Updated Surplus Numbers

Updated Surplus Numbers
Updated Surplus Numbers: Actual surplus 2018 per audit was $85,163.
Boards 2011-2018 implemented policies and procedures with specific goals:
stabilize owner fees, achieve maintenance objectives and achieve annual budget surpluses.
Any surplus was retained by the association.
The board elected in fall 2018 decided to increase owner fees, even in view of a large potential surplus

Average fees prior to 2019

Average fees prior to 2019
Average fees per owner prior to 2019:
RED indicates the consequences had boards continued the fee policies prior to 2010,
BLUE indicates actual fees. These moderated when better policies and financial controls were put in place by boards

Better budgeting could have resulted in lower fees

Better budgeting could have resulted in lower fees
Better budgeting could have resulted in lower fees:
RED line = actual fees enacted by boards,
BLUE line = alternate, fees, ultimately lower with same association income lower had
boards used better financial controls and focused on long term fee stability
Showing posts with label Running the Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Running the Business. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

A Board Hell Bent on a Fee Increase, no matter what the numbers indicate

0 comments

Bookmark and Share


I've been contacted by owners who were confused by the budget presented by the board.

The board acknowledged in the letter sent to owners that "increases to reserves" aren't necessary. Yet, that is what they are doing. The board has options of how to use annual surpluses. The automatic one is to send annual surpluses to reserves. Other options include using surpluses to pay for costs in subsequent years or it can return the money to owners. This board did not acknowledge a potential surplus exists. The board budget indicates a surplus in income and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) budget.  That would indicate they intend to keep the money, particularly in view of the proposed fee increase.  Some board members may be unaware of what will happen to the surpluses or that the board does have options at its disposal.  I conclude there is a personal agenda on this board.

My best assessment is that we have one or more very greedy board members who are voting for an increase because they can personally afford one, and intend to funnel any surplus surreptitiously into reserves. When discussing the negative impact of fee increases on owners during a budget meeting a couple of years ago, our current president retorted "We should not cater to the lowest common denominator". When asked by a current board member "Is this fee increase necessary" during the November budget meeting our current president responded: "It is absolutely necessary."  Whereupon the entire board voted for a fee increase. So much for independent thinking, simply follow orders. Jawohl!

The source of owner confusion
The major source of the confusion for owners who did look at the budget involves the 2018 surpluses and yet the board is promoting an "approximate 1.88%" fee increase. Furthermore, the numbers indicate it is really a 1.66% increase.

I guess the new board can't handle arithmetic. I'll bet not one board member even brought a calculator to the budget meeting. Our former president ( a CPA) would bring his laptop. When I became president I did the same, and crunched the numbers under discussion. LOL. This is not surprising as the president insists she doesn't use a PC. That's pretty lame considering we have a very large community college adjacent to our HOA; she can see it from her patio. LOL.

One thing I don't understand is "Why didn't the board ask management to use "YTD 10/31/18" numbers? That would have provided a better idea of the projected surpluses. Apparently they didn't ask management to do this. I suspect they didn't want to know.  Having better information is unnecessary if one has already made their decision. The three "locksteppers" on the board had already made a decision. Their leader always insists upon a fee increase.

Another thing I don't understand is why did the board send these numbers to owners? These numbers indicate a fee increase is unnecessary.  My best guess? We have some arrogant board members, the board is hell bent on making a fee increase, doesn't give a damn about surpluses and has no interest in what the owners think about this.

Case in point: Income though 9/30/2018 is $17,691 greater than the budget; that money is already in the bank. Yet the board ignored it when making their decision for a fee increase. We really don't know what the 12/31/2018 numbers will be, but it is likely income will increase further over the remaining three months.

That $17,691 additional income already in the bank will pay for all but $4,724 of  the identified 2019 cost increases in the O&M budget.

But it gets more interesting. The board "cherry picked" the data and ignored all potential sources of O&M surpluses.   Using only that data which supports one's position is intellectually dishonest. I've spoken to "the locksteppers" about this during previous budget sessions. Which is why I assert they are doing this simply because they can and they are greedy.

How greedy? About $128,012 greedy!

I would be the first to say that good budgeting means one must be cautious when using "projections." They certainly aren't guaranteed. However, large surpluses should not be ignored when making a decision.

What should one do? First, I would only use income above the budget as of 9/30/2018. What that give us is a surplus of only $112,198 at year end.

We've had surpluses most years from 2012 to 2017; some small, some large. I was involved in those budgets and I and the "finance committee" were the chief architect of the most recent budgets, including 2018. None of the current board were on the finance committee. That provides some idea of their capabilities. The president is not quite computer illiterate; these days even three year olds can browse. But using spreadsheets is way beyond the skillset.

What would I do under the circumstances? I'd make a decision based on the data. While it is unlikely there will be a surplus of $112,198 at the end of the fiscal year, it is very likely there will be a surplus of $20,000 to $40,000. To that I'd add the extra income of $17,691. I'd be honest with the owners and use the numbers before I decided to push through an unnecessary fee increase under these circumstances. In fact that's what we did in recent years, which is why fees stabilized after 2011.

The current president was the motive force for those annual 7% fee increases which nearly doubled fees over a decade. She lost an election in 2008 but four years later returned to the board. Ever since she has been stridently insisting upon annual fee increases. The black line prior to 2009 and the blue line represents the trajectory of her boards.  New boards stabilized fees and eliminated the large maintenance backlog her boards had created from 2000-2008. Half of our owners purchased after 2009 and are unaware of this. Many of our owners struggled with the rapidly rising fees for which they had never budgeted. There were quite a few foreclosures, bankruptcies and evictions. Those earlier owners are the ones who paid the fees to run the reserves from $295,000 to more than $1 million in 2009. They were forced out and the new owners have benefitted as the staggering maintenance backlog was eliminated and the fees stabilized.



Is it possible there will be no surplus as of December 31, 2018? Not likely. For one thing, the  $17691 surplus accumulated through September 30 is already in the bank. It is worth looking at what could produce a $0.00 O&M surplus. Several things:
  1. Gross errors in the preparation of the 2019 budget.
  2. If management or contractors were holding invoices back as of 9/30/2018 that would be a problem. A board should instruct management to get all accounts current prior to determining a budget and it should have used 10/31/2018 data. I can guarantee no such request was made by the board.  Under these circumstances I would have used 10/31 data.
  3. The board could authorize management to prepay 2019 expenses. However, if that were done to run the surplus down and prove that it was small, it would probably be fraudulent. 

Here are the numbers:





Monday, July 3, 2017

Latest BLMH Newsletter

0 comments


Bookmark and Share



As a follow-up to my recent post about reserves and with an eye toward infrastructure spending, here is the most recent association newsletter.

Click for:BLMH May-June 2017 Newsletter

The critical question for owners is straightforward. Would your prefer to live in a HOA run as a social club, or one run as a business?



Monday, January 2, 2012

End of Year Summary - 2011

0 comments
Well, it is the end of the year and the beginning of a new!

So, how did things go here at BLMH in 2011?? Well, I'd say it was a "mixed bag." For the most part it was good, and some not so good. Overall, I'm very satisfied with the achievements of the board in 2011; that includes myself and my "partners." This did not occur in a vacuum and it took considerable effort on the part of management, our loyal and hard working contractors, and of course, the board. This was also accomplished with the support, agreement and good will of our owner/shareholders, the majority of whom kept their agreements with the association. This meant paying their fees in a timely manner and keeping the rules and regulations. Thanks also to those owner/shareholders who took the time to attend association meetings and ask the hard questions! My hat is off to all! This is my personal perspective as a member of the board in 2011, as one of a small group who is truly "of service" to the association. It is also a looking forward into 2012.

When I took on this commitment, it was a two year agreement. I approached it as one which will end in 2012. I'm not saying I will not run for the board in 2012. What I am saying is, I have a finite amount of time to accomplish whatever it is I will accomplish on this board. My term will expire in September of 2012, and that is the time I have. Of course, events may occur which will limit my time of service. An irate owner  made a comment during an association meeting shortly after the election of 2010 and wanted me off the board, immediately! I publicly suggested that there was a mechanism in the bylaws to accomplish this. Their retort was "getting everyone in this association together to accomplish something would be impossible." So here I remain, until I am removed or other events transpire.

In 2011 the economy continued to sputter along. This placed several types of stress on all owners. It placed additional stress on those owners who would like to sell and the Realtors who represent them. It  was a buyer's real estate market, if one could arrange the financing. Some did and we had a modest number of unit sales. Of course, some owners have been frustrated by the prices offered. We're definitely off the peak which occurred in the spring of 2006. For owners who purchased real estate in 2006 with the anticipation of a wonderful investment, and a "seller's market" forever, it has been frustrating. For those with a longer term view and who compare the costs and benefits of ownership to those available when renting, and are able to maintain that perspective, it hasn't been as painful. What can I say? The economy is what it is! For those with a bit of savings, I'm sure they too are frustrated by the lack of reward, or return, for those savings. So this cuts across all finances. Not only did housing take a hit, so did other, generally accepted assets. Remember the "good old days" when your money could earn 5%?

I've checked the government sources. So what are the "official" number for houses "underwater" in the U.S., which is the term for those homes in which the owners owe more than the property is worth? It was 17% as of November 2011. So most of us in the U.S. are "above water." I can't state the numbers for the association. That information is not available to the board or to the public at large.

Do we like this economy? Of course not. There is a lot of uncertainty at present. The economy is beyond the capacity of the board and management. Some owners seem to have taken a position that it was "the fault of the board and management." How they came to that conclusion, I'll never know.

As for the things the board can be accountable for, or the things we can influence, I think 2011 was reasonably successful. If you think it was stressful as an owner/shareholder, believe me, it was an order of magnitude more difficult for the board, and even more difficult for management.

Assessments and Fees
We did get the new reserve study. Not an easy decision, spending money. However, this is the only unbiased method I am aware of to provide a board with long term financial planning information. That information is vital for determining fees, and fee increases for reserves. It is true that management can provide part of this, but a bona fide, independent reserve study consultant firm staffed by professionals who do this, and only this, is the only way. That's my opinion, and there is evidence to support this opinion.

The board has been committed to finding methods to avoid special assessments, and keep fee increases to reasonable levels. This while simultaneously performing the fiduciary duties of maintaining this association. It's my perspective that I approach these problems and issues as a true owner. I look at the spending of money as if it were from my personal checkbook. But it is actually more difficult than that, because of the very high expectations of the shareholders. I can state that in this, I'm not alone on the board.

Entanglements
There were some differing perspectives on the board and between the board and certain owners. Earlier in the year it was pretty "rocky," but as 2011 progressed I think it smoothed out. On an association board I do understand and agree that diversity is a good thing, if held within the context of being a fiduciary. Owner/shareholders have no such restraint or responsibility. So an owner can promote their personal agenda. Board members are also owner/shareholders, but we've supposedly agreed to set aside our personal agendas for the length of our terms. We are held to a higher standard. It is sometimes difficult to step back and ask "what should a fiduciary do" in any specific situation. To ask that question intelligently requires some knowledge of fiduciary duties, the Illinois Condominium Act (ICA), the Rules and Bylaws and any other covenants of the association. It also requires a willingness to openly communicate, frankly and honestly, with others. It's not about looking good. There were times in 2011 when I am sure I looked somewhat stupid to others. That's the price one pays to sit on the board. However, if there is trust present, then it isn't a big deal. My commitment was, is and remains to the association. That is a distinction from the wants and needs of individual owners. So in 2011 I attempted to serve the association, and in my opinion that meant that the owner/shareholder body was well represented.

I've taken a position that owners are shareholders first and owners second. Why is that? As an owner, they are responsible for their units and the elements so defined in the bylaws; in their units they have substantial freedom and responsibility. However, as members of the association, they are shareholders, and the board as representative makes the decisions for the common and limited common elements; essentially everything outside the units. From the perspective of maintenance, the board is responsible for decisions affecting the maintenance of the entire property for the shareholders. Owners may want certain things done on "their" building, but in fact, it isn't "their" building in the literal sense. The owner/shareholders are merely inhabiting a specific building. If all owners are truly equals and there are no permitted subgroups, then decisions affecting one building should have a rational basis determined by weighing the needs of the entire association. In 2011 I approached this as anything accomplished at one address should be part of a program for all addresses. In other words, we can only afford to do certain things and should do them if we can and will do them at every address with similar circumstances. That applies to roofs, driveways, drainage improvements, landscaping, and even paint touch-up, etc. There are programs in effect at BLMH, many are on a preset schedule, and some are determined by physical condition. Roofs which are in good condition are put behind those in poor condition when selection for re-roofing is made. In 2011 a long piece was written for the newsletter about the method of "grading" garage floors. This was provided as an example. Even so, there are owners who complained about "transparency." I encourage such owners to apply for committee, and volunteer for the board. However, I will ask them to leave their personal agendas at the door!

I really don't want to get entangled with any owner or members of the board. There were times when that became unavoidable in 2011. It is my perspective that it is important to set boundaries with other human beings. This is a business and for the most part, it is run as one. It is not a hobby. Frankly, I have better "hobby" uses for my time and I separate work from play. In 2011 some owner/shareholders didn't see it that way. I expect that 2012 may be more of the same. However, most owner/shareholders are aware of these distinctions and limitations.

Communications
In 2010 on joining the board I purchased a cell phone and published the number to the owner/shareholders via the newsletter. However, that number is also published in web, via the newsletter. I prefer to use email because I think that there is a different level of responsibility. I, or the other person on the line can say just about anything, but to put it into writing is preferred. In 2011 I usually sent emails where appropriate, with copies or bcc to management and other board members. I view much of what goes on in communications as a dialog, and a conversation. I am somewhat hesitant to make commitments, but some owners attempt to force an agreement.

I prefer email for such a conversation because everyone on the board is included and receives exactly the same information. Since the ICA prohibits subgroups in associations, I have taken that to apply to the board as well as to owner/shareholders. It would be particularly undermining to the association to exclude management and/or specific board members. To make quality decisions requires quality information, and a range of opinions from various experts as well as the board in general. When someone asked me in 2011 "why did it cost so much" I hope that there was ample information to make a conclusion. Somewhat lengthy emails not only provide a "why" but the "how."

In this I was reasonably successful. I was however chided because some of my emails are lengthy. In my defense, I'll state that it take a lot longer to write these than to read them, and I am a busy man. I prefer when dealing with other responsible parties to provide the basis for my decisions. As we all know there are three levels of communications; opinions, assertions and facts. When I make statements, if I don't provide substantiation, then it is reasonable for the listener to take my statements as opinions. The problem with opinions are, any opinion is valid. For example, if I were to state that the world is flat, and the sky is green, these are both completely valid opinions. For most of us such statements are not factual. Decisions need facts.

In 2011, when working with the board, management and owners/shareholders, I attempted to avoid unsubstantiated opinions. I was reasonably successful. To do so required providing more detailed emails, somewhat detailed monthly reports to the board, and more information in the newsletter.

I do understand that others may not agree with what I was doing, but I intended that they be provided with a basis for understanding; WHY I was doing it. In my capacity, I am empowered to make certain decisions. I think it's appropriate to share my rationale. Why does it sometimes take a bit of time to present a technical position? Well, it is somewhat of an art to cull useless information but not lose the readers, who have differing backgrounds and capacities.

I pressed for a shift in the newsletter, and the board permitted this to occur. To accomplish this I prepared spreadsheets from which I made graphs and charts, as well as expanded articles. This accelerated in 2011. I was once taught in a "communications" course that "everything can be resolved through communications." BLMH is a wonderful opportunity to put this into action. However, resolution does not mean that "one gets their way," or that people will be completely satisfied, and that includes me! Resolution means having or making a firm decision. There is nothing in resolution about "keeping people happy" nor is that a board's responsibility. Furthermore, it is mandated by the Illinois Condominium Act that there be only one class of owner. Expanding the type of information provided in the newsletter is a means of enforcing such single ownership class. Knowing me, or others on the board should not be a privilege, nor should privileged information be provided by a board member to a specific group of owner/shareholders. I think to a certain degree, the newsletter has been successful in this. It has also provided information in about as transparent a manner as is practical.

I did have some apprehension about the newsletter, because it is the association's decision to publish it on the web. So I think it's important to present an even handed presentation of the association to the world. Some of the readers may be interested in a purchase. Some information should, however, be reserved only for owner/shareholders. It's our business and no on else's. We have paid for that privilege.

Of course, not everyone was "happy" and in 2011 there were a few complaints about the identity of the owner of the photographs in the newsletter. In my case, any photos I take are my property. I provide them to the association as a service and for a specific purpose. I have abstained from copy-writing these photos, but I do earmark them. The photos aren't a hobby, are provided for a purpose, including providing visual explanation, or substantiation of statements.

The revised newsletter became less of a neighborhood bulletin, and had a more business like tone. I realized that too was probably not going to make everyone happy, and apparently not everyone was happy with the result.

In 2011 I decided to provide the board with a monthly "Architecture and Maintenance" report. This provided summaries of projects, provided information about problems, photographs, stated timelines and made requests and provided "by when" dates. It was partially successful. I say that because when the "by when" dates came, they sometimes "went" as new concerns were raised by other member(s) of the board.

For 2012 I am re-considering having (as in, paying for) a separate cell phone so owner/shareholders can reach me. For the holidays it was "off" because I was on vacation and because I pay for all received calls. I would prefer email communications, but not all of our owner/shareholders use email. As stated earlier, I prefer written communications. Most emails I receive are forwarded with comments to other board members and management. I can't do that with voice communications, and with voice communications it is always possible for a person to say "I said this" while I insist I heard something else. Or vice-versa.

Maintenance
In 2011 we did accomplish most of the maintenance tasks which were identified. We have a few driveways that are on the list which were not resurfaced. However, it's important to do the garage floor work before the driveways. If we don't, then we spend money twice; once to do the driveway, and again to patch after the garage floors are done. For this reason, in 2011 I made it a priority to survey every garage.

Because the concrete work was to be done late in the year, it became impossible to do the driveways; not really a serious problem. None are in very poor condition; the worst were done in 2010. So we'll resume this in 2012. In 2011, it was expected that asphalt prices would be stable in 2011-2012. So there was little price urgency.

The landscaping director has been dealing with some thorny issues regarding the willows on the property. The removal of one cluster in 2011 has now created the opening to deal with the below ground stream pump located in that area. That too will be considered in 2012.

Overall I'm satisfied with the maintenance programs in 2011. Was it perfect? No it wasn't. We must balance expenditures with cash receipts and coordinate projects. It is not possible to do everything in the current budget, so we established priorities. Not once, but ongoingly throughout the year. So some things were postponed to 2012. That's the way it is with human beings which at our best remain "perfectly imperfect" beings.  We did get most of the items on the agenda completed, but it was a press to do so. Coordinating exterior painting, roofing projects, garage projects and driveway projects as well as drainage improvements can be difficult when some of these are identified and anticipated to occur on a single building, in a single year. So some items were "tabled" at certain addresses and will resume in 2012. However, all critical projects were completed.

In 2011 several possible projects or improvements were identified, but did not occur. I'll be taking another look at these in 2012. A list is being made, and plans formulated this winter, so that, when the board makes the decisions of what to tackle in 2012, we will be ready to begin when spring has sprung!

Time-lines
One of my frustrations in 2011 was the length of time it sometimes takes to accomplish something. Some of this is beyond the capacity of the board, which is to say, out of our hands. Some simply is the nature of the association, and what I would call a project cycle. Some problems have to be identified, then a solution discussed with specialists, management and contractors. This solution, or perhaps several are then presented to the board. If the board agrees, then and only then can the solution go forward. If the board disagrees, then the process begins anew. In such a case, 30, 60 or 90 days can be lost.

As an example, the survey of all garage floors was made in April of 2011. Using this information, discussions were then held in May with the board and management about which floors to replace in 2011. During subsequent meetings, the board agreed. On this basis, specifications were prepared, reviewed and then were revised. The specifications were presented to the board, after revision and the board approved the specifications. Bidders were then selected and presented with the bid documents. After receipt of bids, which had differences, the bidders were questioned to assure that all requirements were met, and clarification achieved. A summary document was prepared and presented to the board with comments. The board made a selection and the bid was awarded and contract documents prepared and signed. Permits were then acquired by the contractor. After receipt of permits the work began, and was expected to occur over about 4 weeks. However, while doing the work several problems were discovered (literally uncovered) at several of the addresses. This required a delay while the problems were assessed. A decision was made about the best method to address these problems which were beyond the initial scope of work. With the agreement of the contractor, management and the empowered board member, the city was approached for approval. Approval was delayed while the city reviewed the problem. Approval was made, but then was rescinded. A second approach was presented and was approved by the city. How long did it take for this entire process? The necessary, additional work was performed and finally completed nearly 7 months after the initial garage survey had been made! Of course, while this project was going through the phases of determination through completion, there were also roofing, driveway sealcoating, drainage improvements, stream pump replacement, etc. going on at the same time. For good measure throw in a few "emergencies" and then financial planning, reserve study, tree removal, etc. and the board had an incredibly full agenda! This was all above and beyond normal association operation and maintenance!

In an association in which outdoor related maintenance work can only occur during about 8 months of the year, a 2 or 3 month delay makes completion in a calendar year difficult or impossible.  Once begun, some projects must be completed in a single year and while weather is good. In some cases, if not a critical item, it can be completed in the following year. That however, presupposes that the board of the association in the next year will pick things up where they were left off. There is no assurance that will occur. In 2010/2011 I made it a priority that there would be continuity. So we will continue as planned unless the board majority decides otherwise

In 2011 there were other delays, and some affected the roofing project. One was a board member request about which roofs were on the list, based on current events. Another was some code issues discovered in the attics of several buildings. Another was window delays, sometimes by owner approval, and another the discovery that the wrong window had been ordered, or shipped! These accumulated to delay the project beyond what I declared to the board as "by when" dates, including bid release and actual beginning date for the roofing project tear offs, and final completion. However, Mother Nature cooperated and all work was completed during moderate and acceptable temperatures. For 2012 we've identified and discussed some improvements to the process.

Of course, for all of these projects, only after the board agrees on a course of action and a specification is written and approved, do we go for bids where that's appropriate. We then evaluate the bids, award the contract and finally the work can begin.

In certain emergency situations (loss of water, plugged piping, roof leaks, etc.) there is no opportunity to bid. There are also realistic minimums. I've watched earlier boards argue about $500 concrete work. There are practical limits.

Time Limitations
There are only so many hours in the day. Boards are comprised of volunteers, and we each have differing responsibilities and that limits our availability to the association.  It is also true that one person's "mandatory" is another's "optional." Sometimes things simply didn't occur in an order that resulted in a reasonable timeline. If information arrived after an association meeting, that frequently resulted in a 1-month delay. Giving the appropriate time to thoroughly read and analyze a 90 page management report also can be challenging. We are supposed to be fully prepared for each association meeting.

It is my opinion that an HOA such as ours presents an oxymoron. People purchase to have some "ownership." On the other hand, the attraction of an HOA also is the limitation of responsibility for individual owner/shareholders. We would like to have the best of all worlds. Apartment style living with many services provided, while getting the financial and decorative/self-determination benefits of ownership. Unfortunately, ownership in an HOA sometimes requires involvement beyond occupying one's unit. At BLMH perhaps 10% of the owner/shareholders attend a monthly meeting. That was the driving force to expand the newsletter. In the absence of most owner/shareholder involvement, beyond personal issues or complaints, how to present more about the day to day workings? I was surprised when a water main break was stated by an owner to be "a city problem." They did not understand WE own those mains, and I discovered this was the position of more than a few. So how to address this? It could be addressed through better communications and education.

In 2012, this will continue as the board directs. However, there are real limitations to the total amount of time that the board volunteers can provide for the association. Tasks will be prioritized and  those at the top of the list will be completed. If there are ample board and committee people available, then all tasks will be completed. If there are not, then some will not be completed. That's the way it works. It has been said that people get the leadership they deserve, and so it is!

Disagreements
In 2011 there were disagreements. Some involved owners, and some involved board members. Dealing with these issues can be time consuming and costly, in time and in money. I can state so based on my personal experiences last year. As the year went on, the disagreements became less and less. Perhaps on the part of some owner/shareholders, there was concern about a perceived "slow start."

Will 2012 be better? I certainly hope so. We can disagree, but we should be civil. We should also keep our focus on the prize, which is running this association as a business and doing an adequate job. Board members as well as owner/shareholders should work together to make this association a fine place to live. In general, I think we, and by that I mean all of us, are succeeding.


Notes: 
1. I'll be putting more information about all of the plans for 2012 in the newsletter, unless the board prevents this from occurring.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Question on Running a Business per the WSJ

0 comments
Question:
Soon to embark upon a new, Senior level managerial position with a new company (employer), what are the three (3) most important objectives that one should seek to achieve in their first 90 days; and why?

Answer:
1) Learn the business. Understand the financials, operating statistics and competitive advantages of each and every strategic business unit; 2) Build personal relationships with key business and functional leaders, particularly your peers and boss(es); 3) Determine the critical strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats among your department staff, particularly, the leaders. These are the top three; I think the reasons why are obvious.


Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References
Note 1. The above was posted recently on an online forum of the Wall Street Journal. This would seem appropriate advice to any new board member. After all, being on the board of managers of an HOA is achieving a senior managerial position in a business, isn't it?