Yes, It's True....

and I have been elected to the board of managers of BLMH.

Thanks to all who supported and encouraged me in this endeavor. There is a lot of work to do.

One of my first tasks will be to pick up a copy of the reserve study and begin digesting that.

Additional Information Posted in Response to an Inquiry:

I posted additional info as a response to an inquiry about who won a position in this election. There were four candidates and three positions available:

I won a position.
Our current Treasurer won a position.
Our current CD won a position.

September 24, 2010 4:39 PM

Creating "Winners" and "Losers"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Rules enforcement is an attempt to seek compliance.

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

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

Who is really being punished here, if anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Board of Managers or Administrators?

That's a question I have about our "Board of Managers." However, this should not obscure the more important function of the board which is that, as elected representatives of the owners of BLMH,  our board functions as our "stewards."

In the "Comments" at the end of the post, I have included some information directed toward new readers.

This is one of a series of posts which delve into issues and possible problems facing associations and boards. In this post, when I use the term "manager" or "managers" I am referring to the board of managers. This is separate and distinct from our professional management company.

If you want to skip to the chase, then go to the section below labelled "Where is the Board in This?" However the background information does set the stage, and provides some perspective for the purpose of providing clarity.

Some Essential Background Information
What is a steward? A steward is someone who manages property or other affairs for someone else. There is an interesting definition that expands this to include a steward as "a person who takes the responsibility of making decisions that will allow resources to be maintained for future generations." Here at BLMH, future generations would obviously mean "future owners." Such inclusion would seem appropriate, because we have new owners at BLMH each and every year.

What is the difference between a "manager" and an "administrator?" Is this significant? The Illinois Condominium Property Act refers to our board as a "board of managers". They are not a "board of administrators." Here are two popular definitions:

"Administration" is a method of tending to or managing the affairs of a group of people (especially the group's business affairs).

"Management" in all business and human organization activity is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives.

There are differences. Management implies achieving those specific goals and objectives. Managers are often accountable for improving performance. "Management" may include creative acts and the setting of policy.

Is the Difference Important or Significant? 
Is there a difference and is it relevant? Yes! Administrators are trained in management techniques, for the purpose of organizing and managing the administration that facilitates the effective running of an organization. However, administrators sometime function primarily as "delegators." They review information, are given instructions by others, transmit those orders, and may be policy directors. Administrators do not create policy; they are given policy to implement. 

There are distinct differences between administrators and managers; most administrators think of themselves as managers. The distinction and titles often collapse, because administrators do use management techniques.

There are differing styles of management. For example, one is an "authoritarian" model and another is a "participative" model. Many managers practice a hybrid with components of these and other models. There are other styles, and different names. Literally thousands of books and college level or post-graduate courses have been created dealing with all aspects of management, including diverse subjects such as practical issues, methods and ethics. Much has been written in the past two decades on "managing change."

In the "authoritarian" model, which in my experience is more widely practiced, the manager's job is to do as they are instructed and transmit those instructions to others. Decisions are more likely to be made at the top and passed down to the manager, and then to subordinates. The "authoritarian" model has been characterized by some as assuming that people hate to do work, require certain coercion to achieve goals, and generally respond better to fear than to reward.

In the "participative" model, work including responsibility, is delegated. The model requires co-operation and co-ordination.  The manager co-ordinates the work of his group, with that of the group in which he is a subordinate. The manager removes or clears any problems or difficulties from the paths of his subordinates. This model has been characterized as one in which work can be a source of satisfaction and is voluntarily performed. Punishment is avoided. It is assumed that workers participate in decision making, can learn not only to accept but to seek greater responsibility, and that people respond better to reward.

Where is the Board in this?
Our board is comprised of individuals who seem to be more familiar with administrative concepts than they are with management. This is a broad statement, and I am aware that both current and recent boards have included several individuals who have or profess to have communication skills and have functioned in management or administrative positions. It is possible that the overall makeup of the board skews the style of the entire board. I base this assessment on observation, the Manor Briefs newsletter, emails, interviews or discussion with board members, and the events at association meetings.

Our board also seems to be a hybrid. There seems to be a desire for a more participative management style which, based on the languaging of board members, would include such approaches that appear to favor "well-being" and "empowerment." However, the practice is "top-down" authoritarian with compartmented individuals and individual turfs. Committees or focus groups can be dominated by one or another individual, and there is little public debate of the issues, and more importantly of the process of selection of the issues.

The Possible Complexity of Volunteers
Another layer of complexity occurs because members of the board are "volunteers" with no specific compensation or reward. The performance of tasks and the achievement of goals is completely voluntary. Management in volunteer groups can be difficult. Agreements may be "open ended" which means lacking specific deliverables and structure. In a volunteer organization such as our board, there is no specified work schedule, and there may be no finite end to that which must be done. For comparison, in the work place a manager may ask an employee to do certain things, but the work week is generally 40 hours and at the completion of that time, the week is over and with it, the worker's obligation.

Experts cite many reasons for volunteering. These include the gaining of recognition, the accomplishment of something that is felt to be important, the exercise of power, concern about well-being, safety and security, or as a means of achieving retribution for perceived prior personal attack.

Volunteers may seek to be volunteers as much for companionship and camaraderie as for anything else. This can result in a club like atmosphere in which the equitable assignment of duties and responsibilities may be difficult or impossible. In our association, the board members generally choose the duties and assignments they prefer or feel comfortable with, and there may be insufficient skills. This results in uneven distribution of duties and responsibilities. There may be obvious gaps. For example, at BLMH, we at one time had a single member of the board of managers responsible for architecture and was also treasurer.

It may also be difficult for such a group to include others, or to tackle issues that are uncomfortable or challenging, because to do so violates the comfortable atmosphere. In such a situation, issues are therefore identified and selected for their relative ease, to foster agreement and maintain the perception of the group, while other issues more significant, are rejected. In such a situation, we find we have something like an "elephant in the room", which is an idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. In the case of the board, the "elephant" is a problem or problems which are perceived to be too difficult, too large, too divisive to the group. Or, it may be something that interferes with the preconceived notions and positions or beliefs of a member or members of the group. So it is ignored or passed over.

Volunteers may not have professional backgrounds, training or experience. They may also have personal agendas. In the representative workplace model, it has been stated that the employees involved in representing others receive more benefit than those they represent. For that reason, some say that representative participation is a poor choice for improving performance or morale. In other words, for getting the job done.

The Board, Owners and Conclusion
Observing the members of the association as a whole, there are two distinct groups at BLMH. One is the board and the other is the owners. There has been little done to promote unit owner participation as responsible members and owners, and in my case, this has been discouraged. Open discussion of vital concerns is discouraged. Agreement is solicited. The neighborhood club appears to be an adjunct to the board and I suspect it provides the only source of what the board seems to believe is reliable unit owner feedback and desired agreement. Many of the same unit owners participate on the board committees or focus groups, and also as members of the neighborhood club. I understand dues paying membership in the club number approximately 10% of the owners.

I have concluded that some of our problems may be sourced by an administrative mind-set in which our managers now have the expanded assignment of creating policy, with minimal direction by others, little structure for accountability and responsibility. As I have sometimes said here "Who is managing the managers?" Let me also state, that our association is supposed to be a representational model. So anyone with administrative tendencies, who is elected, might have some difficulty in expanding from an authoritarian, policy enforcing role to one in which they are to be participative and are provided with the added opportunity of creating policy, such policy designed in accordance with broadly defined and difficult to grasp (in their eyes) "fiduciary duties" and the real needs of this association. Such needs including those of a business.

There is no "broad mandate" for the board to do whatever it desires. There is a mandate to operate in stewardship as an elected fiduciary, and to represent the owners. This is in stark contrast to managers who sometimes view their areas as private fiefdoms. Consider the additional issues of equality. Board members are the equals of their unit owner peers, but have agreed to work, uncompensated, for those peers. On the board, all members are equals; duties are to be shared and all are, in fact, responsible for financial issues, providing thorough understanding and debate of all issues, etc.

All monies flow from unit owners' pocketbooks via fees. Resources are scarce and failure in one area affects overall management and success of the association. If the association is over-budget in any one area, there is little cause for celebration in another, as contrasted to managers who revel in moving costs to another's areas of responsibility, and other politically or personality inspired games. In fact, if there is financial failure, we, the unit owners all lose.

"Compartmentalizing" duties and responsibilities may reduce the effectiveness of the board. However, this can be offset by equitable and realistic distribution of tasks, thorough preparation, the proper use of "Robert's Rules of Order", the thorough discussion of all of the issues including the uncomfortable ones, co-operation, co-ordination and the inclusion of the unit owner body.

We all, which is to say, the entire association, either win or lose as a group. If this were a "flat" playing field, which included open and honest debate of all sides of all issues, we would have a better awareness of the loss and consequences we are in fact, experiencing. However, in the skewed model, these issues are hidden and discussed behind closed doors, or simply ignored. Why are some problems addressed and others are not? Why the current priorities? Was the list of possible "Top 20" vital concerns, from owner apathy to renter's rights even discussed before the ownership here? Is there such a list? I'm unaware of one.

It may also be difficult to function in a management system which is less about delegating than it is about participation in decision making at all levels. There is no one to delegate to, or, give the work away to. Of course, that won't stop some from trying. Passing work off to paid professionals simply increases the costs of the association, or reduces the effectiveness of our professional managers who have finite time to spend on association business. Attempting to "look good" if that is the primary goal of the administrator or manager, is an impediment to performance. Lack of skill is obviously, another.

Owner Disenfranchisement and Apathy
The operation of the board is a contributing factor toward owner disenfranchisement, and it's natural consequence, owner apathy. There are many definitions, but generally it is a state of indifference and the feelings of powerlessness to change. This will be the subject of a future post. However, consider that experts have stated that "A thriving association is marked by members who show concern for the association and by a board that promotes member awareness and responds to member concerns." A board which is selective in the choice of owner concerns it will address, is promoting and creating "winners" and "losers".

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References, Miscellaneous News
Note 1. If you are a "new reader" here, you may have a few questions. Posts are sometimes prepared in advance and posted as scheduled, as this one was.

This blog, which is to say http://briarcliffelakes.blogspot.com includes my observations and those of some of my neighbors. It includes facts, but also my assessments and my opinions.

We live on about 30 or so acres of prime real estate in Wheaton, Illinois. This condominium association is unusual. It is a PUD or "Private Urban Development." We own everything! We are situated near the College of DuPage and we are immediately adjacent to a large public park and two lakes; significant portions of the shorelines we own. Our association has a value of at least $60 million, based on today's depressed real estate market. The replacement cost? That is to say, to build a similar facility with about 800 trees, streams, two lakes, roads, infrastructure, extensive landscaping and manicuring, and 84 buildings of excellent construction? Don't even ask!  As a group, we pay about $1 million in real estate taxes each year. We pay association fees of about 25 cents per square foot, per month.

Having an association on such extensive grounds creates some wonderful benefits, opportunities, challenges and some problems. We are a part of the City of Wheaton, and have the benefits of fire and police protection. However, we also have completely private streets and parking. We are a "city within the City" and could be "gated" community but we have no gates! Our acres are manicured and laced with streams and many walking paths.


As an example of some of the more unusual issues, our association pays about $6,000 per year for "critter control." because we have abundant "wild life" which is fed by some of our residents (owners and renters). It's a small price to pay, I suppose, for entertainment.


We have some of the apathy problems which I understand other associations experience and about one-half of our unit owners don't vote, preferring to place their trust in "representatives" elected by others.

We are governed by the same laws, the Illinois "Condominium Property Act" and the "Non-Profit Act" as are every condominium association in this state. These range from associations such as 5 unit condos which are obviously easier to manage, and much larger associations with 336 units, such as ours.

If you want more background information, email me, or go to the official BLMH.org website, where you can find all kinds of information, our newsletters and even our most recent audited financials. I looked today (August 31) and the dates of our board meetings have been updated in the "events" tab. The next association meeting is no longer listed as occurring in "April 8, 2010" as it was as of August 25th. Board meetings are currently for voting members, which is to say, "unit owners". However, our board has been diligently working to expand that to include renters.

I also suggest the city website at http://www.wheaton.il.us/

Note 2. Major portions of this were written in the weeks prior to posting. I always re-read this blog immediately prior to automated posting in order to get updated information into it. However, it's impractical to check everything and for example, the BLMH.org website immediately prior to posting. I am provided with no "heads up" information by the board of BLMH, so my posts may not, for example, reflect that website's current information.

Note 3. Including this post, 185 have been published and another 25 are "works in progress." This is becoming a major work!

Awarding "Winners"

September is the annual meeting here at BLMH. It is also election month for the Board of Managers. This is an opportunity to make a few observations on the subject of elections and voting. Voting that is, by unit owners for representation and also debate and voting by the board during association meetings.

We have at least one current board member who has used the term "the majority" or "we the majority" when advocating specific positions here at BLMH.

I beg to differ.

The current system is one in which about one-half of the unit owners DO NOT vote, and about 10% of the unit owners and renters belong to the "Neighbors Club", including three or more board members. The numbers indicate this does not represent the majority. I am unaware of any recent board member achieving a vote of 51% of the 336 unit owners; specifically, achieving votes of 171 unit owners here at BLMH. Some of our board members are appointees, appointed by the "winners."

The voting system here at BLMH suffers from majority failure and is a plurality system.

So I think it is at best an exaggeration and at worst, untruthful for any board member to state or to believe that by election they represent the majority here at BLMH, and have achieved a mandate for "change." That is truly political! At best, being elected is "an opportunity to perform" and is an opportunity to "be of service."

The system merely produces "winners" who after collecting sufficient proxies have the privilege and opportunity to serve the unit owner body as members of the Board of Managers. I find it appalling that some seem to use their positions to enforce "fairness" in accordance with their own narrow and skewed definition of such. I also find it somewhat ironic.

I'll be publishing a post on the subject of "fairness" in the near future. I'll also be looking at how board action creates "winners" and "losers." This has been written while observing two years of "change" here at BLMH. (Note 2).

It is very important to realize that "silence means consent." That is why, on many issues, I am not silent. It is why the members of the board must be engaged at all times in a thorough debate. I have observed that when things go wrong, there are always those who will say "how could this happen?" I suggest we look in the mirror.

During our association meetings "Robert's Rules of Order" are not followed, referenced or adhered to in any meaningful way. I'm aware that the complexities of these "Rules" limit their application and that many organizations handle this by using abridged, published versions of the "Rules".

However, the point of the rules is to promote meaningful debate and to maintain order while that debate continues. It provides structure. However, it seems that the goal here is to limit debate and to toss out that which we don't understand. If that were taken to extremes in, for example, our finances, that would mean no balance sheet; simply a check book. The unit owners would simply be given a statement of the account balance at the end of each month. I'm waiting for the argument "that would be simpler, wouldn't it?" Besides, "everyone could understand THAT!" and finally "Is it FAIR to publish anything that unit owner's can't understand?"

I suspect that about two decades ago, that is how this association was managed. How else to explain years of 0% fee increases and even a "negative" fee increase? If this were a co-op or some form of social club, I suppose "giving back" of surpluses might make sense. But this isn't.

Our former architectural director was chided or criticized for "talking too much." I didn't always agree with his sometimes lengthy presentations, but I did understand he was attempting to communicate the "why's and the wherefore's" of what he was doing. He clearly understood that he was a representative. Of course if you believe you represent the majority, then I suppose you also believe that whatever you do is the will of the majority. That seems to fit the statement and position taken by certain board members.

For a group that has made the rules a focus and spends a substantial time talking about fairness and those "rules" its interesting to me that our board has for two years, "thrown out the book". As a consequence, debate is limited. The board seems to have forgotten that "committee" or "focus group" reports are merely recommendations!

It is only when presented to the assembly and the question is stated, that debate begins and changes occur. We don't get debate. We usually get quick presentation and then group voting in which it seems that the majority had made a decision prior to the association meeting. For any board member and particularly for the president to "vote with the majority" is a disservice to the association and to the unit owners.

Comments, Corrections, Omissions, References, Miscellaneous News
Note 1. I don't mean debate in the form that we see most frequently in our politicized society, or in legal dramas. I mean debate in which an open inquiry is made in which all aspects of a subject are explored and argued, including the benefits and potential problems. One of the purposes of such debate is to reveal or unconceal hidden flaws. We are all in the same association, aren't we? As unit owners, we are all equals. So board discussion should be from the perspective of how any measure will enhance or detract from all aspects of ownership and living here at BLMH, and if such motions may disturb that equality.... Shouldn't it? Board failure to thoroughly debate these issues creates winners and losers among the unit owners. It also creates enmity and feeds frustration and jealously. This may or may not be intentional.

Note 2. Here's a sneak preview of a post in progress. "Fairness" is a very subjective term. I see it frequently used to justify a position and to get a specific response, agreement and sometimes achieve a specific board vote. One particular manipulation is the statement "That isn't fair" or "That would not be fair." When I hear this, I always ask the question "Not fair to whom?" and "What specifically are they talking about?" All unit owners are equal in this association. If we are treated equally, uniformly and consistently, isn't that the "fairness" we should be striving for? If our board was really interested in "fairness" they would prioritize the promotion of that which supports such "fairness". Board members are supposed to be non-political. That, to me, means altruistic, which in this case is unselfish representation. In elections that would mean promoting the association which includes the active promotion of participation to achieve increased voting. If they don't promote such equality, then what are they promoting? And who benefits by this?

Our attorney made a presentation to the board and to unit owners. He stated that such things including lax collection procedures are "unfair" to all unit owners. But using someone else's definition, as spoken in this association, vigorous collection would be "unfair" to a few. In particular, those who are currently struggling to meet finances. Last year a unit owner told me "You are a hard man." Am I? Is it being less than considerate if I oppose spending association money to the specific benefit of a very few? Ineffective collection procedures benefit whom? I've suggested that those who are concerned take up the hat and pass it around. I'd like to get the "vote" tally of the number of hands that deposit something. However, talk is cheap as they say; particularly when it is someone else's money that is being spent.

Another question to ask: If I am in arrears with my payment of association fees, and our association follows published procedures for collection, is that "board repression?" I believe, based on statements made, that some here do believe that it is "repression." Would it be appropriate for anyone to run for the board or to use this as a justification to replace another board member? Who is really being "fair" in such a situation and who is not?

Some think that "fairness" is measured by how it is applied to "me" and by how "I" benefit from such application. Several years ago, the fact that the building occupied by the board president was the recipient of a a new roof, was alluded to as a glaring example of "unfairness" at BLMH. We have had three buildings with their roofs replaced. The list of the next roofs for replacement has been released. I haven't heard any of the loathing and nasty statements that were made under earlier, similar circumstance, although the current board president is in one of the buildings. Strange how this was so significant, but now "it's perfectly okay." I have stated repeatedly that if an association doesn't have written policies and procedures, and if management isn't significantly involved in the selection process for such upgrades, then people being people, such animosity and jealousy are frequently the result. Some previous board members, who have been replaced, understood this and a list of driveways most in need in 2009 was prepared by management. It would be wise to promote "fairness" that is not subjective and is unquestionable. Wouldn't this be a much better place to live?

Regarding our collection procedures, I did suggest an alternative to the board during an association meeting earlier this year. An alternative which would improve our collection procedures with no onerous methods that could be construed as "repression." The board did not respond and nothing happened. So I suppose our Accounts Receivables continues to increase. That is money owed us. Under the law, this association may never collect all of it, and perhaps only a small fraction. That was explained to the board and to the unit owners who were present, by our attorney. Is it "fair" that fee paying unit owners should carry the burden of the unpaid fees of others? Our attorney says "no."

Note 3. My goal here is to provide information and stimulate debate. I also want to provide uniformity. Everyone should hear or be told the same thing. I'm not tailoring any of this to YOU specifically, so your neighbor won't be reading something different than you are, on this blog. However, saying one thing and then another, in other words, telling people what they want to hear, that's politicking, isn't it?

I once received an email from the president of the board requesting that I send an email list or statement rather than a copy of this blog. I declined because this blog and for example, the post on "Increasing Unit Sales" was intended to engage you and to solicit a reaction and perhaps some action from you and the board. If nothing more than to ask "why not?" It worked, and got my point of view to at least one of the board. There wasn't any public board debate. It didn't result in any specific, committed action.

Note 4. I understand that the "Neighbors Club" stated that about 90 people attended the "summerfest" picnic in 2009 and that this year, the attendance was about 65. Why the lowered attendance? The party was posted in the lobby of my building and I assume, in the lobby of all buildings. I could not attend because of an out of town conflict. I can't speak for others. I understand that vacation travel is 'up' this year. Perhaps there were fewer residents in the area the scheduled weekend? Or perhaps simply less interest? Pick the statement that supports your position, that's the way things are usually done here!