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.