We had that situation. A sign won’t work because the type of person who would do this will not be scared off by your sign.

You need to catch them in the act and then threaten them with legal action.

The best way to catch them is with a security camera in the laundry room.

Many times, most often, are the shareholders, residents themselves giving keys to those they know nearby allowing them in, caretakers too.

Thank you for your input.

I heard it might be a staff member’s relatives that live near by which makes no sense if you talk about security. Who really are these people? It’s still private property. So one minute you can’t sublet without permission but you can allow random people on our property and give them access? Now I understand why the Super wasn’t concerned.

Oh the other point I wanted to make was our laundry room isn’t extremely big for all the units we have and we can’t expand it but I would need to wait to do my laundry because a relative of a staff member is using it? That’s not right.

I believe you also have legal liability and face a potential negligence lawsuit if a non-shareholder is injured using the washers or dryers on your co-op's private property. Check with your co-op's attorney to see if you have any legal exposure.

Who's name is on the stock certificate? If the parents name is on both then in my opinion the parent should be the only vote. We have that type (sort of) of situation in my bldg. The parents name is on both, so when the adult child constantly is in arrears, we send notice to both. In fact the parent is responsible for both apts. All correspondence should be sent to both.

We are a condo, not a co-op, so owners do not have stock certificates. Our management company has whatever document shows that the parent purchased the apartment; I'll reach out to them.

Nothing specifically about selling or renting.

Before you sell or rent, be aware there are certain DOB regulations and codes that mandate a super has a physical residence in your building or lives within a couple of hundred feet from your building if the building has 10 or more units. In the future, this could have a problematic impact on your compliance if the super's apartment is not available for the super to live in.

The Proprietary Lease governs the privileges, rights, and obligations of the *shareholders*.

The Bylaws lay out how the *board* governs the co-op corporation and conducts co-op corporation business.

Two entirely different documents with entirely different purposes.

Before making *any* changes to either, especially the one the board is contemplating, contact the co-op's attorney. Without consulting your attorney for expert legal advice you could dig a hole deeper than you can imagine.

Full Stop.

You should check with an attorney, but I'm almost certain the board does *not* have the authority to prevent non-resident shareholders from voting their shares. That would create two classes of stock within the corporation, and the board does not have the authority to create such classes. In fact, it's unlikely that *anyone* - including the full set of shareholders - would have the ability to do this. But again, ask an attorney for a definitive answer.

- Carl Tait

Very simply, if they own shares, they have a full vote. No exceptions I can think of (IANAL). Unless your Proprietary Lease has a special carve-out (which I highly doubt), *any* share dilution can land your board and co-op corporation in very hot water.

I'm not even sure the restriction on becoming a board member or officer would hold up.

There may be special rules for sponsor-owned shares, so best to check with your co-op's attorney.

Steven, I completely agree with you that disenfranchising non-resident shareholders is almost certainly not allowed, while echoing your IANAL.

One point I can state with certainty is that non-resident shareholders *can* be barred from serving as directors. That's straight from our co-op's attorney. In fact, he's the one who suggested we limit the board to residents.

- Carl Tait

You say that management has been told and nothing's changed. Maybe I'm mistaken, but it sounds like the Board hasn't been told - only management.

If so, notify the Board about the situation. Regardless of who you notify, it helps your cause if you can document names and dates for when the doormen treat shareholders differently. A paper trail is very important in these types of situations.

Good luck and keep us posted.

They are part of the problem.

Since the Board and mgt have done nothing after being notified of the situation, then I suggest making a list of dates and times when these events take place, along with a description of the infraction. Email this info to both the Board and mgt. You might also want to include the co-op attorney in the email.

At least it's now in writing and on record. As I said earlier, the more documentation that you can submit, the less the issue can be avoided.

Another important reason for documenting everything in writing is if the doormen are Union members (32BJ), a very detailed written record will be essential if you find you need to take any action against them.

Do you know if the individuals in question have received any sort of official notification that their behavior will not be tolerated? An official write-up? Repremand? Discussion with your MA? These will be essential as you put together a paper trail

I completely agree with Marty that you need to involve your co-op attorney. In fact, I would talk to your attorney before having any further contact with your board or MA. If both have been notified and nothing has changed, this problem may be deeper than just bad doormen.

Actually - I did find this article about fiduciary responsibilities from prior posts, and it answered my questions. Very handy reference: https://www.joindaisy.com/blog/whats-the-fiduciary-responsibility-of-board-members

In my building, a mid-size co-op, residents really appreciated getting thank you notes from the super (especially since many residents did not provide any gifts).

Why don't you suggest to the board that the tree be removed? You can write an email stating the negatives of having the tree there. If the board believes that the tree should not be removed, they should provide you with a rationale for that decision (e.g., it might be too expensive as far as the board is concerned). If you do not like their decision, you can always run for the board. Owner dissatisfaction with the way the board runs the property is often the reason people join their building's board.

This is so wrong on so many levels. Of course, the co-op would be liable and exposed to all kinds of legal trouble if something bad were to happen as a result on unlicensed and unqualified Board members fiddling with potentially dangerous equipment.

The obvious question for you to ask it why are they doing this?

The answer is always "follow the money." Is the Board trying to save money by turning down the heat? Why would the Board be fiddling with the wiring? Is there something wrong with the wiring?

Or are they doing something with the wiring to save money or perhaps the wiring is not up to code and the Board's trying to avoid issues with that problem. If so, get an electrician in there to find out.

You should be asking the Board directly about this situation if you have absolute proof that what you'e claiming is true. If it's true, then you should contact building management and the co-op's attorney to put them on notice how dangerous this situation is for all shareholders.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Marty - I fully agree with every point you made, and thought of one more that may be the most insidious of all - whoever is doing the fiddling is trying to illegally tap off the electrical and boiler lines to obtain the service for free. Like giving a neighbor your streaming passwords so they can use the service without paying.

I seem to remember a building blowing up in Manhattan or the Bronx because the super was trying to tap into the gas line for whatever reason. Take as many photos as you can of the area in question to document the work being done and any damage the work causes.

Thank you both for your thoughts.

Even if they’re licensed when they worked they’re not on the board for that and we have plenty of money for a contractor or Super to handle any and/or repairs. That’s why we pay a lot of maintenance. I don’t pay all that maintenance for Mickey Mouse work besides that it’s beyond dangerous should something go wrong.

And yes you’re correct about the building in NYC and those involved were charged.

Pooh - Steven's point of illegally tapping for electricity and gas is an excellent one.

A question for you...Are gas and electric included in your maintenance? If not, then Steven's theory becomes much more plausible.

If gas and electric ARE included in the maintenance, then the motives for doing this become much more murky. Why would they be doing this?

No gas and electric is not included.

I will find out why this is being done.

Pooh - Please keep us posted on this very important issue. Thanks.