We Now Have At Least Two Board Members Asking The Right Questions

Unfortunately, for this association, that was insufficient to get a result. Asking questions cannot overcome the predisposition of the board to vote for the "nice" guy or gal, instead of looking at the issues and voting in accordance with fiduciary duties and responsibilities.

At the May association meeting, the board looked at a number of issues. These included a unit owner request for a tree planting and a review of the bidders for the reserve study. Our treasurer, who has asserted himself as a level headed individual, was not present, and so he had no input during the meeting.

Our new Landscaping Director (the LD) was present and asked questions or made statements on two issues.

1. On the subject of a unit owner request for a tree planting, he made the comment "did the unit owner offer to pay for this?"
2. On the subject of the selection and award of contract for the "Reserve Study" he stated "Why are we considering the bidder who is not the lowest" or words to that affect. Good question. Why is a board member promoting someone who is not the lowest bidder and with whom we have no previous experience?

Good questions, both! No other board member who was present had asked these questions.

Who was promoting the "higher" bidder? Our CD, of course. Why? Was the conversation about the bid evaluation form, or a comparison of reserves study depth of services, or a discussion of certifications, or the comparative size of the firms who submitted a bid? Was it based on a side by side comparison of reserve study references? (Ref: 1).

The discussion in front of the unit owners wasn't any of those. In fact, there was NO bid evaluation form that I am aware of with the possible exception of a listing of price, and our professional managers were not asked their opinion. So why did the CD promote this firm? Well, it seems she "feels" good about this firm and besides, she was given "free" advice on how to stain the new "white" limestone sills, which is a personal issue. (Ref: 2)  She stated that he seemed most willing to meet with the board and alter the results of the study, based upon board member input, or words to that effect. He also convinced her of his considerable "project management" skills. She stated that for those reasons she "felt" he were the best of the bidders. She did acknowledge that he was more expensive (possibly the highest bidder - others can check me on this). But she was compelled to recommend him.

And as for the rest of the board? With the exception of the LD they simply fell in line, and the motion passed.

To his credit, our new LD asked, why would the perception of the project management skills of a reserve study bidder influence the vote for a reserve study? Why would we spend more than we have to for a reserve study and select someone who is not the lowest bidder? Good questions. But as we know in politics, we vote for those "who we like" or to whom, as the CD stated, we "feel good about". And in the process we spend more than we have to. That's the way a person upholds their campaign pledge to "scrutinize every bill" or not! (Ref. 4).

Well, Kudos to the new LD for having a financial head on his shoulders and ditto to the Treasurer, who unfortunately was not present for the meeting. And kudos to the LD for asking the difficult, which is to say "not nice" questions. Running an association isn't about "being nice" to the other board members and simply backing their ideas, if that is the expedient. It's about upholding the fiduciary duties of being a board member, which includes protecting our reserves.  Some seem willing to do that, and others are clueless or unwilling, or asleep. (Ref. 6).

Our president is most eager to get a study completed in time for the budget planning. However, she seems to have fallen into the trap of "negotiating" or maintaining a balance between the various board positions. I suggest she ask the CD what happened to her predecessor. I also suggest she have the same conversation with the former, but brief, president. But never turn your back; that's my advice. It's essential that you remain always alert and aware. You are dealing with some serious issues here. There is a valid reason there are now video cameras present during association meetings. (Ref. 7).

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References
================================
Ref: 1.There was a discussion about references. However, many firms which provide reserve studies also provide other services. For example, the selected bidder is, I understand, a certified roofing inspector. His list of  references would include organizations for which he has provided a range of services. A question to be posed would be how many reserve studies for associations of 300 to 400 units have been completed in the past 24 months? How many reserve studies of any type have been completed in the past 24 months? What was the average dollar value of the studies?

Ref: 2. The newly installed limestone sills are natural white in color. This has been stated as an issue by the CD. The problem is, with potentially 450 limestone sills (has anyone bothered to count)? The association could spend many thousands of dollars, on a re-occurring basis to stain these; if the cost is $15 a sill, that's $6,750! And staining or "painting" will have to be repeated.. Is that a good use of association funds?  Besides, why is this personal issues used as part of the selection process for a reserve study? How does this qualify or disqualify a candidate? But, this "good advice" was significant to our CD. Question: Is finding new and creative ways to spend association fees really "good advice"? I don't think so!

Note 3. There are a lot of questions to be asked about the bid evaluation process. However, it seems the majority on the board have no passion about saving us money, or doing serious, thorough and unbiased evaluations. The procedure as proposed at an earlier meeting, by the CD, was for each board member to "choose" from the list and conduct their own interviews, then report to the entire board. She immediately selected a firm from the middle of the list. Perhaps pre-selected is a better word.  I have attended numerous meetings in the past three years in which bidding procedures were the cause of arguments among board members. This included discussions about the necessity of always selecting the lowest bidder. All of those members have been replaced or resigned, with the only exception being our CD and our treasurer, who was appointed. I have to ask the obvious question: Why go through the motion of evaluating bidders if money is not an issue? Why argue at some times on the basis of selecting the "lowest" bid but at other times, arguing that a 5% or greater price difference is of no consequence? Are there no standards? I guess not. We pick the basis to achieve our result, it would seem.

In selecting and promoting the successful bidder for his "project management" skills, our CD neglected to offer any evidence of those skills, or provide references. Nor did she state what the cost of such services would be.

Ref. 4. It's disappointing that a board member who made scrutiny of funds and bills such a campaign issue two years ago, continues to  spend association money with little regard to the condition of our finances. There are indications we are underfunded for reserves; i.e. roofs and driveways. This is documented by our professional managers and has been provided to this and previous board. The roofing project includes a "special assessment" for B unit owners. It isn't called that; that's simply "slight of hand"; issuing a bill to a unit owner as part of a capital project is a "special assessment" even if the board chooses not to call it that.

I will continue to take to position that all of this "nice talk" is simply a means to promote an agenda, and hide it behind some semblance of decorum. I always laugh when one of the board members makes the statement that this is the "right"thing to do, or the "good" thing to do, or the "nice", "better" or whatever thing to do. I personally believe this "nice" talk is designed to mask and promote a personal agenda, and make it more palatable to the gullible.  "Nice" people would never disagree, would they? That's how one promotes and succeeds with a special agenda in a "nice" group of people, and the technique is working!

Ref. 6: It's premature to say what type of job the new LD will or will not do. However, asking the right questions is a good start.

Ref: 7: A unit owner asked me "why the cameras; there were never cameras at the meetings before?" I made a humorous comment, unwilling to disrupt the meeting. There are valid reasons. According to a number of unit owners who were in attendance, a recent vote was altered in the "official" meeting notes, and most of the board members in attendance altered their statements about that vote. In doing so, the trust of the unit owners was violated. That is a serious matter.