Are you referring to each shareholder's right to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their apts? If you have noise disturbances from another shareholder you must document it in letters to the managing agent and the Board and they will act on your behalf to settle the situation. But you must continue to pay your maintenance regardless.
Hope this helps.

Although the term "Quiet Enjoyment" may be found in your proprietary lease or other documents, and is probably the term you were thinking of, it does not mean lack of noise. "Quiet enjoyment" actually means that you have "use or possession of the property undisturbed by claim of superior title".

Check your House Rules - your problem is likely referred to as disturbing noises that interfere with the rights, comforts or convenience of other occupants.

"Quiet Enjoyment" is the phrase that everyone misapplies. I'm glad you stated what it means.

AdC

Check your Proprietary Lease....
Generally, the Board Members elect officers; if you want to elect a Prez and VP of Operations (who would effectively be Co-Prez) it would probably be OK, but I believe in the eyes of the Law, you ultimately have to have a Prez who signs off on documents, etc., a Treasurer and a Secretary who also signs off on docs.

Take a look at your bylaws. In most cases, as far as I know, it's possible to have two vice presidents but not two presidents, nor two treasurers. Your bylaws should spell it out.

Also, usually, officers are appointed by their peers on the board (not elected by shareholders). Board members are elected by the shareholders; officers are then appointed by fellow board members.

It's great that the two of you work well together. Makes for a productive board! Maybe one of you could take a turn as president this time around and the other could serve as VP; then next year, switch. In the case of our board, the titles are really just formalities. At least that's the way it is now, and we find it much more productive this way. (For four or five years, we had a BP who over-identified with his role, took it and himself far too seriously, and the result was completely dysfunctional: just a mess!)

The hierarchy is a legal requirement for corporations, but the titles don't have to be overly rigid.

Good luck, and let us know what happens.

Co-President is not the best solution.. How about a Vice-President?

And since you should have a VP, perhaps they need to step up and take over some of the responsibilities..
AliceT

From my experience, boards are required to pass these credits on to shareholders.

However, many boards have not factored these credits into their annual budgets.

Therefore, they must assess for the amount of the credits on a per share basis.

In order to allow these credits to flow through to shareholders, without need for assessment, maintenance would have to be raised to cover the amount of these credits.

1) No. The tax abatement is done on a per share bases:

Abatements are determined based on the value of the entire cooperative. For condominiums this total value is allocated among the eligible units and the assessed value of the property is reflected on the quarterly Statement of Account (SOA). For a cooperative development, the assessed value of the unit is calculated by: 1) dividing the entire development's assessment by its total number of shares and then 2) multiplying each unit's number of shares by that factor. The abatement is only granted to the shares of eligible residential units.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_tax_reduc_coop_condo.shtml

The STAR Credit is not determined on a per share basis. This year it is something like $197 for basic STAR, and moe if you qualify


2) There are different ways of calculating the assessment but it must be done on a per share basis.

1 way of calculating the assessment is to take the amount of abatement received by the building, dividing by the number of shares, and making that the assessment.

Another way to do it would be to use the per share amount of the abatement used by finance and asses that

Note the 2 are similar but not the same. In the later method the assessment will be higher in a building where there are still sponsor held units

Each coop receives a list from the city detailing the amount of the coop/condo tax abatement and various STAR rebates each shareholder is to receive.
As explained on the Dept of Finance web site,it is possible for two shareholders with the same number of shares to receive different abatements, depending on the STAR rebates they receive. The STAR rebates are considered by the city to affect the pro-rata tax basis of the apartment and thus the tax abatement the apartment receives.
For most shareholders who receive the minimum STAR rebate the difference will be minimal, but for those who receive enhanced STAR rebates there can be more of an effect.

Another two cents worth:

RE STAR: shareholders all receive the same STAR exemption (about $200); this amount would only differ if an ENHANCED STAR exemption had been granted. (STAR, by the way, is an exemption -- not an abatement. It was introduced as far back as 1997 by Governor Pataki but there still seems to be quite a few people who don't realize they have to put in a one-time application to qualify for it. Only the enhanced exemption needs repeated applications since it's based on the tax payer's income).

RE THE CO-OPERATIVE ABATEMENT: This abatement is calculated as a percentage of the tax due from the building -- 25% or 17.5% depending on the per unit assessed value. However, sponsors and their successors don't qualify for the abatement; nor do any shareholders who own more than 3 apartments in the building. So if any of the apartments in the building are owned by shareholders who fall into the two excluded categories, then the building actually receives less. For example, if there are 10 apartments and 2 are sponsor apartments, then the building would receive only 8/10ths of the abatement.

SHAREHOLDERS who qualify for the abatement receive a proportion of the total abatement according to the number of shares they hold. If two shareholders have exactly the same number of shares and both also receive a standard STAR exemption, they should both receive exactly the same credit on their monthly maintenance bill.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE OTHER EXEMPTIONS. If a shareholder qualifies for other exemptions -- such as a VETERAN's exemption -- then this would add to the amount that the shareholder would receive .

THE ABATEMENT HAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO ELIGIBLE SHAREHOLDERS -- by June 30th, at the latest. But there is often no money in the budget to allow for that distribution because many co-ops opt to budget for the lower tax figure -- that is, AFTER deducting for the abatement. That's known as the 'net' figure. (They should really budget for the 'gross' figure BEFORE deducting the abatement amount -- because the abatement doesn't belong to the co-op. It's one of the few things that actually belongs to the individual shareholders!)

THE CO-OP ASSESSMENT. So that's why it's become fairly general for co-ops to ASSESS their shareholders for the amount that has to be distributed. That is, they credit shareholders with the abatement and, at the same time, debit them for an assessment. Boards like to do this because it's a more or less painless way of adding some money to the kitty. Shareholders see hardly any change in their maintenance for that month, even though they've been assessed.

ENHANCED COLLECTION.... Now , this is where it get interesting. If you still have sponsor apartments in your building, those apartments (see above) don't qualify for the abatement so you don't have to credit them with anything. But you DO get to debit them with the same per-share amount as every other shareholder (equal treatment for every share). So in those cases, the co-op is getting free and clear money which could be added to reserves.

THE GOOD NEWS IS ... the co-op abatements are getting bigger and bigger every year.

THE BAD NEWS IS .... the abatements are only getting bigger because they're calculated as a percentage of our tax bills that, every year, are getting bigger and bigger .... and bigger ... and...

Thank You for the detailed response, its much appreciated. I have a question: We are a small co-op 60 apartments, with 52% still owned by the sponser.
The question is - We received the abatment for some and not all resident shareholders, seems like the ones that didnt recieve the abatment credit were owners that purchased from the sponser.
Will this money be forthcoming once the paperwork is updated or will we have missed the boat per se for this year and need to realocate the credits?
FYI - My apartment was one of the three that didnt not receive the abatement and we are wondering how to proceed.

One possibility if you didn’t receive an abatement is that your purchase of the apartment from the sponsor was recent and the apartment status has not yet been changed. The Dept of Finance sends a detailed statement to a co-op’s managing agent listing the abatements and exemptions due to every apartment so you should be able to ask your management to tell you whether your apartment qualifies for an abatement in the 2008-09 tax year and, if so, exactly how much it is. Alternatively, you could phone the DOF abatement ‘hot-line’ directly at 1212 361 7099.

If your co-op is already receiving the co-op abatement, you can, individually, submit a new claim for your apartment. You can do that on-line at the DOF web site (see below). This has to be submitted by Jan 5 to qualify for abatements in the tax year starting July 1. (The city’s fiscal year starts in July whereas most people work with a fiscal year starting in January.) But, generally, management is responsible for updating information on the status of apartments; you are only responsible for applying for the various exemptions, like STAR.

If an apartment is sold to another shareholder during the tax year, then each shareholder should get a pro rata amount of the abatement because the apartment, itself, was already eligible for the abatement. However, if you buy a SPONSOR apartment, there is no pro rating. Sponsor apartment do not qualify for the abatement and the eligibility of the apartment is determined by the prior owner’s abatement status as of Jan 5 for the tax year starting July 1.

One other possibility to look at is that you received an abatement credit but the total amount of your maintenance didn’t reflect that because you also had debits.


http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pdf/05pdf/exemption_abatement.pdf

For sure, banks are more likely to give mortgages for high-percentage owner-occupied buildings.
Other than that, extreme sponsor presence can be disruptive on boards.
It's always best for co-ops if sponsors sell rather than rent.

There are many negatives if the sponsor is not willing to work with the Board for a common good. I am listing a few problems:

1. Read the prospectus or plan of conversion for rights the sponsor keeps while trying to sell units. Unfortunately, if your sponsor is not in the process of selling units nor it has any intentions of doing so, the conveniences are a sore thumb for many individual shareholders, i.e., no sublet fee paid by sponsor, no interview process for prospective buyers or renters, right to alter a unit without consent except for providing insurance for the contractors.

2. The Board does not have control over the tenants the sponsor rents to. They could be wonderful or they may not be the kind of people that you wish to have for neighbors. Consequently, you do not have input as to discontinuing a lease at the end of the term unless the sponsor has a good relationship with the Board.

2. Sponsor's renters must abide by the rules, but it all depends on your working relationship with the sponsor when it comes to violation of rules and trying to make an individual observe the rules.

3. Some sponsors do not care to renovate or keep up with the general physical maintenance of its units. Consequently, some of the sponsor's units may have serious problems such as tiles in bathrooms that are in bad conditions and leak, old stoves that may leak gas, etc.

4. Emergencies in sponsors'units may become nightmares for a co-op as the sponsor may not be reached off hours. Consequently, the co-op ends up absorbing the work that many times is not for the co-op to assume.

5. In some cases the sponsor may be consulted first in order to have an assessment or to increase the maintenance based on the annual budget. This is because your sponsor may be holding a major stake in the co-op and the maintenance may affect the spsonsor's budget and the financial position of the co-op.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but let others add to the posting.

Excellent points, AdC. Let me add another vis-a-vis renovation:

While the Sponsor may be REQUIRED to provide insurance for the contractor, the Board has no right of review of the alterations planned. Walls may be removed without the Board's knowledge; electrical and plumbing work may be performed that could alter the physical structure; and whether the proper permits/licenses are enforce is anyone's guess.

In a building where Shareholders are scrutinized for compliance, this can be a real headache.

If you are in doubt you may always call the building department and search the property for permits filed. If the walls are being taken down, and not permits were filed, you may always be the small devil by calling the builidng department and cause a bit of a problem. However, in doing so, you may have to pick up sosme of the consequences.

AdC

You and the rest of the shareholder population cannot do much to stop the new fences as the Board is in command This is probably the worse part of living in a co-op community or even a condo. You have subordinated or surrendered your decisions to the Board. This is what happens in democracies such as in ouuntry. Only your vote may change an unpopular board member (including the president) for poor decision-making.

However, you may check your by-laws to find out if you and a group of shareholders may request a special meeting of shareholders to go over the decision of the Board. If enough dissenters with the capital improvement exist, the Board may reconsider (not change) their wisdom or decision.

AdC

Boards and even bullying board presidents cannot just do anything they want. Their actions must be in good faith and demonstrably demonstrating fiduciary responsibility. Tearing down existing fences the co-op did not pay for and erecting lower-quality fences at co-op expense seems clearly a breach of this.

I think a few shareholders can band together and retain an attorney to draft a letter to the board saying that this seems a breach, and threatening a shareholder lawsuit. Often, the threat alone will be enough.

If it is not, then calling for a special election (if the bylaws allow) seems the next step. A third option would be to organize a shareholder revolt: If 50% of the shareholders withhold maintenance, the board can't just evict half the population, and would have to back down since the co-op could not survive such a financial blow.

But first, take the attorney-letter route.

The Board's argument is going to be that they are protected by the Business Judgment Rule. They're going to claim that the PVC fences are better based on some particular criterion -- maybe longevity -- and they're really acting in the best interests of the building. That's not so easy to disprove, and a lawsuit is an extremely expensive proposition in any case. See the decision in Horwitz vs. 1025 Fifth Avenue, in which the Board successfully required a shareholder to remove an awning that had been in place since the 1950s.

Although a letter from an attorney sounds like a reasonable proposition at first blush, I would guess it's just going to waste time in this case. If more than 50% of your shareholders feel the way you do, I would call a special election *immediately* and oust the entire Board. Check your By-Laws for the procedure; typically, you can call a special meeting if 25% of shareholders request it.

If the contract to install the new fences has already been signed, it's going to be more difficult.

I suppose you're right. It's maddening, though, how the Business Judgment Rule often automatically protects amateur, unpaid board members -- and I say this as one myself -- who aren't trained in running a corporation and do not necessarily make professional business judgments.

Not because of anything untoward, but because, well, the judgment and skills of an amateur wedding photographer are not what I would want at my wedding. Shareholders need a better safeguard.

I agree, JB. The Business Judgment Rule can be (and sometimes is) used to justify amateurish and ill-conceived decisions. However, it's a reasonable rule when Boards have done their homework with their experts and need to move forward without the threat of protracted litigation.

And that's a key that might be useful to the original poster. If it turns out the Board ignored the advice of their professionals -- or, worse yet, never even bothered to consult any experts -- then you have a decent argument that the decision was not made in good faith. In that case, the BJR would not protect the Board.

(For the record, I'm not a lawyer. The original poster should certainly consult one!)

Whatever your issue, transparacy is one of your tools for exposing a bad board or questionable decisions.

EMailPower works! Without persoal slights, keep an ongoing Email trail by sending Emails to the Board and any SH whose Email addresses you may have. Keep it business-like, and others will listen. Dont answer personal slights, just stick to the subject, and others will pay attention -- and no one will have a basis for leagal action. Once it becomes personal, you lose creditability (sp) Dont forget to keep all Emails... otherwise the "trail" is dead.
AliceT

AliceT makes a good point about emails and keeping personal references and emotions out of them. It's not always easy to do! But keep that paper trail -- you never know when you'll need it, even several years distant.

Thank you for all your input. Unfortunately, I have found out a contract has already been signed and sealed and the fences are being installed this week. The good news...the board president resigned abeit after the damage was done.

You rely on a competent outside engineering firm.

Any project we do in or co-op is accompanied cost and competence of an outside firm. This licensed engineering firm writes specifications, identifies RFP recipients, evaluates responses, levels bids, performs on-site inspections, manages punch list remediation and approves invoices.

As a board member, despite my background, I do not have the breadth of experience to act in the capacity of a competent engineering firm.

Yes, it is money well worth it; and it is in line with a board’s fiduciary responsibilities.

In your case heaven forbid a safety hazard arises, one has the engineering firm as backing.

In most cases the amenities afforded to the owner are made available to the renter. So these amenities are available to renters (some are fee based): summer pool usage ($$), health club ($$), bicycle room,

There are a few exceptions such as cages. We do not have enough cages for everyone, so a renter may not be placed on the waiting list.

We have an upper and a lower garage parking deck. The upper is nicer and folks on the lower level put their names on the waiting list for the upper level. Renters are excluded.

All in all, the amenities for the renters flow through the owners’ amenities.

How do you know if the information is true about the property manager? I cannot believe a management company and a board of directors would let someone who you say was convicted work for them?

this information was confirmed by the actual property manager that was previously arrested and convicted for taking kick backs. the property manger informed shareholders, the board, and the managing agent JAL Diversified. When shareholders presented this information to the board no action was taken. The bigger concern is that this property manager is responsible for our building and at least 15 other buildings that he manages for JAL Diversified.

The information was provided by shareholders and found in 2 major NY newspapers and craigslist resume search.JAL has not shared this information with the Board.
The board and the management was urged by the shareholders and no action has been taken at this time
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-york-brooklyn-6-charged-in-courthouse-kickbacks.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/07/25/2002-07-25_bust_in_courthouse_kickbacks.html

The information was provided by shareholders and found in 2 major NY newspapers and craigslist resume search.JAL has not shared this information with the Board.
The board and the management was urged by the shareholders and no action has been taken at this time
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-york-brooklyn-6-charged-in-courthouse-kickbacks.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2002/07/25/2002-07-25_bust_in_courthouse_kickbacks.html

Believe it. It happened in our (Manhattan) building.

And all I can say is: old habits die hard. Be very very prudent.

...for something that happened in 2002 or so, then let's not condemn the agent unduly. If he was convicted and served his time, he deserves a second chance.

I would imagine that if someone were taking kickbacks and was caught and imprisoned or did community service or otherwise received punishment, that person would likely be treading VERY carefully to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Sure, some people are recidivists, but in general, after a person's time of punishment is over, they don't deserve to never hold a job again for the rest of their lives. The punishment isn't supposed to be a life sentence.

For any one reading this string of messages. It should be noted that the person defending JAL and the convicted property manager is a board member of the same brooklyn coop that I reside in. Several shareholders expressed there concerns to the board about the convicted property manager and we all recieved the same response that was posted by JB over 2 months ago. This brooklyn coop has gone through its fair share of convicted felons. The previous board president was convicted of kickbacks and now there is a lien on his apartment. The current managing agent JAL Diversified has a history of mismanaging buildings. The current property manager was convicted of taking kickbacks. Many of the shareholders also suspect that the current board treasurer and secretary have also taken kickbacks. The biggest concern is that JAL manages over 50 buildings in NYC and now they have a convicted felon taking bids for projects, after he was arrested for taking bribes. This is unethical and will impact any building that is managed by JAL.

And I'm surprised anyone would think so simply because I'm defending a fellow American's Constitutional and civil rights. A conviction for virtually any crime is not a life sentence. The comedian Tim Allen was a convicted drug dealer -- should he never have been allowed to work again? A lot of people loved Home Improvement (though not me) and his voice in the Toy Story movies (including me).

Tim Allen wasn't breaking the law while plying his trade. The two were completely distinct. Not the case with crooked property managers who return to the same line of work that they couldn't do without cheating the first time around.

Tim Allen was a convicted drug dealer — if you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, you seem to be suggesting that Tim Allen should be allowed to sell drugs again.

That is such twisted logic I don't know where to begin. My point was that of rehabilitation, second chances, and the fact that once a sentence is over, a convict has served his time. What are you advocating -- lifetime exile to a gulag?

Just because someone broke the law in a particular field and served his time doesn't exile him from that field for the rest of his life. Tim Allen "going back to drug dealing" is a specious example -- the field of drug dealing was illegal in the first place.

A more apples-to-apples comparison would be to that a a businessperson cheating on his or her business' taxes. After being convicted and serving a sentence/paying a fine/etc., should that person be forced to leave the business in which they know how to make a living?

Bottom line? We (unknowingly) gave a guy a second chance... and he revived his criminal career in our building.

These people have access to our apartments, finances and family.. it is not unreasonable for us to not want them in a position where they can harm or steal from us. And the Board has the responsibility of protecting the SH -- to the best of their ability

It is also not unreasonable to suggest they they choose another line of work. Perhaps in realestate,, but not Managment or a position where they can take kickbacks or steal... Isn't Tim Allen...an actor? Bad argument/comparison.
HG

"Bottom line? We (unknowingly) gave a guy a second chance... and he revived his criminal career in our building."

Same here. Perhaps that's why I'm so sensitive to this issue. Email has made things more transparent and corruption more difficult, but it's apparently still far too easy for people to dip their hands in the cookie jar and help themselves. Things are too lax, boards often have too many other responsibilities to be able to pay sufficient attention or apply sufficient scrutiny, it's just too easy.

Shareholders elect a coop board to make sure the coop remains financially secure and continues to thrive. Letting a convicted criminal have major responsibilities would impact the coop in so many adverse ways. When we contacted the board about replacing the convicted property manager they told shareholders give the property manager a second chance. Our previous board president took over 50,000$ in kickbacks. If we follow the logic of the current board then we should let the previous board president go back on the board because he was convicted and now he has learned his lesson. The current board did not respond, because they may have realized that as shareholders letting a criminal manage the coop would put their investment at risk.

For any one reading this string of messages. It should be noted that the person defending JAL and the convicted property manager is a board member of the same brooklyn coop that I reside in. Several shareholders expressed there concerns to the board about the convicted property manager and we all recieved the same response that was posted by JB over 2 months ago. This brooklyn coop has gone through its fair share of convicted felons. The previous board president was convicted of kickbacks and now there is a lien on his apartment. The current managing agent JAL Diversified has a history of mismanaging buildings. The current property manager was convicted of taking kickbacks. Many of the shareholders also suspect that the current board treasurer and secretary have also taken kickbacks. The biggest concern is that JAL manages over 50 buildings in NYC and now they have a convicted felon taking bids for projects, after he was arrested for taking bribes. This is unethical and will impact any building that is managed by JAL.

Boards/SH's now have a very powerful tool. EmailPower...

We got rid of a criminal Super, questionable lawyer and very bad MangCompany.

Document EVERYTHING.
Write businesslike Emails. Ask pointed questions and you will have a powerful Email Trail. (dont forget to file them)

ALSO: Read your monthly financials. We have discovered strange overtime, bills etcetcetc.... The buck stops at the Board -- and if you are taken to court by a SH -- its YOUR name that will appear on the court doc.
PS: Our Super had a criminal record, which was hidden from the Board. We found out AFTER he was caught taking kickbacks and running other illegal business in the building. He trashed the Supers apartment and removed all the tools -- and still the Union protected him. He may be working in your building.

VP

I agree as a sh I have seen changes take place in my coop. Nothing had been done for years and when shareholders started emailing the board and other shareholders we have seen a slight increase in responsiveness.

Great post, VP. I cannot agree enough.

Email is super efficient, allows you to communicate with several people at once, minimizes ambiguity, keeps folks accountable — and has the added benefit of constructing an institutional history. It's an efficient, dated, searchable note-taking technology.

to VP re: >>He may be working in your building.

I've been trying to think of a reason why not to give his name, and I really couldn't. If it would help protect another co-op/condo, isn't it simply a concrete, completely objective thing to say, "From this date to this date, so-and-so worked at such-and-such address"?

I agree that old habits die hard. If board's and management companies ran a good background check issues like hiring a criminal would not happen. It is obvious that in all the cases listed a background check was not done. This is a reflection of an incompotent board and unprofessional management company. As is the case in my brookyn COOP. Our managing agent JAL never ran a background check before they hired the propery manager convicted of taking kick backs. There are no regulations for management companies and this is why issues like these occur.

They deserve to hold a job again for the rest of their lives but not in the field in which they commited the crime and that's the state law explains (see attached document 752.2)

http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/uploads/file/ARTICLE%2023-A.pdf

They deserve to hold a job again for the rest of their lives but not in the field in which they commited the crime and that's the state law explains (see attached document 752.2)

http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/uploads/file/ARTICLE%2023-A.pdf

Maybe he/she did do their time, but if he returns to same type of work he may slip and start taking the pay-offs again. What cooperative or condominium board would want to take that chance?

I agree everybody deserves a second chance, but he/she should maybe work in the management company office doing some other type of work that has nothing to do with the day to day operations of any building or selecting/making decisions on bids.

Our monthly meetings are Board members only.
All complaints must be put in writing. If they don't put it in writing we will not address it.
If anyone wants to meet with the Board they send a note and we allow 15 minutes to allow them to come. Again they must put it in writing.

Our board meetings are strictly closed, even when a shareholder asks to attend in order to present a specific matter needing board attention. But then, the rest of my board (not me) strongly endorses an extremely uncommunicative policy towards shareholders -- for which the board sometimes pays a price.

I live in a coop in Brooklyn. The board has only closed meetings. Shareholders including myself have requested to have open meetings at least to discuss major building issues. Unfortunately this is not the case, the board has had one open meeting this year only after shareholders started bombarding them with voicemails, emails, and letters. Like previous messages these meetings become a forum for complaints and the board uses this to ignore issues. The biggest concern with our board is that there are only 5 members; 1 sponsor, two members that were elected by the sponsor, one member does not live in the building, and the last member is ignored. Our managing agent JAL Diversified attended the last board meeting and spent most of the time telling people to, "shut up" and calling us "stupid". Of course the meeting became unproductive and majority of the sponsor elected board sat back and used this to ignore shareholders and building issues. I think the only way to have a productive meeting, is getting shareholders more active and informed.

We are required by our by-laws to hold a number of open meetings annually, which we do. Those meetings are used to make announcements and provide some reports to keep shareholders informed. At the end we do take questions and answers for about 15 minutes but we do not discuss legal issues or anything else that may be considered confidential. We do not conduct any business at these open sessions.

In theory it sounds OK; however these sessions are consistently attended only by a small group of long time residents as well as a small group of dissidents who use it as a forum to complain and have no interest in the truth. Of course it allows us to nip those complaints in the bud by correcting misconceptions and providing the others with the right information.

The trick is not to let the Q&A get out of hand - no soapboxes, no political rhetoric, and no name calling.

AB - if what you are saying about your managing agent is true and not taken out of context, the board should not tolerate such behavior, nor should it tolerate such behavior from the shareholders. The next time your board has such a meeting, they should provide an agenda and stick to it. Shareholders should ask questions that are reasonable, unemotional and respectful. In turn they should receive reasonable, unemotional and respectful responses.

Thanks for the response Board Prez/ These statements are all valid and not taken out context. The main issue with the current board and managing agent is that there is no agenda or organization. I dont think there are any tricks for a meeting other than being organized. I would post several emails that I personally recieved from JAL and from the chief officer of JAL Diversified John LiPuma, but I do not want to breach any confidientialty or privacy. I assure the wording and statements in these emails haressed me and fellow shareholders. Shareholders even started a forum on a google group discussing the behaviors of the board and managing agent. Shareholders continue to let the board know about their concerns and the criminal property manager.

The property manager reports to us the board and is answerable to the board -- only!!!

We do NOT allow shareholders to question the property manager at any meeting.

In my view, one needs to take control.

For instance, in NJ we are required to conduct two open board meetings a year. In addition, we are required to have four other meetings a year. These other meetings are closed board workshops wherein we do not vote on any material items. Yes a “slight of hand”. Why, because at the semi-annual meetings we vote to authorize the board to enter into contracts, to spend the capital reserves on planned programs, etc.

Now back to the open shareholder meetings. Open does NOT mean the shareholders participate in the meeting. To the contrary, the shareholders are spectators during the 9 to 21 minutes required to conduct the business. Shareholders are not permitted to ask questions or make comments during the open board meetings.

As noted in the other posting, after the “open” meeting is closed, then we allow a period of questions and answers. Typically, a shareholder is limited to one question so that all may have a voice. See:
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=94379;article=10930;title=Habitat%27s%20Board%20Talk

Yes there always a cabal of unfounded dissents and the challenge is to not allow the dissidents to monopolize the meeting and risk losing the good people who recognize the value brought to the co-op by the board members and their activities.

Our semi-annual meetings take 9 to 21 minutes from open to close.

OK, I’ve piqued your interest.

By NJ law, we are required to have two “open” meetings a year and both are scripted. This means we have a set program that we follow. And, we have 500 units and we are considered an upscale co-op..

In May it’s the results of the annual, yes annual elections, as all board members serve but one year. We are planning to amend to allow two year terms, unlimited. Each board member makes a report about key areas of the corporation, e.g.: capital improvements, capital projects, security, health club, landscaping, summer pool operations, financial well being, legal matters, etc. We are never in poor shape as we have retired our original $8,000,000 mortgage without ever refinancing. Because we are in such “excellent” shape, we really don’t have any dissent amongst the board members. Twenty-one minutes = done.

We then close the “official” May meeting.

Next the president offers a state of the co-op corporation and community speech.

Following, is ninety to one-hundred minutes of open questions and answers that any shareholder can pose.

The November meeting is to ratify the next year budget, to approve the maintenance increase and assessments (previously distributed to all shareholders) and to approve the use of the capital (assessment) funds as planned per our long term AICPA required capital improvement program. We also approve the use of the line of credit as required. Nine minutes = done.

We then close the “official” November meeting.

Again, the president offers a state of the co-op corporation and community speech, similar to May, but with new topics.

Following, is ninety to one-hundred minutes of open questions that any shareholder can pose. Board members or counsel respond as appropriate.

So, we open the May and November meetings at 7:30 PM and gavel all closed at 9:00 PM. We have run later on occasion to 9:15 and once to 9:30.

Because we really don't have financial issues all are in harmony and we can show a united front. Yes, there are co-ops where the challenges are quite onerous. Hopefully all can achieve harmony.

If you were in the shareholder's position what would you like to hear? This question will focus your presentation and of others.

1. Legal issues.
2. Committee reports - admissions is one, financial another headed by your Treasurer. If you do not have committees,capital improvement coordinators and progress if any, etc.
3. A recapture of operations in general terms, i.e. challenges and rewards.
4. Some semblance as to what will happen in the next 12 months or where is the co-op headed based on your challenges and rewards.

AdC