Anyone at all?

You've described what should call for a straight forward procedure involving an architect and expediter. No cookie cutter answer on what costs/fees you'll have, but you'll have them; architect, expediter and NYC DOB. Try Building Brothers Inc. an expediting firm and speak to Sam Pruyn (347) 448-8070. Sam can walk you through what's involved. www.BuildingBrothers.com

Kindest Regards,

Thomas

FL: We have a SH who combined 2 apts in 1990 as you did. About 5 years ago she considered selling. I asked our coop attorney what was involved. He said a new C of O wasn't needed any more but the fees and other costs to certify combining her apts wouldn't be cheap and there would be big tax issues. She never did sell so this didn't come up again.

There is a Directive 14. It replaces the need to revise a C of O. It was established years ago when a lot of construction was taking place and there weren't enough city inspectors to deal with it. That's all I know about it.

You didn't say you want to sell your apts, but if you do, make sure you get an engineer or architect who knows what he's doing and how to file with the Dept of Buildings, and talk to a good attorney about tax and other financial issues.

Sorry I don't have more info or can't be of more help on this. Just thought I'd mention the little I do know about it.

I knew the generous souls on Board Talk would have information! THANKS!

Why is he working an extra day, are you short on staff? What is he doing, painting, cleaning, etc.

You don't give them a reason why the Board denied their application, so why reconsider with conditions?.

Correct. However, when advised of their denial, instead of moving on, they respond with what if we did thid or that-rather that accept the decision and look for another unit. I don't understand why when the building is solid-yet there are better buildings out there.

We have had several such cases that I can recall. If they ask for reconsideration, without disclosing the reason for the rejection in the first place, we give them a few days to provide any further information they wish us to consider. If that further information is satisfactory to the board then we have reconsidered, otherwise we replied with a second denial letter, again making no comments and giving no reason.

Board Prez - As a board prez myself, I know that reasons for rejection aren't disclosed, but I think it's a waste of everyone's time to tell a buyer who wants to be reconsidered to submit any further info he wants. What if rejection was based on finances and he just submits more personal references? Or what if it was based on 4 factors and more info only satisfies 1 or 2 of them?

Unless you simply say, for example, you want 6 mos maintenance in escrow you can't tell a buyer you want better numbers. His finances are what they are. If you reject him again, he'd know it was because of finances. The same would be true if you asked for more info regarding any specific aspect of a buyer's application package.

Just asking for "any" further info is also confusing to the buyer. He doesn't know why you rejected him, so he doesn't know what you want or what to give you. Rejection is sometimes not very clear cut anyway and more info won't necessarily change that.

If a board has questions or key info isn't in an application package, a buyer should be informed of that before a decision about him is made. Otherwise, IMO, a package should stand on its own as submitted.

The original applicant was rejected for undisclosed reasons. However, the buyer REALLY wants the apt dispite our rejection. We did not ask for or require additional info, etc do to the d/i levels-realizing that there was nothing else that the applicant could offer to satisfy the requirements. The question is do we not acknowledge the reconsider request no matter what they offer or give in to the request which may occur everytime a rejection is made. There are many coop units out there, why don't they move on and find another?

Sometimes a buyer loves a specific apt, it's in the area he wants, it's close to family or work, etc. Some buyers have a hard time with rejection when they want an apt badly enough. Some people also have a problem with rejection, period. Or some may not be able to see their situation the way a board does.

We've had buyers and brokers call repeatedly (a couple times to the point of harassment) wanting to know reasons for rejection. It can be difficult especially if the seller wants to sell quickly or he's friendly with any board members. We just say we are not at liberty to discuss it and make it clear that it was a full-board decision. In fact, we stress to all owners that our board always acts as a team and no decisions are made by a board member independently of the others. This usually convinces a buyer to move on, at least it has for us, if they see they're up against the full board, not just trying to change the mind of 1 or 2 board members.

The only time we may think twice about a buyer is if he's acceptable in all other ways but his finances are borderline. In that case, we may ask for 6 months or 1 year maintenance in escrow. Btw, our policies also don't permit a buyer with a guarantor or parents or other relatives to buy an apt for an "adult child". To help avoid future problems for our coop, we expect all buyer packages and buyers to stand on their own.

Hear, hear! Board Prez makes eminent common sense.

If the applications are being processed correctly, a rejection for financial reasons will come before the board or admissions committee ever meets the applicant. Therefore even though the words are left unsaid, the reasons for rejection will usually be obvious.

By giving a borderline application an opportunity to "provide additional information", you are not disclosing the reason but you are giving them an opportunity to offer escrow funds or submit additional financial information that for any reason may have been missing from the original application.

I agree that applications should stand on their own and in most cases, rejected applicants will move on. However offering to accept any additional information softens the blow and makes it clear that unless they have something substantial to provide, such as a significant change in their financial circumstances, there is no point in pursuing the application.

What kind of conditions are they suggesting?

Are they offering to place 1-2 years of maintenance in escrow, for example?

If so, seems as though they're anxious to become residents of your building. I believe some co-ops set conditions such as that if an application looks good but there's concern over affordability.

I would say the decision is final. The worst thing that any co-op can do is accept individuals who may not be in position to pay a maintenance increase or an assessment if they were to take place. You do not want to have neighbors who are in chronic delinquency. You do not wish to take shareholders to legal all the time or have them "cry" they cannot afford anymore bare necessities or that they need to make decisions on essential services to survive and live in the co-op.

My take is always the same: If the picture does not look good or borderline promising to request an escrow, then WHY BOTHER?

I always feel that the Admission Committee may be making them a favor by rejecting them. Not the sweetest thing to do, but the best for the co-op and for them in the long run. The Admissions Committees of co-ops act in a financial evaluator capacity (not advisors), and this is the most important fiduciary responsibility that the Admissions Committee exercises.

AdC

I'm thinking that this could be looked at slightly differently.

Everyone is looking for a home who's looking at co-ops. They're not looking for a rental, they're looking for something they can call their own.

Given the existing financial picture for home sales in the US, as well as the current employment picture, I'd say that potential Shareholders who are aware of their financial picture, willing to meet pre-conditions such as annual maintenance in escrow (and here, the Board has flexibility; it can require up to 5 years, for example, if any doubt exists on stability), and are still persistent and open to negotiation over terms (proof of liability insurance non-negotiable, as always)... may just be the kind of people you WANT in your building.

Co-ops are different than condos for a reason - their founding philosophy is vastly different. And that says - or should say - something about the "feel" of the building, and between its residents. I understand, and am all for, fiduciary responsibility first, second, and third - but let's not lose sight of the fact that the building as a whole is home to everyone in it. I think anyone would agree they'd much rather have residents who are interested in the building, interesting in its welfare, and interested in raising a family there, than having an empty apartment or one that's been on the market so long it makes the building look bad.

Another viewpoint heard from.

In my Co-op (111 units, 85% owner occupied and 10 corporation owned renters being phased out), we tend to encourage first time home buyers. We allow 10% down. We look more at home ownership costs as a percent of income. This also allows for unit transfers even in a down market. Our finances are in great shape therefore we don't need to assess for capital improvements. Therefore we don't necessarily need the extra financial cushion other than the emergency assessment coverage on home owners' policies which we require. We only have two units in legal for back payment for maintenance: one is a chronic un-occupied unit for a person who formerly needed city occupancy and the other involves a reverse mortgage. My opinion is while protecting the remaining shareholders – don’t also be a roadblock either.

I agree with all that you have stated. However, when you have an application in which your debt to income ratio is high, income is low and savings is similarly low for the current d/i, I would recommend that these individuals wait a year or two before taking a plunge OR look for a unit of lesser value that would satisfy their aspirations. Sometimes elimination or reduction of debt is better than looking for greater trouble.

I do not consider equity a problem: 0%, 10% 20% or 100% is not an issue if the mix is affordable to the individual at the end of the transaction. I had the experience of asking an escrow to a potential buyer who was giving 20% down. The person had a high d/i ratio,a good salary, no savings to speak of, and a high mortage+maintenance payment to make at the end of the transaction in spite of the 20% equity. The person was very upset with the escrow request and stated that 20% was sufficient to impress the Admission Committee. My response was as follows: ÿou could have given 10%, retain more cash in your savings for contingency or emergency and would have probably avoided the escrow.

Again, the mix and financial picture at end of the transaction is as important as the snap shot prior to purchase when dealing with these situations.

AdC

Condo evictions are much more difficult than co-op evictions since there is no lease. You won't have the Pullman / Davis / Lapidus cases to help you. Not that co-op evictions are trivial or commonplace; they are drastic measures that should only be considered when repeated good-faith attempts to resolve the problem have failed.

You mainly hear about condo evictions for nonpayment of common charges -- where the owners have typically defaulted on their mortgage as well and end up losing the apartment -- or in the case of someone who is *subleasing* a condo, in which case there is a lease and standard protections like the warranty of habitability apply.

You'll need to get a lawyer's opinion, of course, but I would guess that you'll probably need to treat your nuisance neighbor like the guy next door, not the guy upstairs. You can't kick him out of his house, but you can take legal action to make him stop his harmful activities and to compensate you for damages already suffered.

I don't think it is lwise to do that or legal but check with your buildings lawyer.

I can’t imagine that this would be legal. Let us know what your co-op counsel tells you; your managing agent might also be able to advise you.

Personally, I have neither the time nor the desire to start paying home visits to prospective buyers. The purpose of the buy packet is to give board officers a good idea of whether or not the applicants would be able to fulfill their financial obligation to the co-op. The purpose of an interview is to ask additional questions and, frankly, get a sense of what people are like. What are you looking for beyond that?

I know of someone who was subjected to home visits before being allowed to buy a coop on the Lower East Side. This happened some time ago, and it may have been some kind of tax-sheltered or subsidized coop.

I can't imagine that that would be legal! Please check with your co-op's attorney before giving it further consideration. (not the management company).

It's good you asked.

I remember seeing something called Bird-B-Gone or something like in Habitat's New Products section.

I have spoken with extrminators about this ese systems. The trick is that the sound wave needs to be adjusted frequently so that the birds do not get used to the same sound. Also, different birds may not respond to the same wave length, just like humans have diffent ways to perceive sounds. So, you may discourage some while others will remain.

AdC

I work for a very large pension fund at a large NYC insurer. I am also a president of a Co-op Board. Our investing approach is dynamic. From a risk perspective, our Board prefers to have little or no risk to principal. I like the Vanguard long term treasury funds (VUSUX) when interest rates are falling and Vanguard Short Term Treasury Funds (VSGDX) and bank CD's when interest rates are likely to rise. Also, if you have over $100k invested in a fund, you can get their Admiral Shares which have a lower imbedded cost. Switching to the long term vanguard fund last year allowed us to earn $80k or so in interest/dividends/realized & unrealized gains last year on a base of about $600k - which was very good for the type of year that it was. Our earnings are much less this year however we were able to turn the unrealized gains from last year into realized gains this year.

Is he union or non-union? If union, I'd immediately file a grievance with 32BJ and seek restitution. "Not knowing a weed from a plant" is no excuse, and also hard to believe; the super could have asked someone. It sounds as if he used the opportunity to get back at the board for some reason.

If he's non-union, it depends on his record. If he's otherwise done his job properly, I'd work out some restitution, like foregoing his bonus this year, or deducting the $600 from it. If this is the latest in a pattern, that's a different story.

You should thank him...Did anyone should him what they wanted done? I always find it better if someone showed the man the work that needed to be done, they you could say he over did it.

With all due respect to the previous poster, how on God's green earth can you possibly say "You should thank" the super who destroyed the co-op's gardens?

This sounds like maybe the the super himself writing in. (And I use "writing" loosely: "Did anyone should him what they wanted"? "they you could say he over did it"?)

No one should have to show a supposed professional how to do a simple task well within the bounds of his job. If the super is too mentally challenged to understand "pull out weeds," then I'm sorry, but the building is at severe risk. Building emergencies come up, and they require someone with an IQ of above special-needs.

Met - you said "no one should have to show a supposed professional how to do a simple task well within the bounds of his job." Pulling weeds isn't necessarily part of a super's job. Whoever told him to pull weeds should've shown him what they are, and he should've spoken up if he doesn't know the difference between weeds and plants.

Many NYers aren't from homes with gardens and don't know what weeds look like. If the super didn't know, that doesn't mean that he's "mentally challenged". An owner on a bldg's gardening committee (if there is one) or one who knows gardening and volunteers should pull weeds if the super doesn't know how to, or a landscaper should do it as part of regular gardening maintenance.

The super should also be told not to touch any plantings without talking to the prop mgr, board (or gardening committee) first.

Is it in his job description to be a gardner? Don't the building have a landscaper that they hire or is the building just picking on this superintendent? You and the managing agent should sit down and explain to him just what he did wrong and see what his response is, then decide what action to take from there.

Does this super have a full command of English?
If not, was he given instructions by someone fluent in his native language?
Have miscommunications been a problem in the past?

I think before anyone jumps to conclusions about motives, etc.....
we just ought to know more about the specifics.

Anonymous makes some good points about whether things fall under a super's job description. I would agree that cutting and removing tree branches, for example, generally requires a specialist.

But pulling weeds? Aren't we setting the bar awfully low? Pulling weeds, for heaven's sake! Children in Third World countries pull weeds. Oakie 8-year-olds during the Great Depression pulled weeds. How about mowing the lawn? Teenagers not old enough to have a driver's license can mow a lawn. How about trimming a hedge? Does that require a specialist?

And in response to RLM, who also makes what seems at the outset to be a reasonable point, a super who is responsible for the day-to-day care of a co-op or a condo, and who has to deal with oil deliveries, city inspectors, residents' in-wall plumbing issues etc. needs to have a full command of English.

Even with someone who doesn't, I find it inconceivable that anyone's thought processes would lead him to think, "Let's pull up ALL the plants." What could possibly be the internal rationale for that?

I'm probably getting too worked up. It's just that in this economic environment, with so many good people unemployed in a wide variety of fields (not yet me, thank goodness, so this isn't a personal thing), that this building has someone who clearly is not as good as others in his profession. Like any other business, why not try to hire the best you can afford?

Or maybe THAT'S the real problem: The board's not paying enough for a proper super.

I agree that a super needs to have a full command of English. The truth is, many don't. And some Boards won't pay a salary high enough to attract one who will.

I agree with you, just think the super you are hiring to maintain your multi-million dollar building don't understand English. The Board of Directors of these buildings should do their homework a little better in hiring building personnel.

Re Responsible hiring, I fully agree that a super needs a good command of the English language, reading and writing it as well -- in order to be able to communicate with residents, sales people, management, etc. But he needs experience too.

English is the first language of the super who cut down the garden. I wasn't on the Board that hired him but they apparently banked on his "assistant porter" (but no superintendent) experience. They allowed him to stay past his probationary period, and now he's the only staff in this building. Besides some directors, the management company looks the other way when he fouls up, and it's going to be a long haul training him. The shareholders are our first responsibility, first, last, and in-between.

I really thank you all very much for your support and ideas on this problem. Some directors and many shareholders are asking the same questions -- what could he have been thinking? What was his rationale? Inexplicably, some Board members would prefer to look the other way and ignore the visual and financial cost to the shareholders, so the problem is not only with the super, but with sympathetic directors and property manager.

Whenever I start feeling a little blue now that I am on the commercial side of the business I make it a point to visit the Cooperator.

Looking at the number of replies and general interest in regard to this subject I have to ask what on God’s green earth is all the fuss about.

“The super made a mistake and took out some ground cover, “oh my God six hundred dollars worth of plants, lets demand a grievance with 32BJ.”

Are you out of your minds? Is this all you have to dwell on? At worst the super made a simple mistake.

Oops, I forgot, we are dealing with co-op’s and boards.

I now believe the super should be shot at sunrise and buried in his mistake.

Best of luck to you all.

I have to agree with Ex Res Manager, did anyone ever explain to the superintendent what he did wrong? And is he remorseful?

Ex Res Manager – We come to Board Talk for information to help solve problems and better run our buildings. To ask if we are out of our minds and what all the fuss is over the super who pulled out plants instead of weeds insults everyone who replies to it. Whatever the issue at hand is, that’s no reason for ridicule. It’s impossible to get all the facts on any issue here but this is a help line not a sitcom.

You make fun of the point that what the super did cost $600 to correct. Maybe $600 is money the original poster’s coop can ill afford to spend on this. Maybe the super didn’t make “a simple mistake” as you stated. Maybe he makes many mistakes and should be better instructed, or terminated. The original poster was asking for advice or suggestions, and other posters were trying to offer that.

I’ve been on Board Talk for a long time, and I think it’s admirable that people here not only look for help but also want to help others. If you were a building manager and are now on the commercial side of the business, we may benefit from some of your knowledge and experience. If all you can offer is criticism, you’re in the wrong place.

Thank you, BP. Well said as always.

To play devil's advocate for a minute, I think Ex Res Manager sees this as an example of those tedious battles that plague all boards from time to time. Think of those protracted disputes over the precise shade of light green that should be used for some bit of trim in the lobby:

"It should be Apple Green!"
"No, it should be Forest Fern Green!"
"Apple!!"
"FOREST FERN, YOU MORON!"

That said, I don't think this particular dispute falls into that category. The original poster has confirmed that the super's native language is English, so it's understandably disturbing that the super took the instruction "Remove the weeds" and turned it into "Remove every scrap of vegetation you can find." That's either incredibly stupid or actively hostile. I would have a polite but candid talk with the super to figure out what went wrong. Let him know you're not happy with the results, and tell him to please ask for clarification if the details of a job are unclear to him. Maybe his next job should be discreetly monitored to make sure he's doing what was requested.

Thank you, CDT. I know what you mean about tedious discussions that all boards have at times. I have one every December with mine!

"Why not a Christmas tree in the lobby?"
"No, it will offend non-Christians."
"But the fact is - it is Christmas."
"But it's also Hanukkah and Kwanza."
"Let's have decorations for all of them."
"No, the lobby will look like Disneyland."

I think we solved it last year. We had solar mini lights on our front bushes and large white poinsettia plants (a seasonal flower) in the lobby. That appeased everyone but I could've written a book in the time spent on this. As Mason said to Dixon, "You've gotta draw the line somewhere." :-)

Why should a Christmas tree offend non-Christians? A Hanukkah candle doesn't offend non-Jews. In any event, there's nothing religious about a Christmas tree -- unlike a creche, you can put Christmas trees on school and government property without violating the Constitutional line between church and state.

Jeez! (Ironic-wordplay joke there.)

A-Moose: Some of our residents object to a Christmas tree bec it's called a "Christmas" tree which acknowledges a religious holiday. They insist that if we do that we should acknowledge Hanukkah, Kwanza, etc. too. Talk about tedious discussions. We all want the same things - peace, good will. Now we just go with seasonal decorations like candles, lights and poinsettias to avoid debates on this every year.

To BP: I am so sorry to hear how close-minded and intolerant a powerful enough group of your residents are. Despite the name, Christmas is a federal holiday, which acknowledges the secular as well as religious aspects (as opposed to, say, Easter), and, as noted, a Christmas tree is considered secular by the federal government.

It's hard enough for a board to deal with all the usual pettiness and unreasonable demands of residents in general. Add to that this Taliban-like insistence on a reductively narrow interpretation of what is and isn't religious, and I feel for you. It sounds like a horrid place to live, and running it as a board member must be very trying. You have my sympathies; religious-zealot bullies are the worst kind, since they justify all their views as being the word of God.

Happily, we haven't had any arguments about winter holiday decorations. We've always had both a Christmas tree and a menorah in the lobby in December, and there have never been any complaints. No one has ever asked for Kwanzaa items, but I don't believe there would be any objections, so long as they weren't huge or aggressively religious.

On the other hand, we don't put up any decorations for Easter / Passover / Festival of Xipe Totec / Vernal Equinox since that's a more exclusively religious holiday. We might get away with some Easter bunny decorations, but no one has ever requested them.

Thank you, CDT, for your well-considered reply, and for your good suggestions. I feel the same way about the reasons he did it, and neither is good.

In all honesty my original response was a bit of a poke at what looked on the outside as a somewhat harmless mistake in the grand scheme of what it takes to manage a building the greater New York City area. Having said that and having posted in this forum with what I believe what was constructive comments let me say the following…

One of the largest issues faced by management companies, managers and other professional staff serving the Co-Op and Condo side of this business is the well intentioned and often misguided shareholder.

Let me reference a posted remark “I'd immediately file a grievance with 32BJ and seek restitution”. Now I will try and do my absolute best to behave here, but this may have not been the best advice.

“If he's otherwise done his job properly, I'd work out some restitution, like foregoing his bonus”. Let me again bite my lip and remark this also may not have been the best advice.

Let me also respectfully request for you to review this forum to audit the number of replies based on topic noting that the thread on this issue is expansive while others dealing with true fiduciary issues remain for the most part muted.

Let me again state in that context “Looking at the number of replies and general interest in regard to this subject I have to ask what on God’s green earth is all the fuss about.”

While I offer my most sincere apology if the original poster took offence for the remark “Are you out of your minds?” my original intent remains the same.

We didn't mention a grievance with the union. The problem is more than the cost of the plants. Yes, the super made a mistake. The mistake cost the appearance of the building, the bank account of the shareholders, and more. The ramifications of his mistake don't get thrown in the trash like he did our garden.

Again, thank you for what was coined in "Cool Hand Luke" as "getting my mind right".

Gardening Committee?

We had one.....wayyyyyy back when I was a Res Manager.....eight shareholders arguing about planting one rose bush.

I just have to love it.

Don't expect a person that you hire to do porter or superintendent work do landscaping because you assume every person in this type of business should know about weeds or trees. Ask the person first about his compentence, then train the person to do the work, but never assume. You could be highly surprised or equally disappointed.

Finally, $600 of landscaping is not as bad if you never trained him.

AdC

You're right about asking the person if he knows a weed from a flower before asking him to pull up a row of weeds in front of a window and then come home to see he's pulled up & cut down an entire garden, including a small tree. $600 in cost is only the price of materials replacement; the cost to the appearance to the building is inestimable, as is the cost to the shareholders' confidence in the person.

I'm never a fan of any building allowing residents in any shape or form to have their own installations on the roof. The reasoning goes beyond the hazards of having anyone on the roof, but also each hole that is drilled into the facade of the building is a leak just waiting to happen. If it isn't properly flashed and waterproofed you are just inviting the water to come on in. Also, these dishes can tend to be an eyesore and the Prop Lease probably prohibits the installations anyway.

There are two ways that you can go about this, in my opinion. If the problem is related to satellite dishes, you can send everyone a note clarifying the Board's position on this and request removal within a specific time frame. If they don't take the dishes down themselves, you can certainly do so after that time frame has come and gone. There will now be holes in the facade from where the screws were in place, so you're going to either have the building staff, or an outside company come in to patch things up to ensure that there is no water infiltration from that point on.

If there are a lot of people who have their own dishes, the building can look into getting a Master Dish that would serve up satellite to anyone in the building who wants it. This could be costly as the initial installation and wiring in the building will be expensive. The upside to this is that you can do it once and have only one penetration in the facade of the building and it will be regulated by the Cooperative.

If you do end up leaving the dishes, I would make sure that you do the work now to patch up the areas around the insertion points to alleviate the future need for waterproofing repair and possible insurance claims. Perhaps you can set up an inspection process and bill those Shareholders for the cost of maintaning and repairing those insertion points that will cause issues.

Not to mention that you want the dishes to be installed correctly, god forbid one flies off your building and injures/kills someone.

Your current house rules may state something similar relating to hanging of radio or TV aerials from windows or making use of the fire escapes for purposes of placing objects:
Windows.
No radio or television aerial shall be attached to or hung from the exterior of the building. The building is wired for both a TV antenna (located on the roof) and cable TV, which can be hooked up inside each apartment at the Shareholder's expense.

Public Areas.
9. No article should be placed in the halls, on the stairway landings or fire escapes.

The legality of denying permission to residents who wish to install such devices including TV dishes may be founded in the following documents that are available through the Internet. They will help you understand the Board’s rights to decline such requests:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cosumerfacts/consumerdish.html
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

pmweeks - I know of a coop that has a realty agent on its board. Their only restriction on him is that he can't review or vote on a sale package for which he is the buyer's or seller's agent. I know of two other coops where the realty agent on their board can't review or vote on any sale packages at all.

Some coops think a realty agent on the board would bring a professional eye to the table and know what makes for a desirable buyer. That assumes that the agent is a good one. Other coops think a realty agent who is also a shareholder might, even subconsciously, reject a sale package if s/he doesn't like the seller or has another agenda that might reflect bias on sales. A personal agenda of a realty agent might also affect sublets.

Not giving my opinion here, just expressing thoughts of coops I know who have a realty agent on their board.

When we updated our By-Laws last year, our lawyer suggested that we added a new section on Conflicts of Interest. Here's the part about brokers:

"Real estate brokers or salespersons, who are members of the Board, shall refrain from engaging in selling apartments in the building or participating in such sales, either directly or indirectly, as listing broker, co-broker or otherwise as an economic participant in such sales."

And there's a catch-all at the end for recusing Board members who refuse to recuse themselves:

"The Board of Directors may, by majority vote, require that a director be recused from participating in any discussion or voting on any matter, when the Board determines that there is a substantial financial conflict between the interests of the director and the interests of the Corporation or that such a conflict of interest reasonably appears to exist."