By A.J. Sidransky  For COOPERATORNEWS

At the bedrock of a shared interest community, like a co-op or condo, is how and by whom the property is managed. While self-management may make the most economic sense for smaller communities, and there are certainly good examples of effective self-management in larger communities, most co-ops and condos of any size engage professional on-site management.

In most cases, those services are provided by a management company. Like all businesses, property managers seek a profitable provider/client relationship, and their services are generally subject to a contract designed to protect both the management and the community, laying out all the responsibilities and obligations assigned to both parties.

The Same, But Different 

“A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two parties bound by promises they make to each other,” says Jeremy Kay, an independent attorney located in East Bridgewater, Massachusetts. “In the case of a management contract, it is an agreement for the manager to perform services for an association in exchange for payment by the association. The scope of services and the amount of the payment are up to the parties to determine. Putting the agreement in writing is done to memorialize the terms of the agreement and allow both sides to revisit what was agreed upon. The goal should be that the written contract is clear on its terms and that the management company’s obligations are clear. Clear terms help resolve disputes and avoid potentially expensive litigation.”

Most modern management contracts are fairly similar, says William McCracken, a partner with Moritt, Hock & Hamroff, a law firm with offices in New York and Florida. “Paragraph 1, we appoint you…,paragraph 2, these services will be provided…,etc., etc.  Everything is covered there, but it’s initially a boilerplate document, so it needs clarification. It’s important for the board to look at this closely to make sure the management company understands the board’s expectations. Then there are other typical provisions about money, term, and length of contract, indemnification, etc. That’s the heart of it.”

That said, every community is different, and each has its own specific menu of expectations and requirements. In today’s highly diversified and increasingly case-specific world, management contracts are tailored to the specific needs of a community—and they’re evolving as a result.

“Basic terms depend on the needs of the association and conversely, that’s what the management company is contracted to do,” says Michael Simone, an attorney and principal of Simone Law Firm, located in Cinnaminson, New Jersey. “For example, some associations are only seeking assistance for the financial aspects of their operation. Other associations may be more interested in the physical maintenance of the property or the management of tenant relations. Each should be handled in specific clauses in the agreement outlining the details of management’s responsibilities.”

Nuts & Bolts

Regardless of what specifics your community may require, there are certain basic components that should be reflected in all contracts. These include very basic things like the terms of the contract, the parties’ names, delineation of responsibilities, fees and charges, and reasonable expectations for things like how and when meetings are held, or who should attend. 

Other important clauses include protocols for providing a smooth transition in the event of a management change (a next clause provision), the circumstances under which a contract can be terminated, who has access to computer programs, banking logins, proprietary legal information, and any other systems used by management. “It’s all about who owns what,” says Simone. “One of the main issues that should be clear and protected is always for the association to have ownership of their own products. The association, not management, should own its website, accounting software, and any other related computer products.”

In terms of how long a typical contract is, McCracken explains that it varies.  “Anything from one to five years; most typically they are year-to-year. At some point they all become a year-to-year arrangement. They don’t just expire; typically, they roll over. The reason why there is a longer initial term is because it’s expensive for a managing agent to start up a new client relationship. The management company doesn’t want to be terminated after six months; they need to make back their initial investment. From a legal point of view, from the board’s side, you want the ability to exit the agreement on reasonable terms at any time.  Boards need to be able to terminate without cause on 30- to 60-day notice. To be able to say it’s not working, and we are moving on. That makes the term requirements in the contract nearly moot. The ability to exit is what’s important—not the length of the term in the contract.”

When it’s Time to Part Ways

Like some marriages, client/management relationships don’t always work out. When that happens, what’s to be done? And what are some of the reasons why a building or association might feel it’s time to cut ties with their management company and take their business elsewhere? 

Breach of contract is a big one, say the pros. Kay explains that “breaching a contract is when a party fails to perform their obligations under the agreement. But there is a distinction to be made between breaching a contract and terminating it. If a party breaches a contract, it can become liable for damages caused to the other party. Massachusetts General Laws, c. 183A, Section 10(e), provides that any contract between a manager and an organization of unit owners can be terminated by the organization of unit owners for cause with 10 days notice, during which time the manager has an opportunity to cure any default. In any case, the organization of unit owners can terminate the contract with 90 days notice without cause.”  

Simone adds that in New Jersey, “In any contract [dispute], you look to see if there was a duty breached that would be considered material. No company is perfect, and they will make mistakes. The question is, how egregious were the mistakes? If a board determines that an action on the part of management was a material breach, that’s when the association puts in writing why there’s a provision to cancel. Typically, the contract will have recourse for either party, since sometimes it’s the association that has breached their duty, and the manager will want out.” 

In other words, says Simone, the door swings both ways. If a client community doesn’t uphold their side of the contract, the manager or management company doesn’t have to stick around; “They can quit.”

Kay concurs. “The management company can terminate the relationship as is permitted by the terms of the contract,” he says. “Were a manager to terminate the relationship in violation of those terms, that would be a breach of contract and potentially result in the manager becoming liable to the association for ensuing damages.”

That said, Kay continues, “Most disputes between management companies and associations tend to arise contemporaneously with their disengagement.  Accordingly, I advise that the management agreements be as clear and unambiguous as possible when it comes to their respective obligations. This is especially true when it comes to terminating an agreement before its term is up.”

Advise & Consent

Given the stakes, it’s vital to involve your building or association’s attorney in reviewing and negotiating your management contract. After all, it’s a legal document, and as such, it makes good sense to get some expert eyes on it before signing on any dotted lines.  

“As attorneys,” says McCracken, “we always talk to our clients about their specific goals with respect to their management contract, new or renewal, and which goals might be particular to their building. For instance, did they have a problem in the past with an agent, and want the new agreement to reflect that experience, for instance?  Generally, the things we are looking for are agreed-upon duties, and that the agreement covers the field. We want to make sure the management will do what needs to be done. Sometimes you have to add in specifics. It’s also very important to avoid the hidden charges in an agreement. Typically an agreement will say if ‘X’ happens the manager will get paid ‘Y.’ We want to make sure that that only happens if the board agrees to it. For instance, upon the refinancing of an underlying permanent mortgage for a co-op, whether the management company earns a mortgage brokerage fee. Did they actually earn it ‘with the board’s consent?’ Those terms and conditions should be clear in the contract.”

Management contacts should always be reviewed by counsel, and should contain language that adequately outlines and delineates the manager’s responsibilities and fees. They should reflect the needs of each specific community, and provide a path out for that community if issues arise that can’t be fixed. Effective management contracts are a vital administrative and legal component for shared interest communities, and boards should take them seriously.

A.J. Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for CooperatorNews, and a published novelist. He may be reached at alan@yrinc.com.

HABITAT Magazine

Q: A shareholder in a Queens co-op recently found a buyer willing to pay cash for her apartment. Documents were provided showing that the buyer could afford the apartment, the fees and the renovations. But the co-op board rejected the application. The shareholder emailed the board to ask for clarification on what it’s looking for in a buyer. She never got a response. How can a shareholder find out what the co-op board is looking for in potential buyers?

A: In New York City, a co-op board does not have to tell you why it rejected your buyer. It has the power to reject a purchase application “for any reason or no reason” — and isn’t obligated to spell out the reason. The members probably won’t tell you what they’re looking for, either.

“I’m always loath to give any particular criteria, because it locks the board into something,” says Steven Sladkus, a co-op board president and partner at the law firm Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas.

The financial health of applicants is important, such as how much money they will have after closing, their debt-to-income ratio, a good credit profile and stable employment, Sladkus says. Other factors include whether applicants have a history of filing lawsuits, particularly against landlords.

A seller’s best move is probably to hire a broker who is familiar with the building and has experience guiding sellers through the process there. “If you have a broker,” Sladkus says, “they’re hopefully vetting purchasers for you so you don’t waste your time.”

Though vast, a co-op board’s powers are not limitless. A board cannot reject buyers for illegal reasons under federal, state and city fair housing laws. This would include basing a decision on their status in a protected class such as race, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, says Julie Schechter, a partner at the law firm Fox Rothschild. If the board does not disclose the reason for the rejection, and there is no other evidence, discrimination cases can be difficult to prove in court.

There have been repeated efforts to make the application process more transparent in New York City. Most recently public advocate Jumaane Williams sponsored a bill that would require co-op boards to provide their reason for denying a sale to a potential buyer within five days of making their decision. Such bills have met with stiff resistance from co-op advocates, and so far none has advanced in the City Council.Westchester County, however, does have a law that requires a board to disclose to an applicant its reason for rejection.

By Emily Myers For HABITAT Magazine

At 60 Court St., a switch to battery-equipped induction stoves by a third of unit-owners shaved $400,000 off the riser repair costs after a gas shutdown. (Photo courtesy Ted Booth)

A gas leak at 60 Court St. could have triggered a $1.5 million repair bill. Instead, the 33-unit downtown Brooklyn condo shaved $400,000 off the building’s riser replacement by giving owners the option to switch to battery-equipped induction stoves. “We saved because we didn’t have to do all the branch lines,” says board president Ted Booth, “And that was two thirds of the project costs.”

The shutdown couldn’t have come at a worse time. The condo was just days away from starting a major roof replacement and reserves wouldn’t cover both projects. “We had to stop that and lost the downpayment on the roof,” Booth says. It was also October, the start of heat season when heat and hot water are a necessity, since the leak put the condo’s gas-fired boiler out of action. A temporary oil-fired boiler was brought in — at significant cost. “Between the boiler rental and the oil it was probably $250,000,” Booth says.

The leak was in the cellar, where gas enters the building, but when a shutdown happens all the risers need to be pressure-tested before supply can be returned — which can take up to a year or more. At Court St., engineers and plumbers told the board the original risers were most likely leaking in multiple places. Fittings and valves would also need to be replaced.

One option for boards in this situation is to consider electrification. For the condo to move away from gas entirely the boiler would need to be replaced with electric heat pumps for space heating and domestic hot water. That would have required upgrading the building’s electrical capacity, and estimates for the work were as high as $6 million. “It felt like an impossible situation,” Booth says.

Ruling out electrification due to cost, the board knew gas lines would have to be replaced to the boiler. They then learned about induction stoves with built-in batteries. The battery allows the stove to plug into a standard 120 volt outlet, eliminating the need for electrical upgrades. If enough owners were willing to make the switch, the scope of the gas repair work could be scaled down. “We ended up giving owners a choice,” Booth says.

Lines were restored for unit-owners wanting gas, but for more than a third of residents who chose to switch to induction, branch lines were disabled. For them, the original gas appliances were replaced with 30-inch stoves bulk-purchased from Copper, a company that produces a battery-supported induction range that plugs into a 120 volt outlet. This cut the cost of the gas repair work to $1.1 million. For boards with aging risers, Booth says it’s definitely worth floating the idea of a building-wide switch to induction. “That might be more fun than writing a big check to a bunch of plumbers and tearing open walls.”

Getting all 33 unit-owners to make the switch to Copper stoves would have cut the cost of gas repair work by around two-thirds. Branch line repairs are the most disruptive for residents and often require plumbers to go through cabinetry and walls to access pipes. However, a 100% switch was near impossible; some owners had recently renovated, and some couldn’t accommodate a 30-inch stove, the only Copper model currently available. (A pilot project providing 100 simplified 24-inch Copper stoves to New York City Housing Authority residents is expected to expand the company’s offerings in coming years.)

At 60 Court, another obstacle the board faced was the condo’s offering plan, which requires owners to have gas service for appliances. The board agreed that changing this “would have been wildly divisive and difficult,” Booth says. Instead, they accepted that if someone who opted for the induction stove sold their apartment and a new owner wanted to return to a gas appliance, the condo would restore the gas. “Just because you decided to forgo the branch line today in favor of electric doesn’t mean you should be penalized for changing your mind later,” Booth says.

An assessment was put in place to fund the gas repair work and refill the condo’s reserves. Individual apartment owners paid separately for their induction stoves, adding around $6,000 to their costs. “Copper worked with us on a group order and gave us a little discount,” Booth says. Not only did those who made the switch to induction get functioning stoves three or four months before the gas was back on, Booth says he’s loving the new appliance. “The oven can hold temperature very precisely,” he says. “And it is so beautifully simple and focused on cooking.”

By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefont Column

The legislative session ended August 31, and a number of HOA bills are on the Governor’s desk awaiting approval. Assembly Bill 2692, one of the more interesting bills, was signed on August 24 as an urgency measure and so is effective immediately.

Many older California HOAs were established with CC&Rs containing expiration dates. In such associations, the CC&Rs expired on a date often at least 40 years after the HOA was created, unless the membership voted to extend the document. Many HOA communities have had their CC&Rs expire because the HOA failed to act to extend the document.

After a common interest development’s (aka “HOA”) CC&Rs expire, the HOA falls outside the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, because one of the basic requirements for the Act to apply is that the association must have a recorded declaration. So after the CC&Rs expire, such associations are without a recorded declaration in force and are not governed by the Act.

Many California HOAs have expired CC&Rs and so fall outside of the Act. Once that happens, it takes the entire membership to unanimously agree to re-impose the declaration on the properties. This is nearly impossible for all but the smallest associations, leaving such HOAs one other option – a petition to the Superior Court for some kind of assistance (“declaratory relief”).

This has now changed, at least for Los Angeles County HOAs, with Assembly Bill 2692. The bill was designed to help HOAs devastated by the 2025 Eaton and Palisades fire disasters. It created a temporary statute, Civil Code 4276, which until January 1, 2028 allows LA County HOAs with expired CC&Rs to hold a membership vote to reinstate the document.

Per subpart (b) of this new temporary statute, the vote must be conducted in compliance with the Act and with the HOA’s governing documents. The vote must be of either the votes required by the expired CC&Rs, or a majority of all members if the CC&Rs do not state a percentage of approval. Once the declaration has been revived, the document can be extended by either the initial term of the CC&Rs or 20 years, whichever is less. This means that the HOA still must at some point seek membership approval of an amendment which removes the CC&Rs expiration date or converts it to automatic renewal.

While this bill was intended for HOAs devastated by the 2025 fires, it is NOT limited to only HOAs in the Pacific Palisades or Altadena communities. ANY Los Angeles County HOA with expired CC&Rs can use this statute to revive its CC&Rs and again fall under the Act’s guidance.

It is critical to note that the time window to do this is limited and ends on December 31, 2027. HOAs have just over one year to accomplish this, and it takes time to complete the membership voting process. So, LA County associations with expired CC&Rs have a temporary opportunity to rejoin the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act if they act promptly and should consult their HOA’s attorney for guidance ASAP.

While a great help to LA County HOAs, unfortunately this statute doesn’t help other California HOAs. Wouldn’t this be a great topic to raise with your legislator for NEXT year? Why shouldn’t ALL California HOAs receive this assistance?

By Jon Acoff for Next Big Ideas

Below, Jon Acuff shares five key insights from his new book, Procrastination Proof: Never Get Stuck Again.

Jon is a New York Times bestselling author of 12 books. He was named one of INC’s Top 100 Leadership Speakers, and has delivered keynotes to companies such as Microsoft, Walmart, and Comedy Central. On his podcast, All It Takes Is a Goal, Jon inspires hundreds of thousands of people to finish what matters most.

What’s the big idea?

Most people fail to reach their full potential not because they lack ability, but because procrastination, fear, and the search for permission prevent them from turning their intentions into consistent action.

1. No one is doing “the best they can.”

You see this expressed online sometimes. They post that, “Oh, everyone is doing the best they can.” And I always think, No, they’re not. They’re doing the best they think they can. No one is ever doing exactly what they can really do. I know this is true because I commissioned a research study with a PhD named Mike Peasley. He’s a professor here in Nashville, Tennessee.

We have two types of people in Nashville, Tennessee. Our population is 90 percent musicians and 10 percent bachelorette parties. Peasley and I asked 3,000 people if they feel like they are living up to their full potential. 96 percent of them said no. Everyone you know knows that they are capable of doing something more, but they don’t know what to do with that awareness.

The second statistic we collected was that 50 percent of people feel like 50 percent of their potential is untapped. That means half of us are walking around with half-lived lives. That would be like only opening half of your Christmas presents every morning. You come downstairs, and there’s a big pile in the room, but for some reason, you pull back and don’t open them all.

Why does this happen? One big reason is procrastination. We are waiting. We are delaying. We are someday-ing things that we should do today. Procrastination is the gap between your actions and your intentions. It’s the gap between who you are and who you say you want to be.

I saw a statistic in the New York Times that said 82 percent of Americans want to write a book. It’s one of our most popular goals. Do you know how many do, based on how many books are released every year? About one percent. 82 percent say they want to, but only one percent do and that’s because of procrastination. My hope for you is to close that gap. A remarkable life happens when your actions match your intentions—when the two overlap so much that the Venn diagram of your actions and intentions looks like an eclipse.

2. Discipline isn’t enough.

I’ve never met somebody who changed their life just because of discipline. I’ve helped more than a million people with their goals, and I’ve never met somebody who said, “Yeah, today, I just decided to have grit. Today I decided to have willpower. Today I woke up and decided to sacrifice.” That’s never how life changes work. People don’t willingly leave their comfort zones.

The reason people change is usually twofold: It’s either due to a desire or a disappointment. People need something that makes being uncomfortable worth it. Desire creates discipline. When you bump into a dream you want, then you’re willing to do the work.

That’s what happened to me. In my mid-30s, I started a blog and discovered this whole world that I could write to and interact with. Suddenly, I had a desire. I started getting up early in the morning because that was the only time I could write my blog. I had two kids under the age of four, and I couldn’t write at any other time of the day. I had a full-time job. I stopped watching so much TV because TV was giving me nothing, and blogging was giving me everything. I found this desire to write, and it felt like a small fire, and every hour of my day felt like a log I could throw into that flame. I wanted it to get bigger. I didn’t want to procrastinate any longer. I was in my mid-30s, and I felt behind, so I wanted to catch up. That desire to write more created the discipline I needed, not the other way around.

The one caveat I’d add is that I talked to Shawn Johnson, the Olympic gold medalist, and she pointed out that it starts with desire, but eventually the discipline will keep you going even if your desire wanes. There will be moments when motivation dissipates, and on those days, your discipline will fill in. You’ll be glad you have a habit that keeps you going.

3. Making it through the montage.

Nobody likes the montage when they’re in it. What do I mean by a montage? Well, we’ve all seen those moments in movies, haven’t we? When we see the hero make tremendous progress—be that training, falling in love, building something—but the filmmakers use a montage to speed through that timeframe.

My favorite montage is in Rocky IV, when Rocky fights Drago, the gigantic Russian. There’s this massive montage where Rocky is in Siberia, running through knee-deep snow with a log on his back. He’s training, and at the end of the montage, he screams at the top of a mountain. They show Drago, the enemy, training in a lab and taking steroids. This montage covers a lot of time in the story, but the scene we get to watch is only eight minutes and 42 seconds. When a real fighter goes to training camp, it lasts eight to 12 weeks. The movie compressed eight to 12 weeks of training into under nine minutes.

Most of life is the middle part of the montage. But we only see the quick version. We only see the after-the-montage on Instagram. We definitely don’t see the before or the middle. I encourage everyone to make it through the montage. Whenever I’m in the middle of writing a book, I remind myself that this is the montage moment. I wish I could fast-forward through the years it takes me to complete a book, from start to finish, and run the dozens of events I’ll host to speak about the book. It’s a long process. Anytime I get discouraged, I remind myself that this is the montage.

If you’re a parent, you’ll have some montage scenes. You’re going to go through adolescence with your kid. If you’re married, you’re going to have some montage scenes where you’re working on things like discovering how to talk about finances with each other, or discovering how to dream together. If you’re a business leader, there are going to be montage seasons where the supply chain gets out of whack and you have no control over that. Most of life is the montage, and the key is learning how to thrive in the montage.

4. Hook up your future self.

My favorite definition of discipline is to make tomorrow easy today. That’s all discipline is: What can I do today that makes tomorrow a little bit easier?

I first learned that lesson when I got Morning Me and Night Me on the same page. Morning Me would wake up be excited about getting going. He wanted to jump into the day. He wanted to accomplish a lot, but he’d wake up tired and feeling kind of behind from the get-go because he’d wake up without a plan. He’d wake up a little overwhelmed and he’d ask Night Me, “Hey, what did we do last night?” And Night Me would say, “Oh, I stayed up till midnight on Instagram and I ate lasagna at 1:00 AM.” Morning Me was then convinced that Night Me screwed me over.

“What can I do today that makes tomorrow a little bit easier?”

It’s important to keep in mind that the person who has to do it later is still me. There is no magical person later. It’s still me. What could Night Me do to help Morning Me? Because Morning Me is a fantastic doer. Morning me will run through a wall if you point out the right wall first, but if I wake up on a Monday morning without a plan, I struggle. If it’s 8 am and I don’t know what I’m doing that day or that week and the phone’s already ringing and emails are already coming in and clients are already calling me—it’s overwhelming.

Night Me, on the other hand, is a fantastic planner. At 7pm, no one is bothering him. He can come up with a plan for Monday so that Morning Me can wake up and run through the wall. So, I started thinking, what can Night Me do to hook up Morning Me? What can Monday Me do to hook up Friday Me? What can 50-Year-Old Me do to hook up 70-Year-Old Me? That’s all discipline is. Make tomorrow easy today.

5. Procrastination can be solved by one word.

A one-word solution exists to procrastination. It’s probably not a word you’ve thought about in a long time, but when you were a kid, this word mattered a lot. The word is permission. Permission is what everybody is waiting for. They’re waiting for permission to do the thing they know they’re capable of.

When you were a kid, permission slips mattered most. That piece of paper meant you could go on the field trip, join the soccer team, or get past that attendance ogre that every elementary school had in the 1980s. A permission slip was everything. And when you study great stories, you notice there’s an element of permission in every single one.

Think about The Lord of the Rings. Gandalf gave Frodo permission. Gandolph said, “You have permission to be more than a hobbit. You have permission to save the whole Shire. You have permission to go on an adventure.” Think about The Matrix. Morpheus gave Neo permission when he held out the two pills. Fairy Godmother gave Cinderella permission to be more than a servant. Everybody is waiting for permission.

There are four permissions that will help you succeed:

• To dream. What do I want to do? What’s my vision? What’s my hope?
• To plan. How will I do it? What will it take? What sort of resources and time?
• To do. Are you doing it? Have you rolled up your sleeves? Are you engaged?
• To review. Did it work? Am I headed in the direction I want to go?

If you want to accomplish anything, you need to give yourself those permissions. Most people give themselves some of those permissions, but get stuck on one of them. Four different types of people get stuck:

• Dreamers get stuck dreaming.
• Perfectionists get stuck planning.
• Hustlers get stuck doing.
• Analysts get stuck reviewing.

If you can get past those four blockades, then you can do anything you want. You can truly become procrastination proof.

By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq., CCAL, HOA Homefront Column

The office of HOA president is important, but sometimes misunderstood. In most associations, presidents are selected by board vote (in an open meeting). Here are some ideas as to what to look for in the HOA’s next president. 

First, know what is not required – a legal, accounting, or executive background. The highest educated or most successful person may not be the best president, since the president is not expected to be an expert in HOA law or accounting – the HOA has experts for that. A successful CEO of a for-profit company could be a terrible president if they are unable to adopt different leadership styles of the nonprofit corporation. 

Look for these qualities in a prospective president:

BACKGROUND

Experience. A track record of prior service to nonprofit organizations, including prior HOAs, may show an understanding of the different style of nonprofit leadership.

Past commitment. Has the nominee successfully headed committees, or served on the board for a few years?

Review. Have they read the governing documents and the Open Meeting Act?

Understands. Do they understand the Business Judgment Rule?

INTERPERSONAL SKILLS

Working with others. Is the nominee a team player or someone who “goes it alone”? HOAs are governed by boards, not presidents, and successful presidents must be able to cooperate with board colleagues.

Handling disagreement and divergent opinions. Is the nominee able to accept other opinions and even gracefully accept a vote of the board which goes against their views?

Gets along with people. Is the nominee a positive person and an encourager?

Consensus builder. Can the nominee work to build a consensus on the board regarding major issues? 

ATTITUDE

“Boss” or servant leader? Does the nominee have the attitude of a for-profit corporation in which the president is normally the decision-maker, or that of the nonprofit corporations in which the board is the association’s decision-maker?

Doesn’t need recognition. The best presidents view HOA leadership as service to their neighbors, not an achievement to be defended. Pick someone who is secure in themselves and not threatened by criticism or disagreement.

THE ROLE

Do-it-yourself? A president’s role is not to do all the HOA’s work for 40 hours a week – managers, service providers, and employees perform that work.

Know it all? The nominee should not think they know everything. Good presidents recognize that other directors, residents, and service providers may also have important knowledge and information benefitting the HOA, which knowledge and information the president may not have on a particular subject.

HANDLING MEETINGS

Listener or speaker? Is the nominee a good listener, or are they always the person talking? A president should encourage all directors to contribute to the meeting.

Parliamentary procedure. President normally chair meetings, and as such should have at least an elementary understanding of parliamentary procedure to help keep meetings orderly.

Balance. They must handle the balance well, encouraging directors to speak while also moving the agenda along.

AGENDA

No preconceived agenda. Avoid nominees who come to the board with “campaign promises.” The president should be committed to the HOA’s best interests, not their own agenda.

No single person will completely fulfill all these criteria – but in choosing the president, try to get as close as possible. If you the reader are currently your HOA’s president, consider aspiring to these qualities!

Story by Barbara Holland, Las Vegas Review-Journal
 

The Community Associations Institute Chapter of Las Vegas held its annual CAI Day at the Suncoast Hotel on Aug. 21. CAI Day consists of a three-hour class plus a major trade show for homeowners, boards and community managers.

Topics included fiber infrastructure and community systems, signs of construction defects, roofing maintenance laws and services, community insurance policies, contractors laws, reasonable accommodation under Fair Housing, reserve studies and a case law suit of USA vs Bradlet Heppner.

Speakers were interviewed by the monitor. Specific questions were asked which provided information concerning issues that faces managers and boards.

It was a full day worth spending.

For more information concerning the educational classes offered by the local CAI chapter, please contact Christina Snow at info@cainevada.org.

Q: How long can a ballot vote be held open on the matter of changing a portion of the CC&R’s?

Over three years ago the HOA board sent out ballots to change a portion, asking to change 67 percent majority votes to a simply majority of 51 percent.

Some ballots were returned, but the board kept the voting open. A second mail-out occurred and the vote still remains open after three years. They said they intend to keep it open until they reach the number of votes needed to make the change.

However, during these three years, owners have sold their lots. There is no guarantee that their vote (if they voted) was removed and new owner allowed to vote. When this convoluted situation was brought up at a board meeting, the management company said they are keeping track. Owners find that hard to believe.

Can a ballot vote continue for three years considering properties continue to be bought and sold? Each lot owner has one vote.

A: NRS 116.2117 does not establish a statutory time limit for how long an association has to gather enough votes to approve a CC&R amendment. Instead, the time frame to collect ballots or agreements is determined strictly by the association’s own governing documents (such as the bylaws or the declaration itself) and the specific voting procedures adopted by the Board for that measure.

In the reader’s case, if the voting on the changes has been ongoing for three years, the association must carefully record the votes. The association records must show the votes that were eliminated when homeowners sold their unit before the required votes were obtained to approve the amendment. The association records must also show the votes of the new homeowners who bought their units and who voted. Any existing homeowner who had not voted and did not sell their units, can still vote.

Barbara Holland, CPM, CMCA, AMS, is an author, educator and expert witness on real estate issues pertaining to management and brokerage. Questions may be sent to holland744o@gmail.com.

Habitat Magazine

Many cash-strapped co-op and condo boards are reluctant to spend money, even on such inevitable expenses as facade repairs, window replacements and energy-efficiency measures. Those boards usually learn that being cheap — deferring maintenance — can get very expensive.

“There’s a cost for not being prepared,” Amalia Cuadra, senior director of engineering at EN-POWER GROUP, an energy engineering and consulting firm, tells Brick Underground. “If you are told you have to replace your boiler but you put it off and it goes out in January, that’s a different type of capital project — that becomes an emergency.” 

There are also hidden costs to putting off repairs. Here are four of the costs boards can avoid by being proactive rather than reactive.

Local Law 97 Penalties. Higher energy consumption, particularly of fossil fuels, can boost a building’s carbon emissions and complicate compliance with the city’s strict climate law, Local Law 97. 

“New York City buildings have to take into account LL97 penalties into their operating costs and that’s a changing landscape,” Cuadra says. “In five years you can go from having a $6,000 [penalty] to an $87,000 penalty per year.”

Cuadra advocates for a capital plan that gives a co-op or condo board a clear direction to help avoid these rising costs. “A good capital plan should be able to clearly outline what the the cost of action and the cost of inaction are so they can make decisions,” she says.

When performing energy audits, Punit Shah, vice president of building decarbonization at Bright Power, routinely uncovers issues that have quietly inflated energy use for years. The biggest culprits are missing insulation on steam piping; boiler controls set up incorrectly; boilers that fail combustion testing; ventilation fans not operating, and steam traps needing replacement.

“When buildings address these issues promptly, the efficiency of the systems improves,” Shah says. “We’ve seen properties cut fuel and electric consumption enough to materially reduce their projected Local Law 97 carbon penalties.”

Utility and Operating Costs. When maintenance is deferred, minor issues can compound and quietly raise operating costs long before an catastrophic failure occurs. Major heating and cooling equipment all requires routine maintenance. 

“Without regular maintenance, equipment performance gradually deteriorates, leading to increased energy consumption, higher operating costs, and reduced equipment life,” says Matthew Strobel, vice president of high-performance buildings at energy consultant Bright Power.  “When minor issues are not tackled proactively, they not only accelerate wear and tear on equipment but can also increase utility consumption.”

Emergency Repairs. Unplanned or emergency repairs are often more expensive because a board does not control the timing. When a boiler fails in mid-winter, repairs become urgent. “There is nothing you can do about the fact that you just had to spend $40,000 repairing equipment that you are going to have to replace next summer,” Cuadra says. “They won’t be able to shop around and compare bids.”

Financing and Insurance. Deferred maintenance can trigger violations for failed systems, which can lead to financing problems. As a result of stricter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending guidelines, a building with deferred maintenance or a lack of reserves can become ineligible for conventional loans. These rules will become even more stringent in January 2027, when condo boards will need to increase their capital reserves from a minimum of 10% to a minimum of 15% of the building’s annual budget in order to remain compliant.

And finally, even the most far-sighted boards are feeling pain from today’s hard insurance market. Deferred maintenance can worsen the pain, leading to higher premiums, larger deductibles, coverage restrictions and, in some cases, denials at renewal time.

An analysis of transgressive leaders’ appeal and strategies to curb their influence.

By Gerben A. van Kleef Ph.D. Psychology Today

Key points

• Transgressive leaders enjoy growing support and influence.
• Evidence suggests transgressive leaders are appealing not despite their transgressions, but because of them.
• The appeal of transgressive leaders hinges on perceived benefits emanating from their actions.

Transgressive leaders are on the rise. News reports regularly feature fraud, racism, hate speech, sexual misconduct, democratic undermining, and other types of violations by leaders—from captains of industry to influencers to presidents of nations.

One might expect such transgressions to be met with sanctions. However, people often turn a blind eye to leaders who violate norms of fairness, honesty, decency, or care. What’s more, the outcomes of political elections across the globe indicate that people will willingly vote transgressive leaders into office.

Scientific evidence, too, shows that responses to transgressions are less negative than one might intuit. A qualitative study of 246 incidents of norm-violating behavior revealed explicitly negative reactions in only about a third of the cases; in other cases, reactions were neutral, mixed, or even positive.

This is puzzling. Cultures around the world emphasize the importance of doing good. The value of a virtuous life is highlighted in all major religions. It is reinforced through cultural products, from children’s books to Hollywood movies. Why, then, are transgressive leaders endorsed? Psychological research offers three interrelated answers.

Understanding the appeal of transgressive leaders

First, moral judgments are not absolute; they are malleable and context-dependent. What may seem like basic moral principles are not equally shared by everyone. For example, whereas notions of honesty and equality are central to the worldviews of progressive-liberal individuals, conservative individuals place relatively more value on (cultural) “purity” and loyalty.

Moreover, preferences for moral qualities in others are remarkably elastic. If people stand to gain from another’s transgressions, their preferences can shift from moral to immoral conduct. For instance, people respond more leniently to others’ norm-violating behavior when they derive (financial) gains from that behavior.

Other work shows that preferences for moral versus immoral traits in others depend on one’s current goals. In one study, participants playing the role of defense attorney (whose objective was to secure a non-guilty verdict from a jury) reported greater liking of a merciful rather than a merciless jury member. However, those in the role of prosecuting attorney (whose objective was to secure a guilty verdict) preferred a merciless to a merciful jury member. In other words, when a harsher approach was conducive to people’s goals, their preferences for moral versus immoral traits shifted.

Second, people who break the rules radiate an aura of power and dominance. Breaking rules comes with a risk of backlash. By knowingly flouting rules, people signal they can withstand any repercussions—a sign of power. Indeed, several studies show norm violators are perceived as more powerful and dominant than norm abiders. Such perceptions fit the romance of the “strong leader” and fuel the impression that transgressive leaders get things done.

Transgressive leaders are particularly attractive when their actions (appear to) benefit others. In a series of experiments, participants voluntarily granted power and leadership to another person who exhibited “prosocial” norm violations. For instance, in one study, participants conferred power and control over monetary outcomes to a confederate who stole coffee from the experimenter and also offered them a cup.

Third, research shows that dominant leaders are most attractive in times of economic uncertainty, conflict, and competition, when people tend to look for leaders who can ward off apparent threats. Accordingly, support for transgressive leaders increases in competitive situations. It is no coincidence that autocratic leaders habitually point to the danger of “hostile elements,” such as the independent press, immigrants, or the liberal elite. The greater the perceived threat, the greater the attractiveness of transgressive leaders.

Successful autocrats often spin their transgressions as solving the problems of ordinary people. By fabricating or exaggerating enemy threats, they pave the way for unlawful countermeasures that purportedly eliminate those threats. Thus, they simultaneously suggest a solution to a problem and bolster their perceived effectiveness as leaders by fueling perceptions of dominance and power.

Moralizing alone is ineffective

A common reaction to this spiel is moral outrage, which leads opponents to criticize the immorality of transgressive acts. Understandable as this reaction may be, it is not a sufficient antidote to transgressive leaders. The strategy of moralizing transgressions hinges on the assumption that normative behavior is uniformly appreciated and counternormative behavior frowned upon, but as we have seen, mounting evidence indicates this assumption is incorrect.

Transgressive leaders derive their popularity at least in part from their bald norm defiance, particularly when it appears to benefit others. Thus, although clarifying norms is important, harping on immorality is unlikely to be effective. What’s more, it can backfire as it makes the leader’s behavior seem even more ballsy.

How can we curb transgressive leaders?

If the appeal of norm violators hinges on the apparent utility of their behavior, as accumulating evidence suggests, then the remedy is obvious: debunking the idea that breaking rules solves society’s problems. The current analysis suggests two concrete strategies.

First, opponents could dispel the alleged benefits of leaders’ transgressions. While it is typical for transgressive leaders to frame their unlawful behaviors and policies as solutions to pressing problems, their transgressions often do not benefit society; to the contrary, they may damage it. Making that apparent seems critical in counteracting the appeal of transgressive leaders.

Second, opponents could challenge transgressive leaders’ common threat narrative. In the face of competition and conflict, transgressive leaders’ aura of dominance is seen as an asset in fighting off the “enemy.” Alleviating perceptions of conflict should lower transgressive leaders’ allure by reducing the utility of dominance.

In short, evidence suggests transgressive leaders are appealing not despite their deviant behavior, but precisely because of it. This paradoxical insight calls for different ways of dealing with them to uphold humane societies.

By Kathryn Farrell  for HABITAT

In the spring of 1979, a Barnard College freshman named Grace Gold died when she was struck by a chunk of terra cotta that fell from a building facade at the corner of 115th Street and Broadway. The city promptly passed Local Law 10, which required owners of buildings over six stories tall, including co-op and condo boards, to inspect and repair their facades every five years.

The law was later modified as Local Law 11 and is now known as the Facade Inspection and Safety Program (FISP). Has it made buildings safer? The answer turns out to be complicated.

A recent analysis of facade-compliance filings from the NYC Open Data project reveals an ever-growing number of “unsafe” buildings and delayed repairs. In the latest FISP cycle, 13.3% of inspection filings were classified as unsafe — up sharply from less than 1% two decades ago.

Does this mean that buildings are getting less safe? No, say engineers, who note that the striking statistics reflect something more complicated: the facade-inspection system has become far more aggressive and less forgiving over the past two decades. In fact, some engineers say, the city’s building stock is in far better shape today than it was twenty years ago, despite the statistics.

?”The way the law used to be is unrecognizable from what it is now,” says Stephen Varone, president of RAND Engineering & Architecture. “If you go back far enough, you literally had what were called drive-by inspections, because the whole thing was visual. You just do it from the street and whatever you sent in (to the Department of Buildings, DOB) was accepted. You almost didn’t even know what a rejected report was.”

That has changed — dramatically.

?”Since the sixth cycle (2005-2009), the DOB has been much more proactive in reviewing, policing, and doing forensics on reports,” says Gene Ferrara, president of JMA Consultants. “In the review of their reports, if they see photographs of conditions that are not safe, or not really SWARMP (Safe With a Repair and Maintenance Program) for more than 12 months, they ask the professional to reclassify and to file as unsafe.” 

That increased scrutiny has changed the work of engineers and architects who prepare FISP reports. Eric Cowley, an engineer and president of Cowley Engineering, says it has become increasingly difficult to get DOB approval on reports, forcing professionals to revise and resubmit them multiple times during an inspection cycle. “Every forty-five days I’m rewriting reports and submitting them and getting them rejected,” Cowley says. “And so it ends up, okay, it’s unsafe, put a sidewalk shed up.”

Which puts co-op and condo boards on a collision course with the city’s campaign to remove sheds as quidkly as possible. When the city launched its Get Sheds Down initiative in 2023, officials reported approximately 9,000 active sidewalk sheds citywide. More recent estimates place the number closer to 8,000, and sheds remain in place for an average of 498 days. 

“At the same time that the city is pushing to get the sheds down,” says Varone, “the hardest thing to get accepted is an amended report, where you’re in an unsafe status, you do a repair program, and you’re trying to get it signed off. It can take months and months, and the shed is sitting there.”

And the meter never stops running. 

“You have to renew your shed permits every three months,” Varone says. If a building does not show significant progress on repairs at renewal, the DOB can deny the extension, exposing the building to fines of up to $6,000 per month.

Some boards are tempted to delay repairs since a sidewalk shed may cost less than a major facade project, and the board may need time to raise money. But delay has its limits. “It is cheaper to put up a shed than to do repairs, but you eventually have to do the fix, and it’s not going to get any better,” Cowley says. “It just gets more expensive. So the rationale to put up a shed to delay doing something makes sense if you needed to wait a year to raise the money. But beyond that, you have to do the work.”