Those of you who use Yahoo, know that it runs "news" items in the center of its web page. Those news items are frequently updated, even though they are not always "news" items in the conventional sense of the word. Sometimes, they are curious tidbits that would be better fitted for Ripley's Believe It or Not, other times they contain career advice. A few weeks ago, one of those items proclaimed that watching television costs each person $1.2 million over a lifetime.

This item piqued my curiosity, so I checked it out. Of course, the $1.2 million was made up of the direct costs associated with watching television, such as the cost of purchasing the TV set, monthly subscription fees for cable or satellite, add-on fees such as those for TiVo, or OnDemand programming. And then, there were the indirect costs, such as the time one spends — or wastes, depending on your attitude to TV — watching television results in missed opportunity costs, that would otherwise be spent earning a lot of money over a lifetime, even at minimal wage levels.

I am someone who at times can go for days without watching television, yet I was totally dismissive of this economic argument. After all, people cannot and should not be working all the time, they need to rest, to replenish their creativity. And last, but not least, people need to be clued in to the popular culture. Also, these days the computer monitor for many plays the role of television. So, for the sake of an argument, how would one draw a distinct line between the computer and the television, while the two mediums are getting increasingly blended together? In any case, I was dismissive of the claim that television costs $1.2 million, which suggested that giving up television would result in pocketing $1.2 million over a lifetime. I was dismissive of this proposition outright.

This news item came to my mind in a completely different context. A few weeks ago, as part of CAI faculty development process, I was auditing a PMDP Course, specifically M-202 on Association Communications. It was a delightful course taught by CAI distinguished faculty Margey Meyer, who won the CAI Best Faculty Award in 2007. Margey did a terrific job engaging the nearly 30 students in the classroom. Most of the students were practicing community associations managers. It was inspirational to watch this large class of managers so intent on improving associations communications. They simply soaked up the material presented by Margey.

Margey and most CAI faculty will agree that while teaching you feel the engagement of the classroom, you feel the students' excitement, and you feel the energy. Based on this energy feedback, as a faculty member, you sometimes dwell on some material more, sometimes less. The energy momentum was really high throughout this two-day course. The only time this momentum was breached was when Margey suggested — and I am with her 100% on this — that managers try to contact community members in person via telephone to try and remedy an infraction before sending out a warning letter. A few people almost visibly cringed at this suggestion. The way some appeared to be dismissive of this telephone contact approach reminded me of how dismissive I had been of Yahoo's claims regarding effects of television watching. Some just did not want to hear of making telephone contact or even consider making it.

The number one reason people opposed to initial telephone contact articulated was time: "Who has that kind of time?" they would ask. Another reason was lack of willingness to contact people for fear of eliciting an unpleasant response. Another reason was the need of having a record of having made a contact with the party associated with the alleged infraction. Margey had good answers to all these concerns, but I still sensed resistance on the part of some managers.

The next day, I was assigned to a group exercise with a couple of the people who were among the most vocal in their opposition to making initial telephone contact before sending out violation notices. I brought up the issue, and, again, heard the opposition arguments anchored in lack of time, fear of contact, and need for proof of contact. I countered with the time argument myself. After all, doesn't it take a longer amount of time to write all those letters, even if they are form letters, have them printed, then distributed, whether via mail or on property? Surely, a phone call is faster. Surely, if someone is going to be mad on the phone regarding being contacted, imagine how mad they'll be regarding the letter, anyway. And how scary can they be on the phone? And, finally, one can create a log to enter those original phone calls, and then if remedy is not reached, then the warning letter can surely reference the phone call, making it a "softer blow."

I also tried to remind this small group that in my research I have discovered that nearly 90% of people that move into community associations do not read their bylaws and other relevant documents. This largely occurs not because these people are negligent by nature, but because they hire attorneys, and request that the association documents be reviewed, and the attorneys will usually advise them that they are dealing with standard community associations documents. Subsequently, since the attorney tells them this, the community association owners do not feel compelled to read these voluminous documents. Now, what's standard to an attorney is one thing, what may affect the homeowner's day-to-day life is quite another. For instance, a homeowner may not be aware of the 6-inch grass rule, or the bird-feeder placement rule, or the carpet coverage inside the unit rule.

In any case, Margey's exhortation of contacting people via telephone first before a violation notice goes out is a good one. I challenge those that think it will be more time- consuming to practice to actually test this approach for a month. Track your time in terms of letter-writing for violation notices for one month, and then practice the "call first" approach for another whole month. See what the difference is in terms of time. Even if you break even, the telephone approach will have built the hard to calculate, but immensely valuable goodwill. I am interested in hearing if any of you will take this challenge, and what the results are.