Page 16 - New England Condominium September 2019

16 NEW ENGLAND CONDOMINIUM -SEPTEMBER 2019 NEWENGLANDCONDO.COM “I had an upheaval a few years ago wherein two members of a nine-member board attempted to take over the entire operation,” says Gruen. “They wanted to change everything, and had no concern for the feelings of the rest of the board. They willfully sowed dissent, going be- hind the board’s back, sending out unap- proved notices, scheduling secret meet- ings. The other board members, having caught wind as to what these two mem- bers were up to, sent out a rebuttal to the rest of the association. The two rogue board members failed in their attempted coup, but they were still re-elected, along with the rest of the board, for another term. So now you have this contentious board in place that can’t get along, and nothing gets done for a year. Eventually we had to bring in our attorney to help navigate the situation, and now I’m re- lieved to say that those two members are no longer on the board.” Unsurprisingly, communication and patience are crucial when a board is try- ing to restructure after a problematic run. “If new board members are elected to re- place those who were at least perceived as being ‘bad,’ it is critical for the incoming board to come to an agreement on goals and objectives,” says Renzi. “Sometimes seeking owner input on what the resi- dents in general believe goals should be can be helpful.” Should a relatively green board de- sire guidance from outside sources other than management, Edie Davis, Senior Property Manager of Maine Properties in Portland, Maine, advises it to consult with former board members – but not the problematic ones – as well as pro- fessional resources like the Community Associations Institute (CAI). “While, to some degree, an incoming board should absolutely be ‘guided,’ every new board will find its own direction, energy and ideas,” Davis says. Because specific transition-oriented minutiae is rarely codified in an associa- tion’s governing documents, it likely falls on a newly-configured board to figure out its own way. While all of the above is a great primer for those embarking on official association business for the first time, there will almost certainly be trial- and-error elements at play. But a new board that trusts in its elders and outside advisers while remembering its fiduciary duty will most likely find its footing and go on to govern well. n Mike Odenthal is a staff writer/reporter for New England Condominium. egregious enough? The infractions and the fines can’t be overly subjective.” A good example, he suggests, is smoking restric- tions. “In New York City, each residen- tial building must have a smoking policy by law. That smoking policy lays out the rules. That limits the association’s or cor- poration’s ability to fine.” Butler agrees, and adds: “There has to be enough investigation to support the fine. You can’t just do it on suspicion. And that’s where boards can get in trouble. You need concrete evidence. Cigarettes thrown off a balcony and landing on an- other balcony or terrace can cause a fire. But you don’t have proof as to who threw the cigarette butt off their balcony in the first place. It’s unlikely that residents will agree to undergo DNA testing to deter- mine who the perpetrator is.” However, Butler does mention one association he knows of that requires all residents with pets to have their pets’ DNA registered with the building in the event of a ‘walkies’ mishap, so that the building management can identify the perpetrator through pet- poop forensics. Airbnb and Other Homesharing Apps One big factor recently in play when it comes to fines is Airbnb. The popular homesharing platform has experienced varying levels of resistance in many cit- ies nationwide. Some ‘destination cities’ like New York and Chicago have enacted prohibitions against Airbnb rentals. In re- sponse, many communities – particularly co-ops, which have more authority over owners than condominiums – have en- acted rules to eliminate short-term vaca- tion rentals from their buildings and com- plexes entirely. Butler points out that the effectiveness of fines in this specific situation is one of dollars and cents. “Over the last several years \[renting one’s unit\] via Airbnb has become the most finable event we see. But the money made through the Airbnb rental may be so substantial for the owner that the fine becomes just part of the cost of doing business. The fine has to be so onerous—and perhaps other punitive measures must be employed as well—as to make continuing the behavior untenable for them.” For his part, Wollman doesn’t see the effectiveness of fines overall. “How much can you fine someone? A hundred dollars? It rarely changes behavior. You need to talk about the problem with the resident. People have a better understanding if you explain things to them, rather than just say no.” He also warns that in the end, if owners or shareholders are unhappy about the fines as enacted, they can change the board of directors through a vote. More ominously, if someone is very unhappy about the enactment or enforcement of a FINES... continued from page 10 BOARD.... continued from page 9