Page 6 - New England Condominium February 2021

6 NEW ENGLAND CONDOMINIUM -FEBRUARY 2021 NEWENGLANDCONDO.COM O FFICE OCATIONS N L I B OSTON A ND N ORTH A NDOVER with on a day-to-day basis,” says Hughes, “but that isn’t necessarily a good thing. Although in those communities board micromanagement isn’t an issue, it’s often difficult to influence the board to make needful decisions. This demands extra time from the manager to educate and re- educate on circumstances and issues, and often manifests as deferred maintenance if the budget isn’t properly funded or the manager isn’t empowered to take care of the property.” At the same time, a board that is too engaged can make management of the property difficult. “Part of the fiduciary responsibility for the board is to over- see management,” says Hughes, “but this doesn’t take away from the board’s pri- mary duties to cast vision and to vote. If they’re too involved in the day-to-day, they lose the perspective that they need to have to focus on the greater macro- picture of the property.” Hughes concedes that board micromanagement is some- times a reaction to previous experiences with poor management. But just as often, “boards are simply over-engaged thanks to members’ control issues, or as a result of politics within the board creating fear and anxiety.” Hughes goes on to say that an appro- priately engaged board is the best balance disciplining staff, they undermine man- for the community and for management. agement’s authority, which just makes it skillset, and some of this is personality. In “The board should be engaged beyond harder to run the building.” the monthly meetings,” he says, “but not so engaged that they burn out and can’t with a complaint will find a sympathetic good fit. Sometimes management can just review things objectively. Perhaps some board member who will listen—which ride out an antagonistic board, but in an managers prefer the board not be in- volved, but we find it’s best when there is but in reality “often creates conflict and qualified managers, some of the toxicity a true partnership.” In terms of how board style affects “The board’s responsibility is to make ment to consider whether a particular as- his ability to effectively manage a client policy and procedure; it’s the manager’s sociation relationship is doing more harm property, Wollman says, “When a board responsibility to carry it out. We institute than good.” is busy with minutia, it’s hard to manage. it.” If we’re discussing what kind of flowers to put in the lobby for an hour, we can’t get things done. We don’t need to discuss flow- ers for an hour—it’s not productive. The board should make that decision without me.” M i c r o ma na g - ing from the board also short-circuits a building’s or as- sociation’s chain of command, Wollman adds. “Board members really shouldn’t the role of the manager and management ly not helpful, and can lead to problems in involve themselves in managing the staff,” is to adapt. But by ‘adapt,’ I don’t mean decision making and conflict with other he says. “They should leave that to us. Say that the management company or man- for instance that a doorman is inappropri- ately dressed. It’s the super’s job to speak rather that they recognize what attributes to make decisions—which is not to sug- to him. If a board member starts directly they will need to utilize most for this par- Sometimes a building staff member the strength to recognize if it just isn’t a on its face might not seem problematic, industry with an ever-shrinking pool of mucks up the system,” says Wollman. levied by boards should cause manage- Pros & Cons from Both Perspectives As with a mar- riage, managers can’t go into a re- lationship with an certain respects. From the perspective of elected board in- tending to change guessing from others in the building if it; they have to be things don’t go well. People don’t care prepared and will- ing to meet the when it works well. When things go awry, board where they that changes. In truth, this type of board are, and work with approach is poor governance, even if it whatever dynamic generally works well on a practical level.” presents itself. According to Hughes, “Part of pursue a personal agenda. That’s definite- ager should change who they are—but he says, collaborative boards take longer ticular board and property. Some of this is the end, management also needs to have “The truth,” adds Wollman, “is that with an autocratic board, I’m usually dealing with the president only. Lots of times, just dealing with one person makes it easier for me to manage the building in the board, though, it can lead to second- what’s happening and how it happens— Wollman suggests that a bigger prob- lem is when people get on the board to board members and residents. Overall, gest that it takes forever, but that issues BOARD STYLE... continued from page 1 “The board should be engaged beyond the monthly meetings, but not so engaged that they burn out and can’t review things objectively.” — Bryan Hughes