Page 16 - New England Condominium February 2020

16 NEW ENGLAND CONDOMINIUM -FEBRUARY 2020 NEWENGLANDCONDO.COM be removed by shareholders. But they can remove a director from a specific position, say president or secretary.” So board mem- bers can make an officer a non-officer via a vote—but that doesn’t remove the board member from the board entirely. Real Life Examples “Conflict can happen because people just don’t jive,” says Michele Schlossberg, a prop- erty manager with Gumley Haft, a manage- ment firm in Manhattan. “They will nitpick each other. When you live in a condo or co-op, you have to realize you live in a com- munity, and when people don’t it can become contentious.” Schlossberg describes a situation in one community where there was a ‘coup’ on the board. A contingent of shareholders was un- happy with how the board had handled the planning and management of a large project to replace one of the building systems. A large group of shareholders didn’t feel they were be- ing heard by the existing board, so they called for an election, collected a large number of proxies, and replaced three board members with new directors they felt would helm the project more effectively. The overall effect of the change, however, was to stymie the proj- ect even further. The new board members wanted to examine every document involved with the project to that point—then they an- nounced they wanted to start the project over from scratch. It then took an additional three years—for a total of five—to complete a proj- ect that should have taken a year or two at most. So in that case at least, the infusion of new blood into the board had quite the op- posite of the desired effect. In another situation, Schlossberg recalls a board where the president was suspected of dishonest dealing. The rest of the board asked him to step down—but he refused. Ultimate- ly, the co-op had to call a special meeting, and the president was removed from both his po- sition and the board as a whole by a vote of the shareholders. Other Ideas Davidson acknowledges that board en- vironments can become combative. “Often there is friction,” he says. “ I suggest that co-op and condo boards consider adopting a method common in nonprofit organiza- tions, which is the board member agree- ment.” A board member agreement is kind of like a rulebook and lays out what’s accept- able behavior for board members. “It should be in writing, and every new board member should be required to say they are prepared to agree to these rules,” says Davidson. Michael Kim, a condominium attorney in Chicago, says that while board member agreements aren’t common among co-ops and condos in his particular area, he has oc- casionally seen them adopted in buildings or associations “when there are serious rival factions.” Kim does not necessarily encour- age the use of such agreements, but he doesn’t MANAGING... continued from page 15 discourage them either. As part of his prac- tice, he will offer his client communities an orientation session for newly elected board members, including tutorials on how to run fair and orderly meetings. He says that bad blood between board members often has its origin in badly run, chaotic meetings where board members feel shut down, slighted, or otherwise insulted by their colleagues. Adopting specific meeting protocols (and sticking to them) is one way to nip acrimony in the bud before it has a chance to flourish and cause harm. Another idea is that of a grievance com- mittee—a common feature of non-residential nonprofits—tailored to a building or HOA’s board policy. Davidson explains that a griev- ance committee can perform an annual as- sessment of each board member. “Sort of like a, ‘how am I doing?’” he says. “The member meets privately with someone from the griev- ance committee every year to talk about their performance.” Such accountability and the opportunity to ‘check in’ in a calm, non-com- bative setting can help boards or residents course-correct before something relatively minor balloons into a bigger problem. What Can a Manager Do? Schlossberg suggests that the best way to handle conflicts among board members—or among warring resident factions—is to try to arrive at some sort of reconciliation between the two opposing groups, whether that’s in the community as a whole or on the board. “People want to be heard,” she says, and rec- ommends that at the first board meeting after an election, it’s often very helpful to simply ask the minority what it is they want to see— what kind of changes they’re looking to effect by joining the board. It’s also crucial to un- derstand what the shareholders want, and to remember that the board is there to govern everyone—not to champion pet projects or to stick it to anyone who doesn’t necessarily share one’s opinions or priorities. Put simply, “The goal is to create a cohesive board,” says Schlossberg, and the most important com- ponent of achieving that is a commitment to listen and take others’ concerns seriously. Davidson shares a similar approach. “Identify solutions to each conflict,” he says. “Create rules for decision making. Then sur- vey the board members. How do they rank the suggested solutions, ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’? Produce a sum- mary of the results.” Davidson points out that in his experience, there is often nearly 100% agreement among board members, because solutions are usually pretty simple. “If there are disagreements,” he says, “hold a discus- sion. And importantly, acknowledge areas of conflict to work toward a common solu- tion. Once you have rules of the road, you can manage conflict.” Freedland concurs, summing up with the assertion that “Dissention shouldn’t perme- ate every issue. Work it out and get on with it.” n A J Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter with New England Condominium, and a published novelist.