact, donated it to the association? It could be argued that in doing so, the unit owner has given up all rights to it. But have they? A bench in the common elements is now the responsibility of the association, as the association is responsible for all of the common elements. That means that your fees will be used to clean it, maintain it in good order, and, if someone should trip over it or fall off of it, our association would be expected to cover any medical claims.

I have heard owners complain to the board at association meetings that wood chips were left on sidewalks. They requested that maintenance "get out there with a broom" and sweep. What would make me think that the same owners will be out there maintaining this bench? The sidewalks adjacent to our units are as much our property as anything else in the common elements. 

If this bench is now association property, that means it can be used by anyone in the association at any time. Who has first claim to sit here? Another resident, or friends of the person who placed the bench here? Perhaps another owner will decide this is not the best location for a bench. Perhaps landscaping or maintenance will also decide that. Or management. Does the association have the right to move it to a better, or more advantageous location? Perhaps another owner would conclude it would provide more benefit if it was outside their unit. Why shouldn't or wouldn't they petition the association to move it, or simply get a few friends to move it? After all, if one person can decide to put a bench in a location, why can't or shouldn't another decide to move it? Why shouldn't we all have benches, or planters, or lawn furniture and decorations? After all, we are all equals here, and if the association doesn't manage these things, then it's entirely up to individual owners to make the decisions. 

You can see the problem, can't you? If the directors of the association decide to look the other way and allow the owners to make the decisions, that will ultimately lead to conflict. It will result in anarchy. 

Sometimes a bench isn't simply a bench. It's a symbol. It's a declaration. It's taking a stand.  I wonder if those who placed that bench along the walk, truly realized what they were doing?

If there are to be games at BLMH, wouldn't you, as an owner, like to know what the ground rules are, so you too can "play the game" and win?

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References, Miscellaneous News

Oops. I had posted the wrong address; it was a typo and has been corrected.

Note 1. If an owner should modify the walls or other aspects of the structural elements, then responsibility for subsequent failures may pass to the owner. So, if I want to modify a wall, it might be a good idea to hire a competent carpenter and not simply "Joe the Handyman" to do the work. A few years ago, a unit owner decided to add a "built-in" bookcase to his or her unit. It was a nice idea. However, whoever they hired to do the job cut the structural supports. This was discovered by one of our observant maintenance crew before irreparable damage occurred to the building. The cost of repairs was the responsibility of the owner who authorized the original work. If a previous owner had done this, then the responsibility passed to the current owner.

Note 2. Our "rules and regulations" state that an owner may report a rules violation, and specifies the proper methods of doing so. I suspect the previous board has used this as the opportunity to avoid rules enforcement. It seems that if an owner doesn't report a violation, then the rules and regulations director, and the others on the previous board, made a decision to "look the other way." This is conjecture on my part, based upon the content of a rules violation letter I received, and observations. This policy change wasn't discussed in public during association meetings, nor were the discussions of policy changes and enforcement by the rules and regulation "focus group" revealed to the unit owners.

Note 3. There have been some interesting consequences because of the new rules enforcement policies. I've noticed a few satellite dishes mounted in such a manner as to be in violation. The reason for strict guidelines is to minimize potential damage to the buildings and the roofs, and that means, to keep our maintenance costs as low as possible.

Note 4. I sent a copy of the photo to the R&R director yesterday, with copy to the president of the association. I accompanied it with a few questions about the origin and legitimacy of the bench. My thanks to the owner who took the photo on October 10.

Questions include:

1. Has the owner been determined, and has this been discussed with the owner? If not, I would suggest a discussion be made with the residents of the building to determine ownership.
2. If no one claims ownership, should it be removed by the association? If an owner claims it, then I’d like to know the specific position of the rules and regulations director, in this matter.
3. I pointed out a potential issue. All property in the common areas is the property of the association. We are responsible for it as soon as it is placed there. Should a unit owner have the right to determine the responsibilty of his or her neighbors, and their liability for his or her actions? 
4. If it is the decision of the board that the placement of personal property in the common areas is to be permitted, I requested advice on this. I suggested that the board determine what features and types of items are to be permitted, and if benches are to be permitted, where are they to be installed, etc. Who is to maintain them? What is the criteria for removal by the association? For example, if the bench falls into decay or disuse and becomes a danger or hazard to residents, who is to determine when and if it poses such a danger? Who is to negotiate with the owner if such ‘danger’ exists. Who is to pay for such removal? In other words, what are the ground rules?
5. If benches on the property are desireable, and the R&R director has decided to “look the other way”, then I suggest that the R&R director approach the board and initiate a discussion to determine the appropriateness of such benches, and determine how to specify the type of benches, where they are to be installed, who is to approve such installation, and then initiate a change to the rules.
6. Finally, whose insurance will be cited if someone trips over this, or falls from it and is injured? The association’s or the owner’s? Perhaps what is needed is a “waiver of subrogation” from the owner, naming BLMH. Of course, such waiver must be renewed annually. Who is to assure that this is done? Who is to monitor this? If an owner refuses, then what?

Note 5. The approach I am advocating would permit all owners to have the same benefits. It could also shift rules enforcement in the direction of being a creation, rather than a reaction. If this makes sense to you, I suggest you contact the board. Writing is best, if for no other reason than it is easy to ignore or lose verbal requests. Email with copies to all board members are an easy method of accomplishing this. Our email addresses are contained in each "Manor Briefs" newsletter, which is also posted on the official BLMH.org website. 

Note 6. It's also my observation that the rules and enforcement of the rules at BLMH has shifted into gamesmanship. Owners and even board members, sometimes cajole other owners and play politics to get others to agree with their positions. One of the statements used in conversation to solicit such agreement is "Isn't this wonderful!" That's one of the reasons I have stated publicly that "silence in all matters is consent." That's exactly the conclusion of people who interpret such silence as being complete agreement. Of course, most owners would prefer to avoid confrontation and that means, avoid an argument or disagreement. Some months ago I didn't "roll over" during such a press by an owner about their position on a matter here at BLMH and at the end of that conversation I was told "You are a hard, hard man!" That's the way the game is to be played by some of our politically astute owners. Cajole, manipulate and if that fails, then dominate? Or simply attempt to make others "bad and wrong?"

Creating "Winners" and "Losers"?

Is it possible that our board, and of course, any board, in the course of performing their duties, can create winners and losers in the association?

I suggest that this can occur. It is the result of the selection and rejection of issues, budgeting and the expenditure of funds, and as a consequence of inconsistency. It would, of course, be a natural consequence of uneven or unequal treatment of unit owners.

On the matter of issues, our board majority has, for two years, had a focus on social issues. I base this in part on the amount of time spent during association meetings on topics selected by board members. Last year, for example, the better part of an entire meeting was spent on the issue of suspending rules enforcement pertaining to a semi-trailer parked on the property. Other issues included the creation of a neighbors club, a picnic which among the board there was strong sentiment that it must be held on association property. This year, there were subtle and not so subtle changes. Board members promoted social issues to include the creation of a "focus group" for rules changes, which has not yet reported to the owners. Rules and rules enforcement has been viewed as repressive or onerous by some of the board. There was a discussion of a "garden club", the subtle change in language from owner to "homeowner" by the board, and an attempt to change the rules to open association meetings to renters. There has been a concerted effort to blur the distinction of "owner" and emphasize "residents."

There are of course, larger issues which govern the overall direction of BLMH. Then there are the smaller ones, which occur in the course of day to day operation of the Association. On the matter of selecting the issues, our board sometimes refers to or cites the Community Associations Institute (CAI), to promote their positions. However, they don't give us the "top 10" list of reasons the CAI promotes themselves. I present that list here (actually, it's a top 9) as published by the CAI. I do this as an aid to understanding what some of the issues are and the selection process of our board:

1. Experiencing problems with turnover from the Developer.
2. Trouble collecting assessments and enforcing rules.
3. Apathetic residents and/or Board members.
4. Dangerously low (or no) reserve funds.
5. Drafting reasonable rules and regulations.
6. Dealing with hostile homeowners or board members.
7. Problems with the election process.
8. Questions about bidding for contractors or managers.
9. Conflicts of interest.

In the above, collecting fees and rules enforcement, apathetic owners, reserve funding are among CAI's top four issues which have relevance to this association. Then we have the drafting of reasonable rules, dealing with problem owners and the election process, bidding  and conflicts of interest. I assume "Conflicts of Interest" applies to board members.

A few of these issues are currently among the topics of the board. The ongoing issues with the "fairness" of Rules and Regulations is one. However, do you see any mention of "renters" or "renter attendance of association meetings?" No, you don't. Yet surprisingly, our board selected  "renter attendance at association meetings" as among the most urgent problems here at BLMH!  Of course, it is possible to say this is a response to number 3: "apathetic residents." However, wouldn't "apathetic owners" and another item "Problems in the election process" in our association, in which we have low voter turnout and owner participation, be more important to this association? Wouldn't it seem to be more important to enroll the 300 or so owners who live on the property in the process of ownership and management? The owners are the "majority" here and if effort is to be made, I would think a proportionate amount should be made to improve owner awareness and participation.

I do not consider the "neighbors club" as a board function. That's a function of unit owners independent of the board and the association. With a 5 or 10% unit owner participation rate in the "club" that would be much lower than the overall owner voting record. Yet the formation of this club was perhaps the number 1 issue here at BLMH last year!

In a volunteer organization, and our board is just such an organization, it is vital to prioritize tasks. Why is that? Because the volunteers who comprise our board have limited time to accomplish their tasks. Some are employed, some are not. None have unlimited time, talent and energy. Some are computer literate, and some are not. Being a board member is not a hobby! So when the board makes a conscious decision or choice of which issues to pursue, it also decides which issues do not warrant the expenditure of their limited time and other precious association resources. When I attend meetings and listen to the discussion of the board, I wonder "how did they go about selecting those issues?" and "How is it that these issues moved to the top of the list?" These are important questions to ask. It also alludes to personal agendas and conflicts of interest, another CAI top 9 issue.

Is an Attentive Board Important?
Should our board be concerned that owners come to association meetings and say "this board doesn't listen?" I would think it would be a red flag when a unit owner, who has professional credentials, has participated with the board and has provided a workshop to them, attends an association meeting and makes just such a statement.

So what's gone wrong? Where have we strayed from the path? It seems the board is focusing on their perceived issues and has forgotten about the heart and soul of BLMH. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the owners. True, in these extra-ordinarily difficult times, there is more than the usual concern and fear out there. That fear can mask or amplify concerns and issues. Are members of the board using that for personal reasons and to further a personal agenda? Or have they become caught up in the uncertainty and the problems in the country and the world at large? I cannot state motivation. I can state that in such times it is even more important than usual to maintain focus, monitor the financial trends and health of the association, and address the underlying concerns of the owners.

Would it be useful to get back to basics and consider that the first task to be done is to promote owner awareness? That is an important distinction. Promoting awareness would seem to be more important than responding to any and all complaints, or simply taking steps to remove the source of complaint, such as watering down the association rules, the collection of fees, etc. Our board majority is comprised of  individuals who apparently have a belief that "our fees are too high." There has certainly been a board response to such unit owner complaints and a resonance with those unit owners.

The board derives it authority from the owners. Are those who don't complain less so than those who do? Or I pose the question that are we to assume there are no problems if an owner doesn't complain? Further, if the board focuses on complaints, or the outcome of discussions with the few who attend the neighbors club, are they "missing the ball" and catering to special interests?

Certainly, because the owners provide the authority of the board, we, the owners are ultimately responsible.  We did elect this board! However, if the board has a specific method of listening to the owners, and creates filters, or ignores certain unit owners, does that create issues? Can that promote apathy and with it, it's adverse effects?

Instead of shutting people off, would it be better to get people engaged as owners? So how should the board treat "owners?" Our board has attempted free coffee and donuts.  They appear to be operating from non-publicized and therefore hidden lists of things to do or not to do in the association. They certainly have failed to create 5- and 10-year plans and have failed to engage owners in those plans.

It is known that apathy and inattention on the part of owners "can create neglect or the pursuit of self interest by the board, managers and committees." Surely our board is aware of this. There are those in this association who complained about such "self interest" and "special treatment" of some unit owners, whether it was real or not. That was a campaign slogan then. It was a perception, then, and so we cannot responsibly choose to ignore this as a possibility, now, because all boards are comprised of human beings, with all the strengths, and failings of human beings.

Are there Problems or Issues to be Concerned About?
Are there problems, issues and concerns at BLMH? What are they? I'm more than a little disappointed in board members who "choose" the issues and then create focus groups to address them. Let's be honest here. That's not representation. That's dictatorship disguised as a social club. Paying $300 per month for a social club is really expensive dues, nearly equal to my property taxes!

Keep the above CAI list handy, and better yet, ask our board majority why they persist in their direction, and why aren't they dealing with other problems? Who are they really representing here at BLMH?

It has been said that "if you don't have a plan, any road will take you where you are going." There is absolutely no doubt the BLMH will get to where it is going. Do you know precisely where that is? If you don't, why don't you? Have you been given a concise statement by the board of the association plan? I haven't! Do they tell us what we need to know as engaged owners, or perhaps are we simply being told that which they believe we should hear? What's missing? Does our board know precisely where they are taking the owners?

What I am talking about is the difference between BLMH as a creation of its owners, and a reaction of the board.

Our board may have a plan, but if they do, what is it? Could they possibly articulate what they are doing? Failure to do so simply feeds owner concerns about well-being and financial security.

For example, we are in the midst of two major programs here at BLMH. The driveway replacement and the roofing program which has been stated is to be completed within another 5 years or so. It would seem obvious that all roofs must be completed in a timely manner, so too with the driveways. It has been stated that the selection of the order of the roofs will be determined by review of the condition of the roofs, in any given year. Obviously it will also be determined by the amount of money available. Hopefully, sufficient money will be collected and saved in such a manner that all roofs will be completed in the identical manner and before any fail. Management has indicated an approximate range of completion dates, but the board has not agreed with them that I am aware. The board seems to be using 8 years from the start as the completion date. This may be an optimistic appraisal of the life of our roofs.

For example, do you know how many roofs will be completed in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015? There has been no published plan. And yet, simple arithmetic would indicate that, to complete the remaining association roofs in 6 years will require that about 7 be done each year. I appreciate that the board may not know exactly which group of roofs is to be completed in 2011. However, we do know the total number of roofs on the property and we can easily figure out how many must be completed per year. We also know the overall condition of the roofs and management's statements about the possible completion date, which reflects their best guess as to the current condition of the roofs. (Notes 2, 3).

What will this program cost this association? Perhaps a total in excess of $3.0 million. I can't be specific because our board seems to operate from month to month and has not "connected the dots" and provided a succinct statement. A lack of a board statement means that as an owner, I have to glean the numbers from published association documents and statements at the association meetings. The projects include drainage improvements requiring landscaping, the cost of which seem to be rolled into other aspects of the projects. By my best guess, the roofing project will cost at least $1.9 million. The driveways are  even more difficult to determine with the information at hand, because the project has been "stalled" for nearly two years. However, it would seem the cost will be at least $850,000 and possibly $1.1 million. Why the range? It's because of varying driveways sizes and the unknown condition of the sub-bases. Some driveways are twice the size of others and to use the cost on the smallest driveways creates a dangerous illusion. Using the highest number overstates the total cost.

We'll keep waiting and eventually the truth will emerge. Until then, as an owner, I can simply watch the dollars flow from the checkbook. However, I can use some arithmetic. If an equal number of roofs and driveways are completed each year, it will require at least $375,000 each and every year for a period of 8 years, to complete all of the roofs and driveways in a manner similar to those completed and planned for completion, to date. If the projects must be completed in 6 years due to the condition of the roofs and driveways, it will require $500,000 per year. Do we have sufficient funds to do that? Ask your board!

I have questioned this plan and I have cited the professional managers statements about it to the board. For it's part, the board has been very closed mouthed and has "hedged its bets" by hiring an outside firm to provide a "reserve study." However, the board majority also voted in a 0% fee increase. They apparently believe we will collect the necessary funds at the current fee rate.

So while the plan continues, some owners fret and worry. I have been told point blank by a current board member who is not the treasurer that "there are sufficient reserves" to do this project. I have asked that the entire association be presented with a clear statement to substantiate that position. That has not yet occurred.


Are our Fees Too High?
The board majority appears to believe this, has sided with the vocal group that says "our fees are too high" and passed a 0% fee increase last year. This too, seems to substantiate the board position that this association has, at the current rate of collection, sufficient monies to do the roofs and driveways.

I don't know if our fees are too high, are just right, or are too low. However, the numbers aren’t encouraging. Management has recommended a 7% fee increase for the sole purpose of adding to reserves. Certainly the "reserve study" should provide some clarity. However, it will not necessarily provide certainty. If that were so, the expert opinions of our managers should have been sufficient. What happens if the opinions revealed in the "reserve study" differ with those of the professional managers? My guess is the board will choose that which allows the lower fees. I would suggest that critical numbers for roofs, driveways, streets, and other infrastructure be reviewed to assure accuracy and alignment with "reality."

If the board was uncertain, why was there no "austerity program" announced and implemented last year or this year?

If our fees are not equal to the task, are there to be "winners" or "losers?" Last year I was concerned when the board decided to hold fees constant. Why? Because 1) Owners can better absorb small annual increases. 2) Money uncollected can only be collected in the future by larger fee increases. 3) The board had not yet gotten a larger reserve study. 4) The advice of the professional managers in their informal "reserve study" indicated there were concerns and issues. 5) The driveway program was probably going to cost more than anticipated. 6) The board had stated a commitment and had begun to address some of the drainage issues on the property. 7) Considering the above and the large amount of uncertainty, to err for a year in the direction of slightly higher fees would seem the better choice than to underfund these projects and risk a larger fee increase in 2011. 8) I don't like to gamble and won't knowingly do so.

So how is this relevant to the topic of this post? This is an example of how board action can create or promote winners here at BLMH. What am I talking about? Perhaps not all roofs will be completed in a timely manner or using the same methods and techniques. How would you characterize that inequality? Does it matter? Well, previous boards articulated and acted to preserve the integrity and similarity of all of the buildings here at BLMH. Some unit owners objected. But is there a method to this? Consider that differences may result in some buildings being perceived as "better" or "worse" than others. Varying amounts of insulation will lower the energy costs to some unit owners. Sales of units could become competitive within the association if the board approves and uses different methods and techniques.

Can Inconsistent Fees Create "Winners" or "Losers"
Not all owner are in equal circumstance. Some are retirees who are experiencing pension payout reductions. Some are working but are experiencing reduced hours and reduced payrolls because of the recession. Some were given a 5% raise this year. These differences are irrelevant as "owners" because as owners, we are all equals. We all pay the same fees as based on percentage ownership. The same is true also for our votes, which are equal. So those circumstances should have no bearing on the day to day operation of the association. However, we all have a limited capacity to bear the fees that are levied, and to support each other in carrying out our duties as "owners."

So when fees increase, are there "winners" and "losers?" Well if you are financially strapped, I am certain you feel as if you are a "loser". But let's consider how this works if we take another perspective.

Let's assume that the board holds fees down for a period of years. If you are vigorously attempting to sell your unit and you do, you will achieve some savings in fees because you sold your unit while fees were held down. If you purchased your unit while fees were low, you may have some savings but those will vanish if fees increase and more importantly, if they increase to make up for past deficits. That's a point of CAI number 4: "Dangerously low reserve funds."

When I purchased here, I was one of the those who did so after a decade of low fees at BLMH. Shortly after purchasing, fees ramped up and continued to ramp up. So today I pay about 50% more than I did about 9 years ago. Anyone who sold the year I purchased was able to pocket about 10 years of lower than necessary fees. I and anyone else who purchased at that time, took the difference out of our pockets over the next 9 years and handed it to the association, where a portion has been saved for "reserves" for new roofs, driveways, etc. I paid higher fees to accomplish this and to build up reserves that were "dangerously low." So I suppose you could say I was a "loser".

Can this happen again? If the board is currently collecting sufficient fees to cover all anticipated projects in a necessary and timely manner and is building a contingency fund, it should not. I think the primary purpose of the reserve study would be to show that we have identified all of those projects. I say that because we already supposedly have a list of projects, their time lines and a professional management company to guide us. Our board currently has, and has had, the facts. So should we be uneasy? I am, because our board has not put this into a succinct, clear, concise statement and has instead avoided doing so.

They have also undermined confidence by their occasional lack of support for management.

Competition Among Owners in the Association
An owner has the right to provide upgrades to his or her unit, for personal benefit and this may differentiate their unit and stimulate the sale of the unit when the time comes. For example, that $10,000 kitchen upgrade may make a difference when selling the unit. This is the unit owner's choice because it's the unit owner's personal funds.

However, if the association spends unit owner fees and creates differences, then what? At the time I do finally sell my unit, I would not want to compete against another building in the association on which $50,000 or so of association money was spent for treatments my building did not get. Would you?

To avoid even the perception that there will be some who "lose" here at BLMH, it would seem that the board should be doing everything in it's power to promote owner engagement in projects and of course, in many others. That would include frank discussions of the finances necessary to achieve them.

The board has chosen to taken a somewhat paternal approach which seems to request that we "don't worry" and "be happy."

This sugary syrup is being spooned to a population which has heard this before, from "big government" to "big corporations" to local politicians. Somehow reality did not coincide with the cheerful appraisals and we now find ourselves in the worst recession in anyone's memory, with terrible unemployment, a State which is considered a bigger credit risk than Portugal, etc. In this environment, even if we aren't worried, people now sometimes look for something hidden in the shadows and over-react. Our board certainly should realize this.


Does Fee Collection or Rules Changes Create "Winners"? 
Another example. Number 2 on the CAI list includes "trouble collecting assessments." Are our receivables, which is to say "uncollected owner fees" increasing or decreasing? What were they in 2007, 2008, 2009 and at the current trend, where will they most likely be on December 31, 2010? That data would certainly indicate if board action is improving the collection or not.

I don't think there are any winners when unit owners fall behind in payment of their fees. However, the losers include all unit owners because the financial plans assume these "receivables" will, in fact, be collected. That rosy assumption is one of the reasons these past due fees are considered to be "receivable." However, what if they are not or cannot be collected? The association building programs assume the reserves will be there. If they aren't, who will lose? The other unit owners who will be required to step up and add a little more each month as a "fee increase." Or perhaps those who are left "holding the bag" when there is a call for a "special assessment" or the board decides to encumber unit owners with a mortgage.

Number 2 also includes "rules enforcement." Our current board seems to be on a direction to water down the rules to keep everyone happy. I have criticized sloppy, haphazard and unequal enforcement many times. The former Rules and Regulations Director was characterized as being "uncaring" when she refused to deviate from the rules and procedures. There was discussion about rules enforcement as actually being "punishment."

Rules enforcement is an attempt to seek compliance.

Our rules are not onerous or overbearing. Violators are given a letter and sufficient time to comply before any attempt is made to levy a fine. But that was insufficient. Who "wins" in the current arrangement? Those who break the rules and that includes chronic and repeat offenders. When trash is left outside a unit, and the owner isn't cited but this is picked up by our professional maintenance crews, who pays? In these situations, "Who loses?" Those who attempt to keep the rules and the social contract that includes.

Keeping the rules may include some cost to the owner. For example, purchasing a bicycle rack to get it out of the walkway, or purchasing more costly "brown" windows than the cheaper "white" ones. Those who comply may spend some of their money as involved and committed owners.

Who is really being punished here, if anyone?

Continuing, I and others on my cul-de-sac assist each other in picking up trash in the street, discarded newspapers, etc. We also share the burden of cleaning the halls. As I have previously written, it's possible that all in our cul-de-sac do not do so. Would rules enforcement encourage such participation? Would such participation be indicative of a step in the direction of involved owners? Possibly. But our board, through word and deed, actively discourages this.

So who loses? Most owners don't sweep the snow from the walk I have been informed. Most don't pick up the trash. Will such behavior promote ownership and desirability here at BLMH? Will it promote sales? Does a lack of support of such positive behaviors possibly promote negligence on the part of owners?

Why did the board promote a neighbors club and avoided a spring cleaning or fall cleaning drive? Why the emphasis on "party" instead of co-operative building of a neighborhood?  I understand the desire for parties. But what about being and acting as owners? This is neither a "Club Med", nor a retirement village, or a rental community.

Owners and Other Residents
Our board has argued in favor of and attempted to pass a rule change in which renters could attend association meetings. Who are the "winners" among the unit owners, should this occur? Those unit owners who own property and rent. How is that? Renters will attend meetings, and in other ways gain access to the board. Our board appears all too eager to spend their time and our money in dealing with social issues rather than running the business. In doing so, they could relieve the landlord, which is to say, the unit owner who rents his property, from dealing with and being fully and completely responsible as unit owners and as a landlord. A previous board member, who does in fact, rent a unit here, argued that specific point with this board. However, the board persists. Why is that?

Who loses? Any unit owner who resides in the building with the renter. Why? Because I am unaware of any renter at BLMH who shovels snow in winter, vacuums or cleans the hallways, distributes salt, picks up the papers or in other ways participates in "ownership" here at BLMH. So these duties and responsibilities pass to the remaining unit owners in each building.

I never hear the board promoting more “ownership” at BLMH.

"Lighten Up", they seem to be saying, so here goes!




Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References, Miscellaneous News
Note 1. What I am presenting here is gleaned from various issues that come before our board during association meetings. I listen to the board, our professional manager and the owners who attend. I also listen to individual board members, the members of committees and focus groups. I observe the actions of board members at informal events such as the "neighbors club." I also read all of the published material on our association that comes my way.

Note 2. I have revised the numbers per the most recent information available September 9, 2010. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the cost of the driveways because no one knows the exact condition of the sub-bases and there are variables in the contract. It is most likely the driveways will cost more than expected and this was demonstrated by the costs discussed during the September 10 association meeting. 14 driveways are in construction (7 begun in 2009 and 7 additional selected in 2010). We won't know the actual costs until these drives are completed. We can then project a more accurate cost of the remaining 70 driveways, using the actual cost per square foot of the 14 completed driveways.

Note 3. There are wide variations in asphalt shingle roofs. According to experts, asphalt shingle roofs have varying life expectancy, depending on several factors including the weight (quality) of the shingles, the slope of the roof, the exposure to the sun, the shingle color, the weather and general climate. Our roofs have two layers of shingles. The first was applied at the time of construction. The second was added on top of the first when that first layer reached the end of it's life span. My building is, according to my bank, approaching 34 years of age. Each layer of shingles on my roof most probably had a life expectancy of 15 to 20 years; doubled would yield a total life span of 30 to 40 years. This is apparently what our board is using.

Darker shingles such as ours wear faster, because they absorb more ultraviolet light. As shingles "wear" they lose their granules. You can see granules at the discharge of the downspouts after rain falls. This is normal. However, as these granules leave the roof, it becomes more and more exposed to ultraviolet light and the rate of aging increases. As the granules are worn off, the shingles will dry out and become brittle. They will then crack, buckle, and curl.

If you see curling of shingles, that is an indicator of a wearing roof. I have photos of a worn roof on this blog. It was on Harrow Court and it received a new roof last year. It is best to look at the roof in morning or evening, when the light casts longer shadows. The condition of the roof and in particular curls or lifting shingles, are more visible.

The shingles on our roofs are reaching the end of their life span. That's why some of our roofs are being replaced now.

How long can shingles last? Using modern standards, the most common type of shingles used today weigh 210 pounds per square and is called a "210" shingle. It has an average life expectancy of 12 to 15 years. There are heavier asphalt shingles available including 225’s (225 pounds per square) 235’s and 320’s. Modern fiberglass reinforcement mat shingles such as 225’s and 235’s have an average life expectancy of 15 to 20 years. The heavier 320’s have a life expectancy in excess of 25 years.

Here are a couple of photos taken of a roof that was replaced last year. This is prior to the replacement. You can see the curling of the shingles. This roof also had a section in which the shingles had blown off!

Note 4. I really do like it here, and I am looking forward to the completion of the driveway this year, and I am also looking forward to that day in a few years, when my building will get a really neat architectural roof like the one at Harrow and Lakecliffe. We will each get one, won't we?

A Dialog on a Rule Violation

I was recently cited for a rules violation. This resulted in a dialog and I thought it might be enlightening to put that dialog here.

The following letter was received:

"April 16, 2010
Re: Bike hung over walkway in garage

Hello,

My name is [name withheld for posting] and I am one of the directors of the Briarcliffe Lakes Association Board who is in charge of Rules and Regulations/Right and Responsibilities.

As you know, a set of rules have been adopted by our community for the purpose of protecting and enhancing our common property and providing a framework for neighbors to live together in harmony.

It has been called to the attention of the Board that you have a bike hung over the walkway in the garage. According to the community's rule document, section III, D, 2, "Garages shall be used only for their intended purposes.Garages shall not be used for storage or for anything other than one passenger vehicle, etc."

The Board feels it is better to resolve situations such as this personally with the homeowner/renter so an explanation of the rule involved can be explained fully thus preventing the necessity to proceed any further. If you do not have a copy of our Rules and Regulations and would like a copy, please let me know and I will get a copy to you. The sooner the problem is corrected the better it is for everyone involved.

Thank you for your understanding. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.

Respectfully,

{signed by the board member]"

I then responded with the following letter dated April 19, 2010:

"Dear Ms. [name withheld for posting];

I received the attached "notice of violation" regarding "Bike hung over walkway in garage" dated April 16, 2010, with your signature and instructions "If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me."

I have a question and request a clarification.

The letter states: "It has been called to the attention of the Board that you have a bike hung over the walkway in the garage. According to the community's rule document, section III, D, 2, "Garages shall be used only for their intended purposes. Garages shall not be used for storage or for anything other than one passenger vehicle, etc."

The excerpt of the rules specifically quoted in the letter and repeated above, implies that you want me to remove the bicycle from the garage. "Garages shall not be used for storage or for anything other than one passenger vehicle, etc." The "etc." not specifically quoted, in my copy of the rules states that bicycles are permitted in the garage. I assume you are therefor telling me to move the bicycle; I therefor assume that removing the bicycle from the present location suspended above the trash bins, and moving it to a location directly above the automobile and away from the walkway, will satisfy the rule.

Please clarify.

A reply via email is acceptable.

Very Truly Yours"

I received this reply dated April 21, 2010:

"Dear [my name],

Thank you for your response to my violation letter regarding your bike hung over the walkway in the garage. It was appreciated and informative. Any information I receive from residents regarding violations helps me become more knowledgeable in understanding the process and procedures of our rules and regulations.

As for moving your bike to the location directly above your automobile and away from the walkway I do not think this is necessary. The rule states "bicycles & motorcycles may be stored in garages, provided that such storage does not obstruct access to the garage or storage unit or interfere with garage cleaning and maintenance." If you believe where your bike is now stored complies with the above mentioned rule and the residents in your building do not find it a problem then the bike may remain where it is.

I hope I have answered your concerns to your satisfaction.

Respectfully,

{signed by the board member]"


Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References
================================
From the above you might be wondering how this was finally resolved.

On reading the violation letters, one could ask "do the letters promote responsible ownership and behavior?"

After reading the letters of our R&R Director, what do you think my response was?

• Did I leave the bicycle in its original location, in apparent violation of the rule because of my beliefs? Specifically because "I believe where my bike is now stored complies with the rule and the residents in my building do not find it a problem."? 
• Did I move the bicycle in accordance with the published rule? 

What do you think I did? How would you have handled this and responded to the letter? What would a typical unit owner do after receiving the clarification letter? What should a committed, responsible "Homeowner" have done?

The Sun Sets at BLMH

The "Wheaton Sun", that is.

This post will serve as a condensation of recent happenings, although I have prepared some additional notes on the recent association meetings.

I didn't get my paper last week, and it seems neither did my neighbors. What happened? For several weeks we had multiple copies of  the "Sun" delivered and the extra was dropped in the driveways. Some of our "homeowners" didn't bother to pick up the papers and left them scattered around. So after being run over several times and after a period of days the papers became a soggy mess, scattered in driveways and the streets, because of the recent rains.

Cleanup of this is, of course, an expense to the association. This is reminiscent of a situation which occured several years ago and I assume FUPM again took charge, called the Sun and asked them to suspend delivery to everyone in the association. That's certainly one way to get a result.

It's probably the best way to deal with a problem of this type. We were given several weeks to deal with this as "owners" and we didn't. As with overflowing trash containers, etc. our paid maintenance crews pick up any trash that is left behind and they do it for us, at our expense, when we the "homeowners" are unwilling to do it for ourselves. It keeps this association looking nice, and is a wonderful, but mandatorily expensive benefit of living here.  I say mandatory because there is no individual choice in this matter and those of us who do pick up trash in the street reap no benefit for our efforts; other than deriving some pride of ownership. Our fellow "homeowners" who can't be bothered are given the hand-holding of the board, at our expense. Isn't socialism wonderful? The committed get to work and slave for the rest of us. That too is the way the board works. So it seems to be increasingly difficult to get capable people to run and accept positions on the board.

Ah, yes, but "everyone" they say, complains about high fees.

In fairness, not all buildings had papers left outside; for example, I twice picked up the extra four in front of our building, stripped off the plastic wrappers and put them in my recycle bin. Some other unit owners did the same. But on driving the grounds, it was obvious many did not. I know; I took the time to check, just as I take the time in my busy schedule to post this blog and attend association meetings and study the issues and vote. So too, do a few of my neighbors and fellow "unit owners." But many do not.

My immediate neighbors and I have a good working relationship. That is, the unit owners who share the entrance in this building. For example, if I should return from work late on a Friday, my recycling bin is already in the garage; courtesy of my neighbors. I return the favor whenever I can. Residents of the building pick up the newspapers in the outer hall and bring them in; in that way the mailcarrier doesn't step all over them. Oversized packages and Express Mail deliveries are brought inside and are placed at the specific door of the occupant. One or more of my neighbors vacuums the hall carpets. Monthly meeting notices, etc. are removed from the cork board and recycled after the meeting.  Do we all participate in this? Perhaps not, but when four are sharing the load, such tasks are achieved effortlessly. It isn't about liking or disliking one another. Sharing a building entrance isn't a popularity contest. It's one small aspect of honoring a social contract.

Returning to the problem of newspapers scattered all over the grounds, this occurs to me as another example of how this association continues to devolve with a board that attempts to satisfy "everyone" by not offending anyone who lives here. Oh yes, we're all "homeowners" the board keep insisting. Really? REALLY? Don't "homeowners" have duties, accountabilities and responsibilities? Aren't they expected to keep their property clean and neat? Aren't they expected to adhere to some minimum standards? So why, if our board insists we are "homeowners" are not rules violations enforced when situations such as these papers occur? Isn't that littering? Isn't a "homeowner" supposed to handle the litter on "their" property?

I conclude that some of our board members are playing a childish game. They are pretending we are homeowners and providing "lip service". I must ask, how will calling us "homeowners" get us to act as "homeowners"? What actions on the part of this board would be a correlate to treating us, the unit owners as "homeowners"?

I think it's very easy; either everyone in a building finds a way to cooperate and get the job done, even if that means only one in four makes the effort and takes the time to pick up the papers littering the driveways. Or, everyone gets violation notices and if this continues, are fined. Oh, but that would be "repressive measures" one on our board has previously written. Promoting anarchy is preferred to promoting a neighborhood!

As for enforcing rules, the new board via our R+R Director with their new procedures, never discussed in front of unit owners, by the way, now merely writes letters and runs focus groups to discuss the betterment of the rules. One of the "better ideas" is to pass inspection to the professional management. I understand some of the politics. Who on our board is going to tell their "friends" that they are breaking the rules? From the board's perspective, that's apparently not the way "nice" people are supposed to operate in our association. So who is to be the heavy? It's now up to the professional management to do the inspections and provide a list of violators to the board. Those that don't pass the subjective "filters" our "loving, tender, caring" board have established will get some sort of letter of violation. Do all the violators get a letter? Who knows? It's in the hands of our board. The same board that repeatedly hides behind closed doors in executive sessions.

This approach is how we will now get much less bang for the buck from management. Instead of running the business, our management joins the cadre and army of people who are supposed to clean up after us. Does management have unlimited time available for this? No they don't. So I am inclined to ask, if the management is now doing clean-up duty, what aren't they doing? What tasks are no longer being completed in this assumption of the duties of the board by management? There are a limited number of hours in the day, aren't there? I suppose not if one is a serf. And make no mistake, we have board members who really treat everyone as a serf.

There was a time, very recently, when the R+R Director walked the grounds daily and made lists. But that resulted in violation notices and some upset unit owners. There were also disagreements on the board. After a vigorous campaign against board "repressive measures" we have new procedures, per statements in the newsletter and even more forthcoming rules changes and procedures, all by our new board and our new R+R Director. Will these be better procedures as in "more effective" procedures? I'll let you be the judge of that. It all depends upon one's perspective. An immediate benefit is, we no longer get the "Wheaton Sun".

After attending many meetings and listening closely to the board, I have concluded that all this talk about "being nice" and it's flip side, which is about "repression" is personal in nature. Collection procedures are not directed as a means to punish. Enforcement of the rules are not "punishment". Each and every unit owner and every renter has a social contract with this association and that is ultimately an agreement with their "neighbors". Living here is a privilege and as a "right" has specific duties and responsibilities. For example, we are expected and contractually bound to pay our monthly fees in a timely manner. If we fail to do so, there are consequences. Those consequences are not "punishment" and unit owners and members of the board should not expect their "neighbors" to carry that load for others. Our attorney addressed this at the May meeting. When a unit owner does not do certain things, or violates the rules, he or she violates the social contract. Such actions are undermining to the association and undermining and damaging to the others who live here. I have concluded that for one or more of our board members this "nice" talk is sourced by a deep animosity. I have news for you. "Nice" people honor their agreements and keep their contracts and pacts with their neighbors. "Nice" people pick up the trash, pick up their dog litter, adhere to the rules and pay their fees. If there is an issue, they don't "demand" that the rest of the planet change for them. They clean it up or ask for clarification of the rules and then they clean it up. Anyone who doesn't is an undermining person who lowers the quality of life here at BLMH. Period!  That also has a deleterious impact on unit sales. That's right, Virginia, all of this "La-la land talk" and lack of action could be driving potential buyers away.

After attending many meetings, it would seem that the emphasis of the board is to cater to pseudo "homeowners" who are waiting for the next party, the next free coffee, the next fee reduction, and someone, anyone to pick up after them.  These same "homeowners" supposedly now want, or is it "demand" private gardens! That's the latest "grand idea" coming through the board, I understand. Who will maintain the "gardens" of these "homeowners?" Who will set the rules and who will enforce them and levy the fines when people violate those rules? No one, is  my guess. When unit owners do go too far, when their gardens turn to patches of weeds or die and create mudholes, then it will be up to someone else to clean up the mess, at association expense.  Just another task for our professional managers and maintenance crews. Just another expense passed to the rest of us.

Promoting these ideas is much easier than creating an association that works. It's much easier than dealing with the difficult issues. It's more popular than enforcing the existing rules.  It's a lot easier than living by example.

The suspension of the Wheaton Sun is what I call a reduction in services. Potentially the first of many.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References
================================

1. Of course, setting standards and adhering to them would impact everyone including the board members. That might be uncomfortable for some of them. Issuing citations to offsite owners for uncollected newspapers in driveways would be too close to "home" and any fines levied would be a fee increase. Board members wouldn't want to promote such things. Such fines might come out of their own pockets. 
2. When our CD promoted the attendance of renters at association meetings, there was no conversation about duties and responsibilities. If I were in a building sharing an entrance with a renter, could I expect the renter to help out and act like an "owner"? Could I expect them to return the courtesies and pick up "my" newspaper or trash bin and bring it in? Could I expect them to help shovel snow or distribute salt in the winter? Could I expect them to carry a part of the load?  If you are an owner sharing an entrance with a renter, who is it that does these tasks? If the renter doesn't do it, shouldn't the unit owner who owns the rental, or the unit owner's "representative" be required to do it? Why not? I realize it wouldn't be convenient for the off site owner. In other words, on site owners are supposed to deal with all of the problems. On site owners are supposed to do the tasks the off site owners are unwilling to do. On site owners are supposed to carry the load. Aren't these the types of issues our board is supposed to be dealing with as fiduciaries?
3. The obvious question to ask is, how many of the  members on the board do these things; e.g. carry in their neighbors trash bins, shovel snow or picked up those papers? That is to say, how many board members "walk the talk" and act as owners? Or are they also waiting for someone else to do the work?
4. If we aren't willing to do the work, then the only option is to pay others to do it or suspend services and reduce the scope of projects. Read your Manor Briefs and attend association meetings. The board talks about lowering fees. The only way to do that is to lower expenditures. Reducing the scope of projects is one way. Architectural shingles can be eliminated. It could mean shifting some chores to unit owners. However, I see no way for that to occur with a board that is unwilling to press unit owners to participate beyond coffees and parties. If the job is to get done, it needs to start somewhere, and that is "leadership by example" followed by consistent and uniform enforcement of existing rules, treatment of owners as "owners" with duties and responsibilities, and discussions about the duties of renters and the duties of offsite owners. All necessary to maintain the quality of life here at BLMH. 
5. When it came time to vote on the reserve study, there was no mass outcry on the board against the motion by the CD to approve the higher bidder. Our CD, who promoted the higher bidder, didn't stop and say "I prefer the higher bidder, but I promised to scrutinize every bill and to hold the line on fee increases. So I can't recommend them." Wouldn't that have been the responsible thing to do and to say? Would you believe that we have just begun an incredible roofing project here? The board may gut the project to reduce the expenditures. That's one way to reduce fees; lower the cost of projects to be accomplished with the reserves collected. Of course, the real question is, are we saving money or is this financial "slight of hand". For example, reducing the scope (no insulation and/or no roof ridge vents), using cheaper shingles and materials and construction techniques, reducing the length of the warranties, using lowest bidders no matter what the references, could lower the up front costs. But it's a game. Put on shingles that will last 10 years as opposed to 20 or 25 and do we save money? Only if the cost is less than 50% that of the "higher" roof. But I am certain this board will consider going that way. Then some on the board will then be touting how she or he has "saved us money". Well, in 10 years when we are again facing the prospect of doing roofs, possibly with no reserves, those left "holding the bag" will pay the piper. How many recent and current board members will be long gone at that time? I'll be watching. However, when it comes to "pet projects" we will go with the higher bidder, just as the board did with the reserve study. The justification? We now have the "higher bidder" for the reserve study who has "project management skills". We already have a maintenance company with "project management skills" so, I have to ask, what are we really getting for the extra money we are spending on this study? The obvious answer is "nothing", absolutely nothing! You may recall this same board member who promoted this particular firm is the same board member who was once promoting "we will seek ways to reduce expenses". Yes, talk is really cheap, as they say: Click here for my September 11, 2008 letter and the response
6. All of this, the board would have us believe, has absolutely no impact on unit sales.
7. In my September 2008 letter to the candidate who is now the CD I included the following statement: "To empower change and open communication it will be necessary to have a web site open to all unit owners and where ALL letters and responses are posted. Unit owners should be able to post their questions and concerns without censure by the ROC, the Board or anyone else, within the limits of what is considered to be non-obscene. Who would moderate this?" I received this reply:  "Would you like to moderate it? The job is open."  I subsequently offered to take on the job, but there was no reply. So this blog, which is a compromise, is the result. 

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".

Anonymous Comment: Access to Information?

The following comment was posted anonymously on July 28, 10:41pm. It referred to my post of July 28:

""I'll post further information on this particular issue, as it becomes available. However, Association financial information as it applies to individual unit owners, or fines, are treated as confidential matters by the Association, the Board and the Management." Than [sic] as a BLMH owner I am very concerned that you have access to such information without being a board member. Care to comment."

Here is my comment:

I find it interesting that "Anonymous" was concerned that I might have access to privileged information. No such concern was stated about the unit owners who brought up this topic and presented the information to me and to others. "Anonymous" didn't ask how those unit owners got the information about a purported “fine”!

I want to point out that the title of the blog post was “Rumor of a Large Fine is Inaccurate”.

Most association information is a matter of public record. Certain matters, which are discussed by the Board of Managers during "executive session" of Association meetings are not available to others, and that includes to me. I have verified this with legal counsel.

However, a unit owner may speak with other unit owners about any matter in which they are directly involved. It is their choice. Once something is discussed in public, it can then be passed from unit owner to unit owner, as apparently occurred with the "$157" item. Anything discussed by unit owners in public becomes a matter of public information, or "disinformation". Anything that is discussed during open session of the Association meetings is a matter of public record.

I did not broach the subject of the "$157" item. Other unit owners broached the subject, standing in the driveway of a nearby unit, and they presented their opinion about this and of management and the board. I was not the only unit owner present at the time. Based upon their comments, I think it is reasonable to assume I am not the only unit owner with whom this item was discussed and this information was probably passed to others.

Question: How much is discussed outside of Association meetings by unit owners, or groups and how much of what is discussed is passed as "information" by various unit owners?

As I have stated frequently in this blog, a great deal is discussed during the portion of Association meetings which is open to unit owners. This includes maintenance and related items, unit owner concerns, opinions and complaints, and special projects, etc., etc. I continue to suggest that unit owners attend Association meetings. I realize most of us have other things to do and these meetings may be an inconvenience. It's a choice.

I should point out that some of what is presented at Association meetings by unit owners may be opinion. It may also be political in nature. Reference: the ROC documents circulated by the ROC, some of which have been published here.

I will post additional information, if and when it becomes available.

Rumor of a Large Fine is Inaccurate

Several days ago, while talking with neighbors, I was advised that a large fine had been levied on another resident at BLMH. This was purported to be $157 for a BBQ left on the grass, or so the neighbors stated. The Director of Rules and Regulations was walking by and she was asked how the Board could allow this.

Her response was that she was unaware of the alleged "fine" and she stated that it simply did not make sense, and that even the amount seemed strange. Violations are usually noted with a letter, but occasionally preceded by a verbal warning. After the letter is issued, if not corrected in a reasonable time, an initial fine is levied. Failure to pay or continued violations will result in increases in the fines as the amount of each is ratcheted upwards. She stated that she was unaware of a violation, of a letter or a fine. The initial amount of the fine is relatively low, as the goal is to encourage compliance with the rules.

The Director of R&R agreed to check into this. After she departed, the discussion with the neighbors continued. They were skeptical of management and stated so. They felt this was another example of "injustice" at BLMH. They stated that the person who was fined was experiencing a health issue, and stated in effect that they felt the Association should take this into account when enforcing rules. However, they agreed that the amount seemed strange and stated they would talk further to the individual who had been allegedly "fined". The conversation devolved into a re-hashing of the truck incident. The tractor portion of a tractor trailer had been towed off of the property several months ago. This, they stated was "unjust". etc., etc.

I have since been informed by another resident that the amount was not a fine, but was a charge for services. To explain, it is not uncommon for certain types of work by contractors which includes common elements and unit owner responsibility to be billed to the Association. In such a case, the contractor bills the Association and the management, in turn, bills the unit owner for their portion of the work. In essence, the Association makes a short term "loan" to the unit owner, who then repays the Association for the money advanced to the contractor. For example, this is the approach that is being used for the "dormer" style windows which are being replaced as part of the roofing projects.

I'll post further information on this particular issue, as it becomes available. However, Association financial information as it applies to individual unit owners, or fines, are treated as confidential matters by the Association, the Board and the Management.