By A.J. Sidransky  for Cooperator News

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.

BY A.J. SIDRANSKY  For Cooperatornews Chicagoland

When a condo or co-op resident runs for a seat on their board, the decision to do so generally comes from a desire to ‘step up’ and participate in the governance of the place they call home, and the building or association community as a whole. 

Often, the residents willing to serve on their board aren’t necessarily those with finely-honed skills and formal education in law, finance, and practical business management. And they don’t have to be—with competent management, legal, and accounting professionals on their side, a board composed of ‘civilian’ members can absolutely meet its oversight responsibilities and run a solvent, functional building or association. 

But having said that, it’s also worth considering that a solid, practical base of knowledge in law, finance and management can be invaluable to a board, enabling them to interact more confidently with contractors and other professionals, make prudent financial decisions, and understand the implications of legislation and legal decisions impacting their community. 

A Little Knowledge…

Given that, what base of knowledge does a board member—especially a newly elected one—need in order to contribute most effectively to the administration of their community? Most experts agree that understanding financial reporting, and to a slightly lesser extent, the laws and regulations governing shared interest communities in their area are the biggest help.

“Every board member needs to develop a basic skill set,” says Steve Silberman, a CPA and partner with PBG, a financial services firm located in Glenview, Illinois. “At a minimum, they need to learn to read and understand a financial statement, rather than just relying on the treasurer. The board has a fiduciary responsibility over the financial information of the association or corporation, so all the board members need to understand their finances. 

“Revenue, minus expenses, equals net income,” says Jayson Prisand, an accountant and principal with Prisand Mellina Unterlack & Co, an accounting firm located in Plainview, New York. “That’s pretty much the starting point. The primary goal of maintenance or common charges is always to pay for expenses. It seems obvious, but if you don’t have the revenue, how can you pay for the expenses? Board members have a clear need to understand these basic processes. Cash and reserves and their differences are also important concepts in terms of short-, medium-, and long-term planning. Board members must know short-term concepts and goals for operating, and long-term concepts for capital projects. Especially in the current environment, they should understand inflation, and in New York City (and everywhere really), local regulations. It’s not an easy task.”  

“The other concept they need to understand is fund accounting,” Silberman continues. “Operating accounts are based on fund accounting. They must also understand what a reserve fund is. A major issue for boards is the possible co-mingling between operating accounts and reserves. That requires understanding the difference between accrual versus cash-basis accounting. Most board members, regardless of their overall knowledge of accounting, understand ‘cash-basis’ accounting, as that’s how a personal checkbook works; income is accounted for when received, and expenses accounted for when paid. By contrast, accrual is more true to [a community’s] current financial position, because it records income when earned and expenses when incurred.”

“Financial literacy,” says Mark Love, principal of M. Love & Associates, CPA, with three offices in Massachusetts, “requires knowledge of matters involving finance, accounting, budgeting, taxes, investments, insurance, debt, financial planning, capital planning, and even economics.”

Michael S. Simone, an attorney and principal of The Simone Law Firm, based in Cinnaminson, New Jersey, focuses in a little more: “Board members must ensure that their association has a budget, and then make certain to run a monthly budget variance report to monitor the progress of the budget throughout the year.  Understandably, everyone wants dues to be as low as possible, but an association needs to avoid having too many special assessments. Having special assessments every year is a red flag indicating that the budget is not properly funded. Furthermore, given the current stricter mortgage regulations, an association that does not have a properly funded budget might result in a potential buyer not being able to obtain a traditional mortgage.” Understanding basic accounting and financial principles is necessary for this.

Are All Board Members Equal?

Do all board members require the same level of knowledge of financial, management, legal and accounting issues? In a word, no.

However, according to Prisand, “Those board members who don’t have the most in-depth financial knowledge shouldn’t necessarily be the treasurer. The treasurer should have a solid grounding in financial data in their background. That’s not to say they couldn’t otherwise do the job, but you’re managing money—everybody’s money. There is always reliance on the management company, but don’t give them carte blanche. Overall, at least one person on the board needs to have a more complete, more complex understanding of finances and financing.”

Love concurs. “To be sure, at least one board member, generally the treasurer or the president, should have a moderate to semi-high level of understanding and awareness of these financial matters.”

Another area about which board members should have basic technical understanding is what their governing documents say and require relative to the financial management and maintenance of the property. “The first thing every board member should look at and understand are the bylaws and declarations of their association,” says Silberman. “The bylaws, etc., hold information about financial audits, what to do with excess cash from operations, and other details of financial management under the laws and regulations governing the association.” A law degree is not necessarily required for this, but as with the treasurer’s position, it certainly doesn’t hurt to have an attorney on the board. If that’s not possible, the community’s legal counsel can be tapped to provide any needed clarification.

Training Available

There are several organizations whose mission it is to help educate board members in the unique aspects of governing a building or HOA—including this publication, and its companion annual and biannual Expos, which offer rosters of free educational seminars, expert panel discussions, and legal advice booths. (Visit coopexpo.com for more information, registration, and descriptions of seminars.) 

Another valuable resource —and the largest U.S. organization devoted to board education—is the Community Associations Institute (CAI). “CAI has over 40,000 members,” says Simone. “Their courses are offered both online and in-person, and are an excellent way to learn more about the role of being a board member. Further there is a web forum group where associations post problems and issues they are being confronted with, which is another way to learn from other potentially similar association’s issues.”

https://7af2530a53f03988207e9e0a3ffbc665.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

Along with these, “Boards should avail themselves of all manner of tutorials, workshops, seminars, and education courses on financial, operational, and management of an HOA,” says Love. “There are hundreds available at many organizations dedicated to the shared-interest sector.”

Spreading the Knowledge

In cases where a building or association is fortunate enough to have an accountant, attorney, financial or real estate professional as a board member—or even as a non-board resident—is it advisable for that person to help board members understand what can often be complex matters? The answer might depend on the community.

One co-op shareholder on Manhattan’s Upper West Side who is a professional commercial mortgage broker shares anonymously that in the 30 years he’s lived in his building, the corporation has refinanced its underlying mortgage twice. On both occasions, while not serving on the board, this shareholder offered his expertise to review the refi and advise the board in their decision making. The board turned down his offer both times—and in his opinion, they made serious mistakes, including the prepayment clause on the original refinance some 20 years ago, which precluded the corporation from taking advantage of lower interest rates when they had the chance.

On the other hand, Silberman says, “Boards could and should take advantage of members’ knowledge base. Depending on the size of the community, they might also have a finance committee or subcommittee apart from the board that would allow those with financial background but not on the board to serve on that committee, thereby bringing more people with knowledge into the equation.”  

Prisand cautions that sometimes a little knowledge can cause friction. “I work with all types of people on boards. Senior fortune-500 types to housewives. Sometimes those with knowledge can present a different kind of problem; they think at too high a level. It’s not plain vanilla—every building is different—but it’s important to keep it fairly simple.” In the end it ‘takes a village’ to effectively run a village.

A Pressing, if Not-so-New Issue

Another issue has come to the fore for boards in the aftermath of the deadly Surfside, Florida, building collapse in 2021: reserves, and reserve studies. The high dollar amounts—and high stakes—make this yet another area where board members need to have at least a working knowledge and basic understanding of both their building’s physical condition, and the financial planning needed to properly maintain it. 

According to Silberman, “Boards should plan for a reserve study, and a plan for investment of those funds. They need an investment policy, and should understand the financial and accounting principles underpinning that policy, including why and how reserve money is invested, its safety and liquidity, and yield. If you’re funding a reserve project, you’ll have a better idea of why the money is invested the way it is.” That knowledge of investment strategy is a good partner to understanding the financial principles relating to your regular operations as well.

It all boils down to boards and board members being as informed as possible about what goes into governing and administering their community from day to day, from its physical upkeep to financial decision-making and long-term planning. Reading—and understanding—your governing documents, consulting your legal and financial professionals when necessary, and taking advantage of educational and training opportunities are all great ways to make the most of your tenure, and make your board the best it can be.

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

Shrinking focus, not motivation, is undermining productivity.

By Ashley C. Jordan Ph.D. for Psychology Today

Attention spans have systematically shrunk across time.

This is reflected in changes in how we consume media. In 1986, song intros for Billboard’s Top 100 averaged at 23 seconds before vocals began. By 2015, the average intro had shrunk to an average of five seconds. This is a reduction of more than 78 percent. Similarly, TV show intros also got shorter, reflecting viewers’ decreased attention spans. As an example, the show Bewitched, highly rated in the late 1960s, had an intro of 45 seconds. In contrast, Young Sheldon, the highest-watched comedy in 2020, has a show intro of 20 seconds—less than half the length.

Researchers have studied this huge change in attention span at work. In 2004, the average time spent on any screen before task-switching was 2.5 minutes. By 2012, it was only 75 seconds. Since 2020, it’s about 47 seconds. It makes you wonder how we get anything done at work.

Enter the Age of AI

A recent study found that 74 percent of Gen Zs (those born between 1995 and 2006) and 77 percent of millennials (those born between 1983 and 1994) “believe Generative AI will impact the way they work within the next year.” Importantly, these groups are generally optimistic about that impact. More than three-quarters report that AI “has improved the quality of their work (78 percent of Gen Zers and 82 percent of millennials), and that it has helped to free up their time and improved their work/life balance (77 percent of Gen Zers and 73 percent of millennials)” (Deloitte, 2025).

Many say artificial intelligence has helped with simplifying routine tasks to improve efficiency and productivity, which allows them more time to focus on strategic work, and report that it has enhanced creativity and innovation.

So how can we harness the powers of AI to help offset our shrinking attention spans at work?

Redesign Workflows for Depth

AI is great at handling shallow work and can help to free up time for work that requires more critical thinking or creative abilities. For instance, lean into using AI to help create agendas, summarize key takeaways from meetings, or create first drafts of routine reports. While AI should always be double-checked and not relied on for a final draft, it’s a great time-saver for rote tasks. This allows you to block your time for longer chunks of deep work that requires creative problem-solving or strategic thinking.

Use AI to Protect Focus Time

Attention spans easily die a death of a thousand pings. Constant interruptions make it impossible to do any deep work. How many of us have ended the day feeling like we were constantly busy and “doing things” only to realize that none of the things that really mattered were accomplished? This is the difference between what’s urgent (e.g., constant pings, emails, and interruptions) versus what’s important (often larger projects or tasks that require sustained attention).

AI can help with that. If you’re having trouble distinguishing urgent tasks from important ones, feed your to-do list into AI and have it help create a schedule. Then, use AI to block deep work time across calendars so you aren’t being constantly interrupted from email, Slack, or other workplace communications. Constant task-switching lowers productivity and erodes attention. With fewer interruptions, you’re able to focus on more high-value work.

Retrain Attention as a Workplace Skill

Source: Chitokan/Pexels

Focus isn’t a fixed trait—it’s a skill you can build. Treat focus like your fitness goals: Consistency matters more than intensity. Set a timer for 30 minutes and stick to one deep work task at that time. When the timer goes off, you can reward yourself with a little break or reset it for another 30 minutes if you’re in a flow state. Not only will the timer help to give you a manageable goal, but it also gives you permission to task-switch when it goes off (checking email, grabbing a coffee, etc.).

Over time, you can work to increase the timer to 40 minutes, 50 minutes, an hour, or more. With practice, you will train yourself to dive straight into the task at hand rather than being pulled in many directions.

AI can help you accomplish this. AI tools can act as smart focus timers, gently nudging you when it’s time to start, break, or reset. They can also reduce cognitive friction before you begin by summarizing what you worked on last, outlining next steps, or helping you decide which task deserves your attention during your focus block. By lowering the mental effort required to get started, AI makes it easier to build and sustain attention across time.

Measure Results, Not Responsiveness

In many workplaces, busyness can be mistaken for productivity. The smart boss will shift attention toward outcomes (i.e., what got accomplished) rather than how quickly someone responds to an email or a ping. AI can help to track progress, summarize milestones, or highlight achievements so you can focus on results instead of constant activity. This reduces the pressure to always be “on” for employees and allows for deeper, distraction-free work.

Use AI to Spark Creativity, Not Replace It

AI is great for helping to generate new ideas or offer fresh perspectives. Just don’t fall into the trap of letting it do the thinking for you. People fatigue faster in the “blank page” stage of work. Use AI for brainstorming multiple perspectives or solutions, which the team can discuss and refine. Have it offer brainstorming prompts, reducing cognitive load while expanding options. Instead of feeling that attention is thinly spread, you can channel it into deeper, more creative outputs.

AI can be polarizing, but it doesn’t have to be the enemy. While tasks may shift, organizations will always need humans. When used thoughtfully and intentionally, AI can help people work more efficiently and create space for the work that benefits most from human judgment, creativity, and connection. With the right approach, AI can be part of the solution to shrinking attention spans at work.

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

Many HOAs inquire about installing security monitoring cameras. Such cameras may or may not be required by the specific history of a given property, under the rulings in California Supreme Court decision in Frances T. v. Village Green (1986), California Supreme Court case of Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993), and Pamela W. v. Millsom (1994). That subject should be discussed with the association’s legal counsel. Whether or not the HOA must install cameras depends upon the specific circumstances.

If a board chooses to install monitoring cameras, what considerations might be considered? 

As with most decisions, the Business Judgment Rule requires boards to seek competent expert advice on the decision, and such expert advice most likely will come from a security consultant or company. Good managers should be able to refer the HOA to someone who fits that bill.

There are three basic variations on the security camera theme that I am often asked about – live monitored security cameras, recorded monitoring cameras, and dummy cameras. Perhaps your HOA security vendor may suggest a fourth alternative. Of course, the decision will depend upon cost, the severity of the problem, and the impact of monitoring upon the residents. Associations with staffed security gates or security offices may have live monitoring of all cameras, but the most common variety of security monitoring I encounter is recorded monitoring, in which cameras are recording events in their field of view, with recordings saved for a given length of time (often 30-60 days).

Camera locations: Care should be taken as to the locations of cameras, to ensure that they do not inadvertently intrude into areas in which privacy is expected, such as private patios, balconies, yards, or residence windows or doorways.

Signage: Signage may be necessary at the locations of monitoring cameras or at the property entrances. First, signs should warn of recorded video surveillance, to alert residents that running toward a camera may not immediately bring help. Second, if sound recordings are also made by the cameras, California law may require notification that audio recordings are made at the location along with video recordings. Third, such signs hopefully discourage bad actors from the area.

Recording access: To protect the privacy of residents and avoid misuse of security recordings, the HOA may wish to adopt a policy strictly limiting access to the recordings to only the manager, law enforcement, the HOA’s security vendor, and legal counsel. Such a policy would reassure residents that policies are in place to protect against misuse of the recordings by a volunteer who uses the monitoring as a personal hobby.

Rules: To help assure residents that the HOA is appropriately balancing resident privacy and resident security, a set of written policies regarding monitoring cameras and recordings should be considered. In those policies, residents can be reminded that the cameras are not continuously monitored (if that is the case) and assured that no neighbors have access to the recordings. The policies could also be adopted as HOA operating rules, using the 2-step 28-day process prescribed by Civil Code 4360. This approach provides additional transparency and protection for members by requiring proposed rule changes to be announced in advance. The rules could also include requirements regarding individual security cameras.

Security and privacy can co-exist- with some careful planning.

by Lisa Kohn Chatsworth Consulting Group

As an Executive Coach, I get to work with many powerful, successful leaders, and many of them have a habit that’s getting in their way.

They’re reacting too quickly, and not reacting Thoughtfully.

Their colleagues will say:

“I ask him a question, and his immediate response is emotional and defensive.”

“I can hear her yelling in her office.”

“I wish he’d read his emails before he sends them. The tone. It’s off-putting.”

We all have too much going on and too much to do, and that overwhelm and need for constant action seems to be causing an epidemic of hot-blooded responses that are getting in the way.

We need to pause.

We need to pause and think through how we want to respond. We need to reflect on the bigger picture – what might matter to the other person, what their perspectives might be, what stories about them (and the situation) we might be making up, what is our ultimate goal and what is the best way to get there. Taking a moment, or a few days, to consider a different way to view the issue at hand can help us respond more calmly and productively.

We need to pause and take a deep breath, to let ourselves calm down if we’ve been triggered. I’ve very rarely seen a knee-jerk reaction that has helped a situation or remedied a problem. When our buttons have been pushed – when we’ve shot into anger or fear or any other negative emotion – we need time to compose ourselves.

Jill Bolte Taylor, in her book My Stroke of Insight, writes about the ninety-second rule – that when we are provoked, our adrenaline rush kicks in and we have no control over our actions and reactions…for ninety seconds. Only ninety seconds. After that, we can take a breath and choose what we want to do and how we want to respond. We therefore need to pause for at least ninety seconds to get past a habit of knee-jerk reactions.

So how do we build this pause into our life and work? How have my clients successfully learned to do this? The method is simple, but potentially challenging:

1. Become aware that you, at least at times, react too quickly
2. Decide that you’re going to learn to pause – for ninety seconds, five minutes, a day, a week
3. Build a support network to lean on and remind you to practice this new behavior
4. Practice this new behavior, especially when you’re most emotional or triggered (except in the rare cases of true crises)
5. Practice this new behavior some more
6. Notice and reward your successes (and your attempts, even if they don’t succeed)
7. Keep at it

I’ve learned to (often) do this myself – to step away when I’ve most wanted to step in, to breathe when I’ve most wanted to shout or scream. I’ve witnessed others build those muscles – not responding to an inappropriate email but instead taking time to calm down, and then calling the other party instead of responding via email and successfully talking things through. I’ve heard the feedback of changed behavior – the “wow, now when I approach him with something, I can see an initial reaction, a pause and then a well-thought out response that has helped us solve the issue.”

Many of us need to pause more often before we react too harshly, and all of us can learn to do it. One breath at a time.

How have you learned to pause?

Q&A HABITAT Magazine

Q: It’s not just Donald Trump who’s obsessed with ID cards. A co-op board in Brooklyn is requiring all shareholders to obtain an in-house identification card after showing a valid driver’s license or state identification, a copy of the shareholder’s stock certificate, and a utility bill in his or her name. Shareholders are required to carry the ID at all times while using the co-op facilities, such as the laundry room. Is this legal?

A: Requiring shareholders to carry a building identification card might seem like an invasion of privacy, not to mention annoying, but it’s not illegal, replies the Ask Real Estate column in The New York Times.

Co-op boards are responsible for protecting the building and its residents. The governing documents of most co-ops allow board members to determine how best to do that, including regulating safety and security measures. And the courts give them expansive powers to do so.

While the ID card requirement might seem draconian, it’s possible that the board is pursuing this policy as a way to keep shareholders safe by ensuring there are no illegal subtenants or uninvited visitors in the building. Identification cards would allow staff to confirm that everyone who is there is supposed to be there.

“Even if those rules are strict, they are still likely enforceable, provided that the board acts in good faith and in the interest of the co-op corporation, and the enforcement of those rules does not violate any laws,” says David Fitzhenry, a partner at the law firm Moritt Hock & Hamroff.

If the board wants to institute this policy, it must be consistently applied without illegally targeting or harassing individual residents. It must also accommodate everyone who has a right to be on the premises, including family members and lawful roommates who are not shareholders.

If the identification checks are being enforced in a way that is discriminatory or does not comply with the co-op’s bylaws or rules, you can let the board know your concerns verbally or in writing, says Laura Mehl Sugarman, a partner at the law firm Benesch.

Be respectful in your letter — these board members are likely your neighbors — and stick to the facts. Seek out any neighbors who share your concerns, and have them sign the letter as well. But be advised: given the vast powers and legal protections enjoyed by co-op boards, you’ll be fighting an uphill battle.  

By A.J. Sidransky for COOPERATORNEWS

Each and every multifamily community is different, with unique needs, expectations, and challenges. If you’re a regular reader of this publication, you’ve heard that refrain many times, across a broad range of contexts—including board governance. Some boards are tight-knit, proactive, and highly involved in the day-to-day operation of their properties, while others are more reactive, delegating the operational tasks to management and serving primarily as the final word on big expenditures, capital projects, and unit transfers. 

Both approaches are valid, and can be equally effective, depending—again—on the unique character and needs of the building or association being governed. Striking the right balance is difficult to achieve. And that balance may change over time.

One Size Does Not Fit All

A board’s governing style depends on a variety of factors, among them the size of the community, the presence and contractual obligations of management, what the community’s governing documents require, the condition and complexity of the physical property, and the personalities of the board members themselves. 

As David Goldoff, president of Camelot Realty Group in New York City, says, “There is no such thing as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ board. Every building has its own personality, history, and pressure points, and that heavily influences how a board governs.” And when there’s a mismatch between a board’s administrative approach and what residents want and expect, friction is bound to follow. Too far one way, and the board may be seen as meddling; too far the other way, and residents feel unheard—and eventually resentful. 

The Players

An association or co-op corporation is governed by an elected board whose responsibility it is to protect the welfare of the community in accordance with the applicable governing documents. That protection extends to the physical plant, the association or corporation’s financial viability, and the value of the common areas and individual units. To better understand how a residential governing style can develop, it’s important to understand the components of board authority. 

In most cases, the board works in conjunction with a managing agent, legal counsel, and an accounting consultant. As boards are typically made up of elected volunteers who may or may not have experience in those fields, they often depend on their contracted professionals to help them make effective decisions and then execute them. In the simplest terms, boards make policy, and management then executes those policies. What varies from community to community is how much collaboration there is between board and management in the policy-making process, how much input and direct involvement the board demands, and how much discretionary decision-making power the board gives management in execution.

Constitutional Monarchy vs. Létat C’est Moi

“Community association boards operate with a wide spectrum of governing styles,” says Bruno Bartoli, director of management services with Evergreen Management Group in Bedford, New Hampshire. “Each is influenced by factors like the community’s size, the backgrounds of individual board members, and the maturity of the association itself. Some boards prefer a more strategic, policy-oriented approach, focusing on the high-level decisions and delegating more operational tasks to management, while others are more hands-on, involved in everything from vendor coordination to direct interaction with residents.”

Matthew Gaines, a partner with Braintree, Massachusetts based law firm Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, adds that “some boards are very deeply involved with direct daily management. Others are not, whether or not there is a managing agent; most fall somewhere in the middle. Both approaches have their pros and cons. One positive aspect of having a very hands-on board is that they really know what’s going on in the community, and can react quickly when issues come up. 

Gaines continues, “Knowing everything isn’t always a good thing, however, because there’s no option for deniability. When you run into an owner, they know you’re very involved, and may pepper you with questions. There’s no break. Being that hands-on can make board service a full-time job for board members who already have full-time jobs. You don’t need to get that far into the weeds. Truthfully, that’s what management is for.”

And in buildings with outside management, board governing style also depends a great deal on how the property manager handles individual situations. “It’s so important to know your audience and connect with each individual board member,” says Thomas Chilenski, president and senior property director with Cedarcrest Property Management in Fairfield, New Jersey.  “Every board member, every board, every association is unique and must be treated that way. Getting to know what they prefer, what makes them tick, is essential. You’re managing the personalities and figuring it out. Communication is the key.” 

The approach a board takes to governance often depends on the level of relevant expertise found among the board members—which of course can vary widely. As Andy Marks, executive vice president with Maxwell-Kates, a management firm based in New York, notes, “There’s no training for board membership. When I was elected to my board, I wasn’t in the real estate industry. All I had was the experience of living in the building and observing the decisions and style with which the previous board communicated to the community.”  

A community may be fortunate enough to have someone with a career in law or finance on the board who can apply their experience, but that’s not always the case. As in Marks’ case, most board members’ relevant experience and qualifications come from simply living in the community and wanting to do their part to keep it running smoothly. It’s not unreasonable to expect a Park Avenue co-op board made up of CEOs and corporate attorneys to function differently than the board of a small limited-equity building downtown that’s made up of teachers, civil servants, and retirees. 

The Pros & Cons

To be very clear: ‘differently’ doesn’t mean better or worse in this context; it just means that boards can—and indeed, should—reflect and represent the residents they serve. Part of that is tailoring governing style to resident needs and expectations, as well as realities of scale. A building with 300 units that’s home to more than 1,000 people likely requires a more by-the-book approach to governance than a self-managed 8-unit condo where half the unit owners are on the board and can message each other on Slack. There are benefits and drawbacks to all styles of board governance.   

“Those pros and cons,” says attorney Jonharold Cicero, a partner at NYC-based DL Partners Law, “all relate to effectiveness. To be effective, a more relaxed, hands-off approach depends on the communication and attentiveness of the manager and board’s counsel working together—otherwise it doesn’t end well. The hands-on approach where the board is heavily involved can many times also not end well, because it can become autocratic. The reality is a board should act like a CEO of a company; the ‘C-level’ board. They have a property manager and attorney to take care of details and hold them accountable to make sure what needs to be done gets done and that the board’s fiduciary responsibility is protected and executed.”

Chris Tarnok, also a partner at DL Partners Law, adds that no matter what their general character or style, “Boards should not be asleep at the wheel. That has a negative correlation to the building’s overall financial health. Things are happening, and board members must be aware of what’s going on. Doing nothing can lead to special assessments, and other problems. 

“But at the same time,” Tarnok continues, “the board shouldn’t pretend to be an engineer, lawyer, accountant, etc. It’s good to have those kinds of people on the board, but you need the right outside professionals to handle matters as they come up.”

Goldoff points out that “a more hands-off board can work extremely well when the building is financially stable, the infrastructure is in good shape, and the board has confidence in its management team. The upside is efficiency—decisions get made faster, professionals are empowered to do their jobs, and there’s less emotional interference in day-to-day operations. The downside is that if the board disengages too much, small issues can snowball before anyone notices. 

“On the other end,” Goldoff continues, “hands-on boards often come from a good place—they care deeply about their building and its residents. The benefit of that involvement is strong oversight and accountability. The risk is micromanagement, blurred roles, and decision-making by committee, which can slow projects down, frustrate staff, and even expose the building to liability if board members step into operational roles they shouldn’t be in.” 

Scott Piekarsky, a partner with Hackensack, New Jersey-based law firm Offit Kurman, concurs. “Managers want participatory—not overbearing—board members,” he says. “Success means an engaged board that doesn’t micro-manage. The board sets policy; management carries it out. However, sometimes you do need a very active, and perhaps somewhat micro-managing board—if you don’t have a strong management company, for example. If you do have a very good management team, there’s less you need to do. What I’ve learned over 30 years is that a lot depends on your management company, and to an even greater degree on your individual manager.”

“There is no one-size-fits-all model” for boards to follow, says Bartoli. “What’s most important is clarity of roles, consistency in governance, and alignment with the association’s long-term goals. Boards that operate with transparency, structure, and mutual respect—regardless of style—tend to be most effective.”

Reading the Room

According to the pros, managing agents and companies don’t just manage their client properties—to a greater or lesser degree, they have to ‘manage’ their client boards as well. That’s another place where the personalities involved and their collective governing style make a big difference. 

“If you have a difficult, demanding, controlling board, it’s tough,” says Marks. “You have to determine if it’s the whole board, or just one or two individuals. You have to talk to the whole board—not just one or two individuals [who] may make board decisions based on self-interest—and ensure that everyone is on board with your recommendations.”  

“An active board that is involved with the association and management is a huge positive,” says Chilenski. The board and manager working together as a team is always the best approach, and management must instill trust with the board to accomplish this. Management needs input and opinions from the entire board in order to collaborate and make the best decision for the association’s long term interests.”

An experienced manager adapts their leadership style based on the board’s dynamic while maintaining professional boundaries and ensuring legal and procedural compliance. “With more passive boards,” says Bartoli, “managers often take on a stronger advisory and organizational role, driving agendas, overseeing vendor relations, and presenting options for decision-making. With more active boards, the manager shifts toward a facilitative role—ensuring projects are completed, legal and financial frameworks are upheld, and board actions are properly documented. Regardless of the board’s style, the manager must remain objective, provide consistent education, and ensure that the association operates within the scope of its governing documents and applicable statutes.”

Communication is Key

Along with ‘every building is different’, ‘communication is key’ is another truism CooperatorNews readers will be very familiar with—and one the pros cite again and again when it comes to how boards do their job. Consistent, effective communication between board, management, and residents is crucial for good governance, regardless of board management style. So whether your board meets once a month or once a year, or whether your building is home to 100 or 1,000, the traits that make a great board are universal. 

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

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

In 2029, a new law will ban watering of “nonfunctional turf” with potable water. What is “nonfunctional turf,” and must your HOA prepare to remove it? 

In 2023 the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1572 and created Water Code Section 10608.14, applicable to properties including common interest developments. This new statute requires various property owners, including HOAs, to either remove “nonfunctional turf” or begin irrigating it with reclaimed water. HOAs must comply before 2029. Since most HOAs do not have reclaimed water readily available to them without great expense, many HOAs are erroneously assuming they must remove grass areas not regularly used by residents.

However, a careful review of the statutes and connected regulations reveals that probably very few if any California common interest developments will be affected by this law.

What is “Turf”? Under the regulations, “Turf” means a “ground cover surface of mowed grass.” (Title 23 California Code of Regulations Section 491(zzz)). Therefore, grass which is not mowed is not “turf.” So, which mowed grass areas would be considered “nonfunctional turf” under the statute?

What is “Nonfunctional Turf”? “Nonfunctional turf” is defined by Water Code Section 10608.12(u) as “turf that is not functional turf.” OK, that doesn’t seem terribly helpful, but let’s next look at what is “functional turf.”

What is “Functional Turf”? “Functional turf” is defined by Water Code Section 10608.12(m) as “a ground cover surface of turf located in a recreational use area or community space. Turf enclosed by fencing or other barriers to permanently preclude human access for recreation or assembly is not functional turf.” This means that the triggering issue which causes an area of turf to be classified as “nonfunctional turf” is that the mowed grass area is inaccessible to resident walking, sitting, or otherwise enjoying the location.

HOAs must achieve compliance with this new law and cease use of potable water on nonfunctional turf by January 1, 2029. (Water Code Section 10608.14(a)(4)). However, under the aforementioned definitions, only mowed grass areas which are enclosed and inaccessible to residents appear to be “nonfunctional turf.” Therefore, most HOAs probably will not be affected, since they have little or no “nonfunctional turf”. Any HOAs which have purely decorative mowed grass common areas inaccessible to residents should plan on either supplying those areas with reclaimed water or removing mowed turf from such inaccessible locations before 2029.

One problematic issue of this new law is Water Code Section 10608(e)(2), which requires HOAs with over 5,000 square feet (.11 acre) of irrigated common area (not only turf) to certify compliance to the State Water Board every three years. Thousands of HOAs have that much irrigated common area and will have to certify compliance, which seems silly since nonfunctional turf is not likely to reappear in HOAs. The first certification is due on June 30, 2031, but the Water Resources Control Board has not yet provided a method to provide this self-certification. If your HOA has more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated common area landscaping, the reporting deadline of June 30, 2031 should be calendared to avoid late filing. By then hopefully someone will realize the futility of requiring this repeated certification and the requirement will be eliminated.

Find more information on the state’s website www.nonfunctionalturfca.org and California statutes at the official website www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

By By A.J. Sidransky  for Cooperator News

Each and every multifamily community is different, with unique needs, expectations, and challenges. If you’re a regular reader of this publication, you’ve heard that refrain many times, across a broad range of contexts—including board governance. Some boards are tight-knit, proactive, and highly involved in the day-to-day operation of their properties, while others are more reactive, delegating the operational tasks to management and serving primarily as the final word on big expenditures, capital projects, and unit transfers. 

Both approaches are valid, and can be equally effective, depending—again—on the unique character and needs of the building or association being governed. Striking the right balance is difficult to achieve. And that balance may change over time.

One Size Does Not Fit All

A board’s governing style depends on a variety of factors, among them the size of the community, the presence and contractual obligations of management, what the community’s governing documents require, the condition and complexity of the physical property, and the personalities of the board members themselves. 

As David Goldoff, president of Camelot Realty Group in New York City, says, “There is no such thing as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ board. Every building has its own personality, history, and pressure points, and that heavily influences how a board governs.” And when there’s a mismatch between a board’s administrative approach and what residents want and expect, friction is bound to follow. Too far one way, and the board may be seen as meddling; too far the other way, and residents feel unheard—and eventually resentful. 

The Players

An association or co-op corporation is governed by an elected board whose responsibility it is to protect the welfare of the community in accordance with the applicable governing documents. That protection extends to the physical plant, the association or corporation’s financial viability, and the value of the common areas and individual units. To better understand how a residential governing style can develop, it’s important to understand the components of board authority. 

In most cases, the board works in conjunction with a managing agent, legal counsel, and an accounting consultant. As boards are typically made up of elected volunteers who may or may not have experience in those fields, they often depend on their contracted professionals to help them make effective decisions and then execute them. In the simplest terms, boards make policy, and management then executes those policies. What varies from community to community is how much collaboration there is between board and management in the policy-making process, how much input and direct involvement the board demands, and how much discretionary decision-making power the board gives management in execution.

Constitutional Monarchy vs. Létat C’est Moi

“Community association boards operate with a wide spectrum of governing styles,” says Bruno Bartoli, director of management services with Evergreen Management Group in Bedford, New Hampshire. “Each is influenced by factors like the community’s size, the backgrounds of individual board members, and the maturity of the association itself. Some boards prefer a more strategic, policy-oriented approach, focusing on the high-level decisions and delegating more operational tasks to management, while others are more hands-on, involved in everything from vendor coordination to direct interaction with residents.”

Matthew Gaines, a partner with Braintree, Massachusetts based law firm Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, adds that “some boards are very deeply involved with direct daily management. Others are not, whether or not there is a managing agent; most fall somewhere in the middle. Both approaches have their pros and cons. One positive aspect of having a very hands-on board is that they really know what’s going on in the community, and can react quickly when issues come up. 

Gaines continues, “Knowing everything isn’t always a good thing, however, because there’s no option for deniability. When you run into an owner, they know you’re very involved, and may pepper you with questions. There’s no break. Being that hands-on can make board service a full-time job for board members who already have full-time jobs. You don’t need to get that far into the weeds. Truthfully, that’s what management is for.”

And in buildings with outside management, board governing style also depends a great deal on how the property manager handles individual situations. “It’s so important to know your audience and connect with each individual board member,” says Thomas Chilenski, president and senior property director with Cedarcrest Property Management in Fairfield, New Jersey.  “Every board member, every board, every association is unique and must be treated that way. Getting to know what they prefer, what makes them tick, is essential. You’re managing the personalities and figuring it out. Communication is the key.” 

The approach a board takes to governance often depends on the level of relevant expertise found among the board members—which of course can vary widely. As Andy Marks, executive vice president with Maxwell-Kates, a management firm based in New York, notes, “There’s no training for board membership. When I was elected to my board, I wasn’t in the real estate industry. All I had was the experience of living in the building and observing the decisions and style with which the previous board communicated to the community.”  

A community may be fortunate enough to have someone with a career in law or finance on the board who can apply their experience, but that’s not always the case. As in Marks’ case, most board members’ relevant experience and qualifications come from simply living in the community and wanting to do their part to keep it running smoothly. It’s not unreasonable to expect a Park Avenue co-op board made up of CEOs and corporate attorneys to function differently than the board of a small limited-equity building downtown that’s made up of teachers, civil servants, and retirees. 

The Pros & Cons

To be very clear: ‘differently’ doesn’t mean better or worse in this context; it just means that boards can—and indeed, should—reflect and represent the residents they serve. Part of that is tailoring governing style to resident needs and expectations, as well as realities of scale. A building with 300 units that’s home to more than 1,000 people likely requires a more by-the-book approach to governance than a self-managed 8-unit condo where half the unit owners are on the board and can message each other on Slack. There are benefits and drawbacks to all styles of board governance.   

“Those pros and cons,” says attorney Jonharold Cicero, a partner at NYC-based DL Partners Law, “all relate to effectiveness. To be effective, a more relaxed, hands-off approach depends on the communication and attentiveness of the manager and board’s counsel working together—otherwise it doesn’t end well. The hands-on approach where the board is heavily involved can many times also not end well, because it can become autocratic. The reality is a board should act like a CEO of a company; the ‘C-level’ board. They have a property manager and attorney to take care of details and hold them accountable to make sure what needs to be done gets done and that the board’s fiduciary responsibility is protected and executed.”

Chris Tarnok, also a partner at DL Partners Law, adds that no matter what their general character or style, “Boards should not be asleep at the wheel. That has a negative correlation to the building’s overall financial health. Things are happening, and board members must be aware of what’s going on. Doing nothing can lead to special assessments, and other problems. 

“But at the same time,” Tarnok continues, “the board shouldn’t pretend to be an engineer, lawyer, accountant, etc. It’s good to have those kinds of people on the board, but you need the right outside professionals to handle matters as they come up.”

Goldoff points out that “a more hands-off board can work extremely well when the building is financially stable, the infrastructure is in good shape, and the board has confidence in its management team. The upside is efficiency—decisions get made faster, professionals are empowered to do their jobs, and there’s less emotional interference in day-to-day operations. The downside is that if the board disengages too much, small issues can snowball before anyone notices. 

“On the other end,” Goldoff continues, “hands-on boards often come from a good place—they care deeply about their building and its residents. The benefit of that involvement is strong oversight and accountability. The risk is micromanagement, blurred roles, and decision-making by committee, which can slow projects down, frustrate staff, and even expose the building to liability if board members step into operational roles they shouldn’t be in.” 

Scott Piekarsky, a partner with Hackensack, New Jersey-based law firm Offit Kurman, concurs. “Managers want participatory—not overbearing—board members,” he says. “Success means an engaged board that doesn’t micro-manage. The board sets policy; management carries it out. However, sometimes you do need a very active, and perhaps somewhat micro-managing board—if you don’t have a strong management company, for example. If you do have a very good management team, there’s less you need to do. What I’ve learned over 30 years is that a lot depends on your management company, and to an even greater degree on your individual manager.”

“There is no one-size-fits-all model” for boards to follow, says Bartoli. “What’s most important is clarity of roles, consistency in governance, and alignment with the association’s long-term goals. Boards that operate with transparency, structure, and mutual respect—regardless of style—tend to be most effective.”

Reading the Room

According to the pros, managing agents and companies don’t just manage their client properties—to a greater or lesser degree, they have to ‘manage’ their client boards as well. That’s another place where the personalities involved and their collective governing style make a big difference. 

“If you have a difficult, demanding, controlling board, it’s tough,” says Marks. “You have to determine if it’s the whole board, or just one or two individuals. You have to talk to the whole board—not just one or two individuals [who] may make board decisions based on self-interest—and ensure that everyone is on board with your recommendations.”  

“An active board that is involved with the association and management is a huge positive,” says Chilenski. The board and manager working together as a team is always the best approach, and management must instill trust with the board to accomplish this. Management needs input and opinions from the entire board in order to collaborate and make the best decision for the association’s long term interests.”

An experienced manager adapts their leadership style based on the board’s dynamic while maintaining professional boundaries and ensuring legal and procedural compliance. “With more passive boards,” says Bartoli, “managers often take on a stronger advisory and organizational role, driving agendas, overseeing vendor relations, and presenting options for decision-making. With more active boards, the manager shifts toward a facilitative role—ensuring projects are completed, legal and financial frameworks are upheld, and board actions are properly documented. Regardless of the board’s style, the manager must remain objective, provide consistent education, and ensure that the association operates within the scope of its governing documents and applicable statutes.”

Communication is Key

Along with ‘every building is different’, ‘communication is key’ is another truism CooperatorNews readers will be very familiar with—and one the pros cite again and again when it comes to how boards do their job. Consistent, effective communication between board, management, and residents is crucial for good governance, regardless of board management style. So whether your board meets once a month or once a year, or whether your building is home to 100 or 1,000, the traits that make a great board are universal. 

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