First, I really like it here, at BLMH. I like my neighbors. All are friendly, some stop to chat while they are strolling with their pet. Some are quiet. Some are young and single, some married couples and some are retirees. Some of my immediate neighbors help each other and we share chores. Some help me with the snow shoveling, when we get that dusting, or more that isn’t handled by the professional service. Some of my neighbors vacuum the halls. Some roll in my recycling bin on Friday, if I arrive late in the evening. Some do nothing. That’s the way it is, but they are all friendly and some are congenial and would probably be fun at a party. This has inspired me to share homemade cinnamon buns with them in the cold of winter. How else to say “thank you” with some grit to it? As a good baker, that’s one small way I can do so.
Some slow down as they drive by and some even wave. Some speed on by, preoccupied. Most are courteous and are obviously simply going about the business of living their lives, as I am.
I like the 40 acres of well cared and landscaped grounds and buildings. In the nearly 9 years I have been here, maintenance and decorating and painting has been at least a “4 out of 5” as they say. The financial wherewithal of the association has improved, remarkably. How else to describe a nearly 5 fold increase in reserves over 10 years, while simultaneously funding and completing reserves projects? This was accomplished because of the partnership that existed between our Board of Manager and our unit owners.
So what’s the problem? I’ve attended a few association meetings and frankly, at one point I thought I was attending the wrong meetings, or I was on another planet. I have observed a half dozen or so people whom I have come to view as chronically complaining individuals. But then I realized that they and their point of view, which they so vigorously promoted, was less than 2% of the owners here at BLMH. But they were and are persistent.
I have dealt with, lived and worked with people who are chronically dissatisfied or unhappy. Some work vigorously to prove their point. The most persistent, are somewhat like the honey bee. Yes, there is sugar and honey there and that is the attraction. But there is also a stinger. The most bitter and virulent, will hide that stinger but the moment you turn your back, they’ll use it. I’ve concluded that’s the way it is in our society. There are people who are what they seem to be and there are others who are not. We can all operate that way. Life is a choice, and allow me to demonstrate.
I sometimes think that living here at BLMH is a metaphor for the entire country. We have a great life, better than 90% of the people living on the planet. So what is the problem? I have concluded that some people are never happy. Some are bitter, and work hard at promoting their position. Some, like rebellious teenagers who never grew up, like to play the game “I won’t and you can’t make me”. As we age we become more sophisticated, some of us become very proficient at the game of “life sucks” and combine it with “I won’t and you can’t make me”. The best are adept in enrolling others in their causes, both for good and for trouble. We all need or should have a purpose in life. The question is, are our actions to be life affirming or not?
Our association is a microcosm of society in general. We have people who are willing to participate, and we have people who are willing to tear down those who participate. Critics of this blog could say that is what I am doing. However, last year, I suspected that a few dissatisfied individuals were attempting to run their racket and take a dump on my lawn. I decided to stand up, although I fully realized in doing so I would become a target and a magnet.
Recently, I have been asked why I was being so hard on the group known as the ROC or Residents of Change, and specifically their board members. I sometimes take a stand when I am confronted with the forces of negativity. I don’t think I’ve been unfair in my critique. However, to provide a serious reply requires presentation of my perspective. I also direct the reader to my post of September 27, 2008. From my perspective, I’d like to think that people, after creating quite a ruckus, disrupting meetings, running a campaign and then being elected, would read their campaign literature, the Illinois Condominium Act, their signed agreements and oaths, and then act accordingly.
Apparently, expecting people to do what they agreed to do, may be too much to ask. Making broad declarations and promises was easy. Developing concrete plans is more difficult, and carrying them out to fruition is more difficult still. The world is full of idea people. I say that based on my experience and many years in business. I too have a lot of good ideas. But it takes a lot to make ideas a reality, and that includes a structure for fulfillment, which is a topic for another post.
I’ve been told that if it’s so easy, why don’t I try running for the board? First, it isn’t easy. That’s why I am always skeptical of people who make big promises with little to show at the time the promises are made. Secondly, working on the board is an open ended agreement. My experience with people of varying capabilities indicates that taking on these types of agreements can be like stepping into a black hole. Take it on and expand to fill the void and then what happens? You get accused of micro-managing. I know, I’ve been there and done that, as they say.
The truth is, it is impossible to satisfy everyone all of the time. So anyone who steps up to the plate and joins the board with the intention of keeping people happy is destined to failure. The alternative, which is satisfying a small but very vocal and visible group is worse. It requires the board member to abrogate his or her responsibilities. As a unit owner, simply because you don’t attend association meetings or harangue the board doesn’t mean you are completely satisfied. Nor does it mean that your needs as a unit owner should be put to the rear of the line. But it is so easy for a board member to acquiesce to that in-your-face minority and that is the pull.
I was recently asked why it was that my window sills were upgraded. I was asked “who did I know?”, and the implication was that I get favored treatment from the board. I have a B unit, so my window sills were not upgraded. I am expected to replace my dormer window when the roof is replaced, just as is expected of everyone else owning a B unit. So much for “favored treatment”. I have pointed out that the juniper, that is laying on its side at the front entrance has been like that for 9 years. As far as I know, none of my fellow residents have made a request about this, either. But that is the level of jealousy and backbiting that exists, even among our board members, one of whom was the source of the question. If there is an issue or a position, I suggest that board member do an analysis of the work orders for the past 5 years. I too would like to know at which addresses the money is spent. However, I think developing a criteria and prioritization scheme for maintenance and landscaping for each and every address would be a better use of time. But if this is an issue, there are ways to address it.
Another reason not to run for the board is the fact that I’ve never been particularly interested in bird-dogging people. I'm not talking about managing contractors, which is an altogether different thing. I’m even less interested in micro management. If someone drops the ball, the solution is simple, they should clean up the mess and then get on with it. If they are intransigent, and unwilling, or persist in doing it their way, that simply adds to the work load, and creates a drag on the team. As I stated in another post, teams are easy if everyone can pull the oars together. But if board members can’t or won’t pick up the oars, or lack fundamental skills, won't keep agreements or follow directions, then there are limits to what can be achieved. Again, that’s the problem with big promises made in a vacuum. Once one is seated in the boat and told to pick up the oar, then and only then does the real work begin. Politicians are adroit at campaigning, and spending other peoples money. Based on a lifetime of careful observation I say they are terrible at getting the job done. They are also skillful at creating misdirection and telling others what they should do. One solution is to acquire staffs and delegate. That’s why government grows and bloats. So do other organizations.
I have an issue with the formation of any group in the association which has an agenda, and then attempts to place hand picked candidates on the board for the purpose of furthering that agenda. In actuality, candidates so placed and elected do not have a mandate to do anything other than to operate for the benefit of all unit owners. They are required to operate in a manner that is uniform and fair to all unit owners. They cannot represent or speak for a select group of unit owners, no matter what promises were made. To do so is inconsistent with their fiduciary duties, their oaths, agreements and the Illinois Condominium Act. It requires them to operate in a consistent manner and with integrity. So the very premise of such a group seems counter to the purpose of an elected, impartial representative board. Certainly, promoting the agenda of a few is not operating for all of us. But that group is still here, and now, having placed their “chosen” candidates on the board, they have expected action on their agenda. In political circles, that is called payback, isn’t it?
At present, this group may have changed its tactics. We now have a “neighbors club”. It may or may not be affiliated. Time will tell!
I understand this club is currently promoting the neighborhood picnic. But I also understand that the circulars for the picnic include the statement that we can “keep our community friendly and beautiful”. So is it to be a social club or something else? Possibly something else. A party sounds fine, I just hope they don’t band together and show up at association meetings demanding painted garage interiors, benches, new and expanded landscaping, new patios or expanded paving around them or whatever it is that meets the ambiguous definition of a “beautiful” community. I would hope that the club's definition includes unit owner decoration of patios within the rules, picking up street trash and retrieving and stowing their neighbors trash and recycling cans on Fridays, or some such. Of course, perhaps we are entering the next phase of the new era at BLMH, and the “Neighborly Police” will be there to assure that residents toe the neighborly line.
Sorry to sound cynical, but I am convinced that there are no limits or boundaries for some of these people. I have a few nails retrieved from my automobile tires, as evidence of what I speak, and the card of the police officer I called to discuss this with, as well as the receipts for the repair and replacement of the tires.
I do understand that unit owners will have complaints, and it is human nature to sometimes expect special treatment. Making requests or demands is one way to have things done “your way”. But it can be carried to extremes. If you don’t get your way, then create a disturbance. Raise the banner of “unfairness” of “injustice” or “oppression” etc. Throw the buzz words and slogans around and blow off steam. Stir people up and get agreement. There are always a few willing to agree that life is terrible, no matter how wonderful it is. That however, should not result in action by the board of managers. Nor should board members champion such an agenda. I do expect the board of managers will listen, within time constraints at meetings. But every unit owner should be given his or her minute. The members of the board are not required to act, unless the resulting action were something that would be, should be, and will be done for any and all unit owners, is consistent with the rules and is within established and projected budgets. Allowing every unit owner attending an association meeting equal time to address the board of managers seems an appropriate expression of being neighborly and courteous, but at many meetings I barely get 30 seconds to address the board and sometimes no time. And I’m not alone. Why? because my time was surrendered willingly or unwillingly to another unit owner who took more time, or there were long rants about injustice, etc.
I also understand that things “can be better”. As an advocate of “continuous improvement” I know things can ALWAYS be better. I also know it takes resources. I have an expression which I have used from time to time with clients and companies that make certain types of demands. It is “we can do anything, all that is required is time and money”. Our board has limited time, limited resources and the association a defined and limited budget. However, the ROC got around that by saying things like “keeping assessments as low as possible”, but never gave me a definitive answer of how they would achieve that. The implication was that the board was lazy, inefficient, wasteful and possibly stupid, and so too were our contractors and management company. But the ROC knew how to set things right! Fire them all! Well, I don’t see ROC board members resigning when things go bad, or did I?
I also believe that improvement begins with each of us as individuals. I am always skeptical and cynical of people who act in such a manner or imply that improvement begins elsewhere. I know I can do better. I’ve spent thousands of hours and even more money on “self improvement”, time management, communications and other courses, and I’ve put a lot of what I learned to good use. So I’m not going to wait for someone else to step up to the plate. Nor am I an idiot who will willingly walk into the buzz saw, nor am I a door mat. Improvement begins in my life and my unit and it includes how I treat my immediate neighbors, my board members and my extended community. It includes simple things such as being respectful during association meetings and sharing the floor by limiting one’s time in front of the board. However, throwing buzz words around is very easy. “Walking the talk” is the difficult part. From past experience, I know that when I am up against the wall, I am less gracious. But how often are we up really against the wall? How are we as neighbors at other times?
Saying “things should be better” is a very ambiguous statement and I do not and will not adhere to the position that such a statement is justification for disrupting the operation of the association. I think there needs to be a prioritization. But apparently, I have different priorities. That is why I will never agree that an ambiguous and subjective agenda in which “we should all be more neighborly” is the appropriate criteria for the operation of an association and its board of managers. Neighborliness, in my eyes, is a worthy goal for the residents and it is their responsibility to make that happen by living their lives in a manner consistent with that. Demanding that the association operate by some undefined standard of “neighborliness” is ridiculous. We do have rules and regulations and those do define some aspects of acceptable conduct in the association. So when people come to association meetings and harangue the R&R Director about the perceived “unfair” enforcement of the rules, I think they want it both ways. Rules that they see as unnecessary are to be eliminated or modified. They want the association to adhere only to their perception of “being neighborly” and will attempt to change the rules to get to that place. But doesn’t being neighborly include living in a manner such that the social norms, and that includes the rules that are in place, are adhered to? Or am I confused again?
Some people are still making declarations about how “mean spirited” and un-neighborly it was to have the semi-trailer that was parked on the property towed. They are entitled to their opinions but they should stop beating that drum. The “neighbors” could have alerted the driver to move the truck out to the city boulevard, etc. etc. But they didn’t and the vehicle was towed in accordance with the posted signs. They could have quietly passed the hat, but they didn’t. End of story.
Certainly, residents should be neighborly and should pursue any hobbies they choose. If they want social activities, they certainly don’t need anyone’s permission, as long as such activities adhere to the association rules. They don’t need anyone’s permission to have a dinner party, BBQ on their patio, walk the grounds and say “good day”. As far as I know, they can paint their rusting air conditioners, keep their patios tidy, retrieve their neighbor’s trash cans on Fridays, help with snow shoveling, pick up discards in the street, keep the speed limits and so on, all within the rules. We also have a wonderful park adjacent for public parties, etc.
But that park apparently isn’t convenient or adequate for the parties some residents envision, nor apparently is the restriction on garage sales. So they pump up their elected representative(s) and come to the meetings and disrupt them. Sure, all of this would be nice. So would free beer and margaritas at the northerly entrance every Friday night. It seems it is the position of some that “neighborliness” can be discarded as soon as it is necessary to run an agenda to get whatever it is they want. Lest we forget, our board members are our neighbors too. So don’t they merit the same “concern and respect” that anyone else living or who has ownership in BLMH should get? Well, apparently not. I personally think the high point of foolishness or hypocrisy was reached when board members were attacked because they were “un-neighborly”. So, in the name of someone’s pet cause, it’s apparently OK and justifiable to trash some of our elected volunteer board members, and past board members. How quickly we can put our standards and slogans aside when it suits achieving our objectives.
The ROC agenda included an association “where we all can be heard”. Based on the past 11 months, it seems that agenda was really about an association “where a select few of us can be heard and get our way.” What about a fair and uniform treatment of all unit owners? That’s what is expected and required. There was a lot of noise about “open communications”. The ROC stated that “residents are virtually prohibited from expressing their thoughts to any board member.” They went on to say “Under the current directorship of our association, there is no mechanism in place to receive residents’ suggestions, comments, general questions, and yes, even complaints.” I didn’t agree with that statement, but I will talk about how it was and is. At the time these statements were published, when I inquired as to why there was no ROC website in which all unit owners could be informed, I was told, in writing that “The board does not allow any such communications; therefore there can be no website unless the board allows one.” You can imagine how surprised I was! This blog was up and running and I had, and still have, no one’s permission. This led me to wonder, what was the real reason no such site existed? One possible answer, was a lack of technical acumen. Another was a lack of true commitment to open communications.
Here we are 11 months later, and the same “underground” communications pipelines exist, and of course, so does this blog. However, this blog is open. The pipelines are not. The association does have a larger newsletter with “interesting” articles on history, architecture and carefully selected residents. In 33 years I may make it to the top of the list. I suspect I’ll never meet the rigorous criteria. As requested in letters and emails to the board, I would first like expanded statements on issues, the challenges in running the association and so on from current and previous board members with minimal editing, but that email was never acknowledged or answered. Of course, the excuse could be made that “we, the ROC don’t control the entire board and we are not allowed”. I was given that excuse nearly a year ago. I didn’t buy it then and I won’t buy it now.
I asked the ROC candidates to explain their statements about a repressive board. This was what they wrote: “Well, the definitions of repression are to hold back or keep from some action; to control so strictly or severely as to prevent natural development or expression; to impose an inhibiting discipline that discourages free thinking. How much brighter our community could be if we lived under the opposite umbrella of progressiveness, enlightenment, open-mindedness, tolerance, cordiality, and good humor.” No specifics or examples to demonstrate this open ended statement were provided. Come to think of it, isn’t this blog a natural development or expression? However, my written request of June 19 for consideration of the blog as an “official” one has never been given a response by anyone on the board. I even offered to engage in a discussion about what would be suitable content. However, I was told by one of the board members that my blog is a problem.
I wrote the ROC about communications and this is part of the written reply: “Call it just plain old common courtesy, but we believe that every question from a resident should be answered, even if it is simply to say that their inquiry was received and someone will get back to them regarding it.” Well, in the 11 months since, that I’ve written letters and emails, only two have ever gotten a response. Even direct emails don’t always get acknowledged. It’s my conjecture that my letters, or emails and this blog don’t adhere to the official party line. Perhaps I’m providing too much “free thinking”. That’s one possible reason for being ignored. It may be that they don’t want to hear from me, or, what I say doesn’t fit their opinions or I simply don’t count as I have never been a ROC member or whatever their current name is. Oh, and should you wonder what I am, it's simply this; I'm a BLMH unit owner, just like 336 others, most of whom live here and are my neighbors.
A lot was made about assessments. Official ROC statements included one about outraged unit owners. The data, including that published in this blog simply doesn’t support the issues raised by a small number of unit owners nor the position taken. In a written response from the ROC candidates on the issue of assessment increases, two statements stood out. First, I was only “one of two” unit owners who had brought up the issue of assessments. Not consistent with statements about “outraged” unit owners, and second, it was the official ROC candidate’s position that rather than having assessments as high as possible, they should be as low as possible. Consistent with that statement, one of the newly elected ROC candidates immediately voted for 0% assessment increase. This even though there were projected COLA increases of 5.8%, a barely started re-roofing project (only one roof of 44 completed as of 1/1/09, I believe) and the hard work of the board the past 10 years to build up reserves. But I guess we don’t need facts or budget analysis to make these incendiary statements.
I’ve never had a single ROC member and that includes the board members, ever discuss my published financial analysis. I did once receive a very brief comment. One of the things you will notice about the analysis, is that it took about 20 years to get to the financial state of this association in 1998. It took another 10 years to reverse the course and correct that problem. I conclude that making what appears to be simple changes may require, if they are allowed to continue and accumulate, years to correct. That is why I am very apprehensive when cavalier judgments, evaluations and declarations are made about our assessments, or our management and maintenance companies. Simple annual changes were made to the association finances over a period of 20 years. I am sure a lot of people were extremely pleased with the low assessments. One of our ROC board members made the statement of being here for over 20 years. During 10 years of that period, our finances eroded, and it took another 10 years to correct this and get to where we are today. In fact, for six of those years, the assessments increases were 0%, exactly what was wanted by one of the ROC board managers last year.
I’ve never seen or heard a single ROC person ever have anything good to say about the correction of the finances and the incredible achievement of this association. Quite the contrary. So I say they are not straight about these things. In fact, if the approach to be taken by the board is to satisfy any and all unit owner complaints, which seems to be the position of the ROC, then I say that they would like to return to a direction in which the association was headed "in the good old days", which if uncorrected would have resulted in bankruptcy or very large special assessments. In 2001, I was extremely alarmed by the financial condition of the association before I purchased. I wrote a long letter to the management company and this resulted in a response, including a long conversation with our current professional manager. He assured me the board was working diligently to correct this situation with his assistance. He assured me that the board was opposed to special assessments. He provided earlier financial data to demonstrate that the board was not only committed but was taking action consistent with that stated commitment. On review, I decided that he and the board was aware of the need to work on assessments and reserves and they would keep their word. I then purchased. It took in all nearly 10 years to correct that situation. That board, some of whom were "run off on a rail" as the expression goes, did keep it's word, the reserves have been incredibly increased and there have not been special assessments. Considering the reward the deposed board members got, I do have to ask why on earth would someone ever run for the board in this association? I also want to state that in 2002 I cautioned that we should be prepared for fireworks a few years down the road. And so, here we are!
I do have an answer to the question of why would anyone run for the board, and it is contained in the beginning of this post. It includes my neighbors and the courteous, friendly and non-complaining people who live in this community, the majority of whom I have concluded are quite happy to be here. They pay their assessments and they know that they are not entitled to anything more than any one of us. It also includes the members of the board who work hard and provide time and talent to get the job done, and who make it a point to represent each and every unit owner equally, impartially and fairly.
On the subject of budgeting, I would think that taking actions consistent with the ROC position of “keeping assessments as low as possible” would result in performing maintenance and growing reserves first, and then, and only then and if the budget included unexpended funds earmarked for that specific purpose, would new work or expanded projects be considered, and that includes landscaping. Sure, some of this may be obvious or “black and white”, and there is also “shades of gray”. I think it is common sense and it isn’t too difficult if the goal is to “keep assessments as low as possible”. That means spending as little as possible, which means performing needed maintenance and repairs, and tabling everything else. Gray is adding embellishments, or expanding projects. For example, a black and white area is maintaining the grounds. Gray is adding shrubs or flowers, especially if sick or dying trees have not first been removed, which means those expenses are yet to be realized. Black and white is the numerous reserve based projects such as the roofing replacement. Gray is also comparing 30 year roofing to 15 year roofing. However, I can comprehend the attraction of a 30 year roof. The existing roofs must be stripped. So either way, each roofing method includes labor, materials, tools, insurance, overhead and profit. The basic difference between installing 15 year or 30 year shingles will be the cost of materials. The other costs remain pretty much unchanged. So what would you do? Spend a bit more to double the life of the roof, or go low ball and spend again in 15 years? The Architectural Director stated his case and the board has, for the moment, decided to go with 30 year architectural shingles. But the next board may reverse direction and go for the lowest possible cost, which means the cheapest materials available. That would be entirely in keeping with the ROC’s published position to “keep costs as low as possible”. So if they do that, unit owner’s shouldn’t be too surprised.
For each project, whether it be landscaping, concrete, sills or roofs, there are costs and benefits to be compared. All needs and projects must be prioritized. How else to avoid exceeding the budget? Exceeding the budget assures the need for higher assessments, which is exactly the opposite of “keeping assessments as low as possible.” It also seems that some people like to complain “what do we get for the money we pay to the association?” The same person who made that statement at a recent association meeting recently pointed to an unpainted chimney and quipped “another poorly done job”. I pointed out that the chimneys probably weren’t part of the painting contract but are most likely a part of the roofing project. The complaints then moved on to something else. Some people will never be satisfied. But why would any member of the board then act on their ongoing complaints? Our board is not comprised of puppets, who are to dance every time a unit owner shouts. Our board is in the business of managing the association, with the input of our professional managers and our professional maintenance and landscaping companies.
Black and white is replacing driveways pointed out by the management company and reviewed by the board. Black and white is modifying landscaping to prevent water from entering garages. Black and white is replacing roofs on schedule. Ditto for roadways. Black and white is repairing faulty sidewalks, or raising those that are under water during storms and collect mud. Gray would be adding benches, adding landscaping or having the association paying for unit B dormer windows, etc. Any of those “gray area” items should only be accomplished after other work for the year is identified and full costs are known. That’s common sense, isn’t it?
We have a roofing project underway. We don’t know the condition of the roofs under the shingles, nor do we know how many 4x8 plywood sheets will be replaced. We don’t know the condition of the framing and wood in the vicinity of the existing B unit dormer style windows. So we really don’t know the full costs of the project which will replace these roofs. True, we did accept bids and contracts were awarded. So we do know the base costs. But that is all that we know with certainty. What about the cost of coordinated landscaping modifications for drainage improvements? So it is inaccurate to say that the roofing project will cost a certain amount, as was published in our newsletter. That’s why the Architectural Director was unhappy that information was published in the newsletter and said so during an association meeting. So, has our Communications Director now published what will be construed to be a promise about how much the roofing projects will cost, and when the total costs are added, which will certainly be higher, will unit owners or others raise a ruckus about “cost overruns”? The alternative, which is to assume the amount of the extras, etc. and publish a higher estimated figure, is also risky and inaccurate.
What else is unusual about the project? Well, specifications were written and reviewed and issued. The bids that were received were compared and a successful bidder was selected. It’s usual to compare price, features and performance, which includes warranties. On that basis a contract was awarded. However, it is not necessary to tell the unsuccessful bidders what the award price was. Why not? Because that tells the unsuccessful bidders, and anyone else who gets their hands on that information, exactly how low they must bid to get the work. That may prevent us from getting the lowest possible price in the future. But, our Communications Director made the independent decision to publish this data. I know because this was discussed after the fact during as association meeting that I was present to. Is this a big deal? Well, who knows how much pencil sharpening the unsuccessful bidders would have done to get the next roof. Now we’ll never know. Using a little arithmetic, I can conjecture a difference of $100,000 or so. That’s the possible amount that a little pencil sharpening for pricing of 40 roofs could achieve and that is a big deal.
The ROC can make a lot of grand statements, and even grander shows and demonstrations. But the truth is, it’s very easy to flush money if you don’t know what you are doing, or, if with the best of intentions, you insist upon doing things your way and ignore the resources around you.
One of the big upsets for some unit owners was the “unsightly” snow removal equipment parked on one of the cul-de-sacs. This came up during the unit owner portion of an association meeting. Well, I did a little research. One of the reasons the equipment was parked there was because the garage, which the previous board president had arranged to be available, was not renewed. But our new board members didn’t know that. They didn’t need or want the input of the past president, either. So they did it their way. Politically, it was a triumph as it demonstrated again how ineffective and uncaring the remaining board members were, or so we sitting in the audience were led to believe. But who was really ineffective?
Many of the projects, including both architectural and landscaping aren’t prioritized. What’s more important; doing roofs or adding shrubs? What are the timetables? That determines how rapidly the reserves have to be accumulated and the rate at which they will be depleted. I’ve completed a spreadsheet with the projections. However, without accurate data about the true and total cost of the current roofing project, to release this data would be irresponsible. For that reason you haven’t seen the information in this blog. I’ve been asked how it is that I have access and special information. I don’t. I have the same information that every other unit owner has. I have the budgets for every year one was issued to me as a unit owner. I have a slightly earlier budget, which was given to me when I asked about justification for assessment increases. I have the numbers discussed openly during some of the association meetings I have attended and which I wrote down during those meetings. That’s the information I have used for all of my financial analysis. That’s it and nothing more.
Returning to the roofing project, I do understand some of the issues. For example, the concerns about stating specifically when each roof will be replaced. As was presented during an association meeting by the Architectural Director, if next year a roof is inspected or because of winter damage it is determined replacement should occur, it may be bumped up the schedule. He expressed the concern that unit owners may take a published schedule as a “cast in stone” promise, which it is not. Furthermore, future boards may make significant changes to any and all projects, or add new ones and change the schedule or order of events. If we have a new management company, they may also take a different tack. Prior to 1998, building the reserves seems to have been a very low priority. With the current emphasis on lowering assessments, our new and future boards may again change direction.
The final comment on the roofing project. It currently includes insulation. There was a lot of discussion at association meetings about this and about adding gutters. The problem with gutters is they fill with ice, as we all have noticed above our driveways each winter. Freeze thaw may result in ice dams. Then there are other problems to contend with. One of the causes of ice dams is poor roofing insulation. So the current plan to insulate may provide the opportunity to add gutters. A side effect or possible side benefit. However, I would suggest caution, because some of the ice formations I have seen have been extensive, and my building did have an ice dam above the garage a few years ago, which is unheated and uninsulated. In one of those fluke weather phenomenon’s, the gutter was frozen and there was ice and snow on the roof and we got a significant rain fall. Fortunately the water simply backed up on the roof and ran under the shingles and into the garage. There was no damage to any unit and only minor repairs were required in the garage. But what if this had occurred on another section of roof above the occupied units? That would have been an altogether different outcome.
On the subject of prioritization and prioritizing landscaping, we have many ornamental trees, with lifespan of 25 to 30 years. When will it be necessary to replace these? Is this part of the landscaping plan? Do we have a prioritized and comparative list of every address with needs in terms of landscaping, drainage, roofs and driveway replacement? If not, why not? I attend association meetings in which unit owners attend and attempt to strong arm the board into making concessions to project timetables or add embellishments. For example, pavers placed alongside patios were, in the past, the unit owner responsibility and at unit owner expense. But today we have requests for the association to provide these. That would seem to require an increase in the landscaping budget, or reducing landscaping in other areas to accommodate this escalation of association maintenance. Sometimes it appears that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”. At other times, it seems to be a political circus, where those in the know or with clout or the ear of the board get things done. I’ve been accused of having such special access. However, the last request of any kind I made was to fix a problem with a chimney. That was about four years ago. I also requested a look at the water sometimes entering the garage. I was told during an association meeting earlier this year that the problem will be corrected when the roof is replaced. I was asked my opinion about unit owner responsibility to pay for a new window when the roofing project is done. I said that I thought that was appropriate and consistent with the fact that windows are the property and obligation of individual unit owners. I am a B unit owner and the window is my responsibility.
Then there was the apparent attempt to fire our maintenance company and professional manager. This is still a work in progress. Some people are resolute and are determined. Apparently, promises must be kept. Some of the association meetings I attended were as close to a kangaroo court as I have ever experienced in my lifetime. I understand where some people are coming from. Go for the big contracts and tackle them. Get the cheapest labor possible. The rationale seems to be, “We don’t need specifications and we can make do with a handful of handymen.” Just go for the lowest bidder. I know of unit owners who routinely use unlicensed and unbonded handymen to perform work in their units. That is their choice, under current rules. However, it is not a good one. If there are damages, or injury, the unit owner will be responsible. However, a business such as our association cannot operate that way. Our contractors must be licensed, bonded and insured. That includes at an absolute minimum workmen’s compensation and business liability insurance and for certain work, city certification. It also means trained professionals, but certainly a laborer is appropriate for certain tasks. Any other position by members of our board I construe as risk taking and irresponsible. But there are those who insist it can be done in a better way. Well, I suggest they deal with their immediate board responsibilities and once they have demonstrated impeccability and superior performance in that area, they will then be ready to be considered to take on larger responsibilities.
Attempts to replace the management company were also of concern to me. I frankly cannot understand the alleged unresolved issue with communications. If I have a supplier who is capable in certain areas and has a weakness, what is the rational response? Fire them? And hire whom to replace them? Wouldn’t it make more sense to determine how to improve the communications, even if that means hiring a 24 hour answering service to direct calls? Or is there an even better way? I believe there is more than one way to accomplish a result. But, the solution was always “fire the management company!” That type of approach is the core of the ROC approach; get rid of the board, get rid of the management and get rid of the maintenance company. Doesn’t that seem a bit strange? Is it possible there is another agenda at work here? Or is this simply an expression of a hypocritical approach to “being neighborly” as applied to our suppliers and contractors, wherein we choose not to work with them, instead we choose to bully, manipulate and dominate them?
Where I come from, it is expected that you will get the job done with the people and materials on hand. You determine what is missing to prevent getting the job done and you provide that. You look for the weak link in the chain and you strengthen it. When you walk in or when things get difficult, you don’t jump up and declare “This is completely unworkable and I need a new “whatever” because it’s impossible to get my job done.” That is misdirection. Rather, what is required is an honest and open appraisal of “what is missing”. Only after exhausting the alternatives do you sit back and say “it’s unworkable”. Our board is qualified by their own written statements. We now have members of the board of managers who were elected last year and were hand picked by the ROC because of their skills and that included “back-grounds in conflict resolution and team building.” Apparently, a part of the team building included the decision to ignore our replaced board members, to exclude former members from the “team” and so forth. With many years of board experience, I would think that our former president would have been an invaluable resource and that people who are skillful at conflict resolution and team building would find a way to pick her brain. But no, there was no such initiative on the part of our new board members. Yet, the ROC candidate campaign literature stated. “There is no bad blood or contentious history between us and board members.” They didn’t state that there was no bad blood with the management company or our maintenance company. So perhaps I should have expected what has ensued.
Our ROC elected board members signed the candidacy forms stating they had the necessary skills to do what it is that must be done, and they went further in the campaign literature they printed and distributed. We have a Communications Director. Isn’t handling communications issues and breakdowns of any and all kinds a part of that job?
Specifications or the lack of them come up from time to time. In that area, there is no level playing field. We have some written specifications. I am unawares of specifications for maintaining our landscaping, trees and so on. Of course, we probably do get bids. What is the criteria for competitive bids? As for writing a specification, copying a bid is not writing a specification, nor is it ethical. Most suppliers issue bids which provide no additional details because they have been burned by unethical practices which include copying their bids and distributing them to competitors. So editing an earlier bid is no substitute for generating a specification. But as I have written in earlier posts and at great length, writing a good specification is a really difficult job.
Writing a specification for the multi-discipline business of maintaining a 40 acre community is a very difficult task. I’ve written some of the issues elsewhere on this blog. But the argument has been “we don’t think we’re getting the bang for the buck from our whatchamacallit company”. Usually the discussion is about our maintenance company, but the theme is pervasive. OK, that’s an opinion but based on what? I’ve prepared specifications for multi million dollar projects, I’ve evaluated and selected the bidders, justified that to the corporate owners and managers and boards, managed those projects, designed systems, etc. and I would not make the kind of grand statements that I have seen made at association meetings. I have wondered “how can they make those statements?” Where are they going with this and who are they going to replace our maintenance company with? In the absence of a specification, anyone can come in, give us a bid for $10,000 a year less, especially after we publish and discuss the existing cost details with every Tom, Dick and Harry handyman or maintenance guy in the county. But the result would be that we now have ourselves a winner. But what is the job to be done? What compromises and what “extras” aren’t included in the contract? In the absence of facts and certainty, it seems some members of the board are willing to “roll the dice” and take a chance. Is that an appropriate way to run an association?
Of course, if you think our management company and our maintenance company and perhaps everybody else is stupid, incompetent or whatever, then you can’t listen to what our hired professionals are saying because they can’t be trusted, can they? Talk about digging a hole! On the other hand, the rationale seems to be that any maintenance guy or girl who walks into an association meeting, they of course can be trusted. This is not conjecture on my part. I attended an association meeting and observed this.
If it’s all so easy, then why are the board members working so hard at getting the job in hand done? Maybe that’s because it isn’t so easy. Perhaps we’re dealing with a lot of arrogance and attitude.
A lot of time was spent in association meetings discussing a “block party”. I mean a lot of time. Finally, the ground rules for such a party were set. The problem was, a few people wanted an association sanctioned party on the grounds. Discussion was frequently interrupted by proponents of the party. Common sense told me that, hey, just go across the street on public property and have your party. But no, that wasn’t good enough. Issues such as association liability were to be ignored, shouted the proponents. Concerns about liability were apparently delusional. Boos and hisses and jeers from the audience. Well, after wasting all of that valuable time, it seems that an insurance rider was required at additional expense. Alcohol was to be prohibited by the insurance company or the insurance voided. So after all of that, we go full circle and now there is an unsanctioned party, which means no association liability, which will be held across the street. Much to do about nothing. But couldn’t it have started that way? What was the point behind the contentious meetings and grandstanding? Was it to make a statement that our existing board members were…. what? Well, I’m not sure, but when I re-read the ROC published and distributed documents, I get a sense of where they were going. And, the course they set out on isn’t yet done, is it? Currently, two of three ROC candidates who were elected remain on the board. More are probably on the way.
Perhaps it’s me, but there are days when I conclude that I don’t belong at BLMH, and perhaps I should just move on and either rent or sell my unit. Perhaps “they” are correct and I’m being too hard on the ROC. Well, I didn’t stir things up, march and make bold promises. I didn’t trash the board, our professional managers or the maintenance company. Nor do I have the position that people are universally stupid. Sometimes we may act in less than a competent manner, but we do have common sense, and we do have average skills. So what is missing? I don’t think open ended “change” is a good thing. If you do, then you must be enjoying the state of the economy.
But perhaps I am out of step with reality. Perhaps I should just stand back, continue to watch the show, and simply report what I see. After all, some people think running an association well is simple and easy. So isn’t it?
One final item. The timing of the creation of this blog has been questioned. It was close to the surfacing of the ROC. I began this blog in August of 2008 as a hobby and it took a while to get the templates completed. I did so over the labor day weekend. So the first “official” post was September 7, 2008. I’m not a website designer, etc. so I’m not that proficient. However, I have built and maintained and do maintain a website and several blogs. I find it to be not too difficult, but it can be time consuming. However, as with most endeavors, once a certain plateau is reached, the level of difficulty is reduced. This is my 80th post on this blog.
The upper photo shows an existing entrance without an "eyebrow". The lower photo shows a recently modified entrance with an "eyebrow". The modified entrance is incomplete, and lacks the gutter, which I understand will extend across the entrance and can carry runoff from the roof to a new downspout on the left. The goal: minimize water on the driveway. 
The above are examples of the addition of narrow walks, as per the recent Association meeting. It is intended that these will improve drainage, and reduce damage to lawns during winter plowing and snow removal. Of course, the walks will also allow residents improved vehicle egress and entry. This is one solution that the Architectural Director proposed, which will be coordinated with other landscaping adjustments. 
A large willow was removed behind the 1700-1702 building this morning.