Legality: check your by-laws to see if board members MUST be shareholders. If not, it's legal.

As to ethical: as long as a board member fulfills his/her fiduciary responsibilities to the corporation, why not?

Even if the docs allow it [which seems unlikely], ex-shareholders [or soon to be ex-] inherently cannot think & act as shareholders, & should step down. If they have unique skills &/or knowledge which would be of value to the association, they can continue to contribute as volunteers, if they're willing...but they should not vote as owners.

check your bylaws and proprietary lease...chances are board members are required to be current shareholders.

As long as a person is still a "shareholder of record" - i.e., as long as a closing has not taken place at which his/her shares are transferred to someone else and for whom a new stock certificate is issued, that person can still be a board member if his/her term hasn't expired and s/he hasn't officially resigned from the board. You have to check your by-laws to see if a person who isn't a shareholder of record can be a board member.

Must a board member live in the building to serve on the board? We have a board member who lease out her unit and doesn't live here anymore.

Anonymous - check your by-laws. Ours which are the same that many co-ops have state that "it shall not be necessary that a director be a shareholder" - and also - "not less than a majority of directors to be elected...shall be residents of the building and unrelated to the sponsor and the holders of unsold shares." In our by-laws, this is in Article III, section 2.

Check your bylaws.

If they don't require a board member to live in the building, then let her/him serve. An investor is an investor, whether she lives there all the time, part-time or none of the time. That's because it's her money, not her presence, that makes her a shareholder.

She (or he) still has the same interest in seeing her investment increase in value no matter where she lives.

In fact, living somewhere else may be an advantage, because she can see other ways a residence is managed.

Finally, remember that New York State corporate law (which governs co-ops) prohibits treating any shareholder differently from the others. The courts consider it discrimination.

Nothing to do with discrimination ...
Your byLaws hold the answer...
However,as for sublets....
We have owners that live outside the building, and never intend to return. As oppose to being a positive force, they helped keep a board member (with his own agenda) on the Board who promised (and for many years succeeded) to help them keep thier lucurtive sub-lets --
A coop with high owner/occupation is considered a better investment by the bank and lenders... Also, renters (not all) do not have the same intrest in maintaing the building or keeping the peace with their neighbors. Good luck... VP

I said elsewhere ["They should not serve"] that board members should discontinue service once they sell, or determine that they will sell. I should have stipulated that living elsewhere--whether full-time or part-time--should NOT disqualify them from service. As Board Treasurer points out, the key factor is whether they maintain their investment in the property. As long as they have an equity stake, they're well-positioned to act in a fiduciary capacity.

Anonymous - Unless your by-laws say BMs must be Shs and all BMs must be residents, once your BMS close on their apt sales, they're no longer Shs and shouldn't be on the board.

Many by-laws say a "majority" of BMs must be residents. I agree with Board Treas that it's a person's money that makes him a Sh. But a coop isn't just a business corp. It's a home, a community where hopefully people get along, and a bldg that needs watchful eyes to ensure that residents treat it and each other with respect. If BMs don't live in the coop, they can't relate to that, and if they all they want is an investment, let them buy stocks, bonds, funds or CDs.

I also agree with Board Treas that Business Corp Law prohibits any Sh from being treated differently from the others. All SHs must be treated "fairly and equally". But if a BM must be a Sh, not letting someone be on the board who isn't a Sh is not discrimination.

We had the same problem,,, according to our bylaws, anyone could be on our board... A SH vote is usually needed to change the bylaw,,, so (if needed) put it on the SH meeting agenda,,, and vote to change the bylaw..

You are wrong about the Supers Club, they have chapters in every Boro except Staten Island. Your best bet is to contact them and let them post the job opening on the website to get you some resumes.

You should list some of the benefits, salary, bedrooms, any other perks.

Good Luck in your search.

After having the worst super in NY... which the Board would not fire,,, and told the SH "he was as good as it gets", the SH got rid of the Super...

Our new Super proved them wrong!

New BM got names from the MangCompany and Supers from neighboring buildings... The one we hired was recommended from the MA.... However, BM went to the buildings they worked in and talked with everyone.

If this is a live-in, remember that they are going to be your neighbors. Our old super was loud, his wife was rude and they lounged around in the Lobby as if it were their building.

Try to find someone who is not to ingrained in the system, make it very clear that you will not tolerate any kickbacks etc... Our Super is young, has a (1 child) family and a vested intrest in building a reputation and keeping his job. He is very happy here, and we value his work and his family as our neighbors. Good luck...

Was your super a member of the union? Our is and we have similar problem in which our super is probably just as worse as yours or more and way past retirement age 73+.

Several years ago I interviewed what I thought might be a great replacement for our retiring super.

When the candidate was interviewed by the board, our treasurer, a geeky sort asked for his e-mail stating they would get back to him in regards to their decision.

Unfortunately the candidate didn’t have an e-mail. In response our treasurer stated “how can you not have an e-mail, you have no virtual identity, without an e-mail we can’t hire you.

The candidate left with his hat in hand.

On his way home, the candidate saw a street vendor selling tomatoes. Seeing no option left the candidate bought all of the vendor’s tomatoes to bring home to his family. On the way home he was approached by several other shoppers and ended up selling the tomatoes at a 200% profit.

One thing led to another, boxes of tomatoes soon turned to truckloads, then warehouses full of tomatoes.

Several years later I was astonished to see the candidate, a little grayer perhaps, at an interview committee meeting as he was about to close on the penthouse in our building.

At the end of the interview the ex treasurer, now the chair of the interview committee asked the candidate for his e-mail, elaborating that the documents required could be sent quickly by e-mail.

The applicant responded that he had still not obtained an e-mail account.

In total amazement the chair asked how the candidate could not have an e-mail in this day and age.

The candidate smiled and told them if I had an e-mail the last time I saw you I would still be in the basement apartment, now I am going to buy the penthouse. Who needs an e-mail!

ex res manager, what a lovely story. Brought a smile to my face.

We don't because the card companies typically charge anywhere from 1.5%-4.0% of the dollar amount as transaction fees.

Why should we pay the vigorish and assign the costs to other residents?

Why should a shareholder benefit with points, mileage, etc at the expense of the other residents?

Nope not in our place.

We had a single instance where a shareholder was not getting the tax abatement. (Technically, the coop was not receiving a tax abatement for his share of the ownership of the building, so there was no money for the coop to return to him; it's not as though the coop were pocketing it.) The managing agent never noticed the shareholder's exclusion, even though they had records of everybody else getting it and DOF reported that he was excluded because his social security number was not on file with DOF(something that could easily have been corrected had anybody at the managing agent been paying attention). After the coop treasurer noticed this and brought it to the managing agent's attention, they blamed the shareholder (whom they never notified that he should file that info directly with DOF) and claimed that they didn't have his social security number in the first place. BS. Of course they had it; the got it when he acquired the shares about 3 years earlier. In my opinion, it was nothing but blame shifting. In any event, I believe both the shareholder and the managing agent then reported the SS# to DOF, and he is now geting the abatement. To my knowledge, nobody tried to find out whether he could get back-abatements from DOF.

Thank you for your info/response. We too are being given the run-around. Unfortunatly this hit almost 20 SH... and counting. The MA cannot even produce a list of SH who bought during the last three years...

We have just fired out MA, and my advice to every bM is to start checking the financial reports and follow up on work being done... Ask SH to cc all BM on complaints sent to the MA.

And even if you think your MA is doing a great job, keep an Email trail,, I dont have the time or space to list (two pages) all the mis-manangement (sh/financial/building) issues we had.
AT

Yes; we require the managing agent to keep records of all the business and we review it quarterly.

SO WHY DON'T YOU MENTION IT TO THE NEIGHBOR; NEIGHBOR?

First - it is a 2 fold situation.
The city does send out a form for all shareholders to respond to and second, the M/A gets a report from the city to update any new shareholders, and they report back to the city. They must have the s/h SS# or the s/h will not be issued a credit.
A report is sent to the agent annually, showing all apts and who is getting what credits. I recommend that you get your hands on a rentroll and a copy of this report and compare the names on it. You then may have to have the agent fix it and resend to the city, but there is a time cut off as the July taxes have already been billed and will not be revised with and changes.
The report also has a phone number on it which you can call or email.
I don't think that the city will do any retro credits, but it adjust the credits going forward.
It is the responsibility of the agent to review, update and submit this report every year to the city and for each s/h to supply the city with the completed forms that they send out. If one was not rec'd by the city, you should call the number on the report and they will assist you.

Good luck..

You present questions that require quite a lengthy response. My best suggestion is that you contact the managing agent and speak with them about your concerns. The chances of you removing a director are pretty slim. The best way to make change is to work from the inside which you are now in position to do. You should do your homework on the issues so that when you present them at the board meetings you are well prepared making it difficult for other board members not to see the light. There is always politics on a board to deal with so you are not alone. Don't let it deter you from your goals to make changes and improvements to your building.

I don't believe the agent can do anything to help, & it seems certain that going this route will telegraph your concerns & intentions to the Board. By the way you describe members & their attitudes/actions, they're entrenched & the agent's loyalties lie w/them.

When you talk about removing a Board member, the sponsor's votes count like any other owner's. 2/3 is not, of course, "simply majority." You don't specify building size, but it sounds near-impossible to reach the 2/3 likely required for removal without sponsor's votes [do the math: add sponsor's 24% to the shares of other Board members & you'd need virtually every other owner to vote, & to side with you].

Remember your responsibility is to other owners, not to the Board. You express concern about legal liability if you speak out; I suggest you should be concerned about your liability as a fiduciary if you DON'T speak out. The part about "not saying anything about or against the Board" isn't in your by-laws; it's common sense relating to the pragmatic business of achieving your goals as a Board member. You've already set yourself apart from the group, & they know this. If you go along & say nothing, you won't fulfill your responsiblities to fellow owners & you should simply quit.

Choose to stay only if you will commit to working for what you believe to be right. While it's probably not worthwhile to discuss your agenda with the agent, it might be a great idea to meet privately with the sponsor. Do so in the guise of wanting to understand, as a new Board member, the sponsor's views & objectives; if you can agree on certain shared goals, you have a powerful ally & stand to make real progress for owners.

Dear C/CS
I think your suggestions and advices are great! I will like to respond with more details since you bring up new questions to me. Unfortunately I do not have the time now but did't want to miss the oportunity to express my satisfaction with your response. It is very righteous and responsible, yet very inteligent. Thank you very much.

It can be enlightening to revisit certain situations to see how things played out. Andrew--is there anything you can share with Board Talk readers on the actions you took, on their impact, & on the status of your building governance today?

Board members serve at the pleasure of shareholders. If other BM are there is thanks to the votes of those shareholders who also voted you into the Board. Once a Board is elected, all positions are for grabs, including the Pres., Treas. and Secretary.

Now, that you have served a year, speak up and say, "Ï want to be president". There will be those who will accept your nomination and others who will vote against you. However, this is how officers are elected.

You are bound by confidentiality and discretion; therefore, you should not discuss what goes on at Board meetings with those outside. You may speak of general projects and issues if you are asked by shareholders, but your role is not to create rumors or the impression that the Board cannot do their work.

Obviously, if change is required, there is the role of promoter to serve as a catalyst for others to get them interested at the time of elections. Only by adding new members, you will be able to start transforming the composition of the board.

Don't be afraid to bring your ideas forward at a meeting. This is why you have been elected. Part of Board meetings is active listening to other point of views and even expressing ideas. This exchange brings third positions as we all can hear different reasons.

Good luck!

Your best bet is to speak with the co-op counsel. Who went through the process of forclosure: the bank or the co-op for lack of maintenance payment? If the bank did not claim the unit at city hall auction, and someone bought it, then the person has to clear the arrears and legal charges. Also, the person needs to complete a buyer's package and provide financial info before being admitted. If not admitted, then the person may have to sell the unit outright without being able to live in it.

This is very similar situation when a unit is part of a estate. The heir may have to show financial info, etc. to prove that he/she is able to carry the unit; however, if the co-op does not accept the heir, then he/she may have to sell it to obtain the proceeds of the saile of the unit.


AdC

You say "tax abatement," then "coop rebate;" they're very different animals.

The property tax rebate is a periodic refund of a few $100 per condo or co-op. [With current NYC fiscal conditions, we probably won't see this again soon.]

The more serious tax abatement is a reduction generally ranging from 17.5% to 25% of each owner's total property tax bill; this is an effort to equalize apartment taxes with single family residence taxes, & recurs each year.

Most of what you need to know is explained here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_tax_reduc_coop_condo.shtml

Don't miss the "owner's guide" link at the bottom of the page.

Basically, the Board applies. If the agent files, it's in the Board's name. Have a Board officer send a letter to the Finance Dept. requesting copies of the full application for all the years in question. You'll find out quickly where you stand, & can make necessary corrections.

Finance will, when shown appropriate documentation, make corrections for errors made in past years & issue credits to owners or their banks [without interest, of course]. If errors were made by your agent, they'll be apparent, & the agent should be on the hook for owners' lost interest.

The claim that "NYC records are years behind" is bogus. Why you don't want to hold the agent accountable--if the error was theirs--is a mystery.

This announcement just in from CNYC:

GOVERNOR SIGNS ABATEMENT EXTENDER

On June 11, 2008, Governor Paterson signed into law legislation introduced by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and State Senator Frank Padavan, which extends for four more years the property tax abatement program for home owners in New York City cooperatives and condominiums. This timely enactment enables the Department of Finance to include the abatement in its property tax bills for July 1 payment as fiscal year 2009 begins. CNYC and its Action Committee for Reasonable Real Estate Taxes thank our elected officials for this important legislation. Thanks also to member cooperatives and condominiums for their letters and calls in support of the extender. The CNYC Newsletter will provide members with more details.

The Residential Mannagement Council of the Real Estate Board of NY developed one that is used by many management companies and cooperatives. Contact the REBNY and ask for Marlyn Davenport.