We were offered $12K for Verizon to run their wiring and to promote the product within the building, including door-to-door soliciting.
When I asked, the sales rep stated that the door-to-door could be eliminated, of course for a lower incentive offering.

Thanks for the info. We are negotiating with Verizon now and they are insisting they won't pay the $150/unit because we only have 20 units. Has anyone got money from them with under 25 units?
Thanks,
Janie

Our building had FIOS and Cablevision wiring and any fees apparently went to the management company. Shouldn't they have gone to the building fund?

that a very bad sign. get a new managing co. seriously. also demand in writing they give you the money. before you fire them.

We received over $30,000 or about $75 per unit, whether they subscribed or not.

How does Fios actually work? I know people that have it and have had difficult times with it and are going back to Cable. In fact someone I know over the weekend had a problem and couldn't get into their computer or the TV. He was discontinuing it and going back to cable. Just wondering?

Was this an automatic payment or did you negotiate?

Most of the negotiation centered around building access, the work that they would perform, and the materials that they would use, which was actually of greater importance to us. As I recall, the payment was part of their offer which we accepted. The good news is that they paid us for every apartment, regardless of whether or not the resident subscribed to the service and was paid in one lump sum rather than over a period of time.

So the $75 per unit was automatic?

Yes. My point was that there was not much negotiating on the payment - that's what they offered as part of the package and we accepted.

Did Direct TV offer a bonus to install their equipment in building

Our building paid Direct TV to install their equipment

oops

Again, did anyone pay or get a bonus from Direct TV to have their satellite installed?

FiOS will pay and it is a good idea to get them. We have a 150 unit co-op. We negotiated $150 a unit to have them pre-wire, so we got $22,500 to have them pre-wire. Plus they paid for our website and our back-end management software. We now have a web-based work order queue to manage our work orders. People can submit work orders online, from their iPhone, Blackberry, Doid and FiOS TV. The super gets it on his phone right away and it goes in the online queue. The super then can work the work order and put any detailed needed in it, in case we need to revisit the issue.

It is worth getting them, but make sure you negotiate for a few things.

What Blog post are you referring to?

http://www.habitatmag.com/activities/blog/lying_dogs_the_owners_that_is

i couldn't log in correctly when i wrote this,
but it was from me.
escapefromyonkers

http://www.stroock.com/SiteFiles/Pub307.pdf
The children can NOT live in the apartment without the shareholder present. Not just having some things in the apartment to "appear" as if the shareholder is living there either. The Doormen (if there is one present) should keep a log of all visitors coming and going for "security" purposes.

thank you very much. I have been trying to find some written case laws on this issue. Without any case laws or landmark cases, i was deemed, talking out the @##.
Real time web sites such as Habitat are so much more productive for finding info. I will be paying for a subscription soon, since i would like to research some items, and i am sure they have been discussed before.
stil the problem remains what can shareholders do to stop this practice by the board, Two or more of the board members are involved in this also.

Make a copy of the article sited. Have copies made and either send them to everyone in the building in the mail. Let it fester for a few days and then point out to a few of the other shareholders what is going on. Ask them to write a leter to the Management about the situation and include that Management should do their job and correct the situation. "Maybe we need a new Management Company"!!!!

the children living in apartments without the shareholders was brought up. The managing agent who was acting as secretary at the meeting said it was perfectly ok. i stated that par 14, stated " and "not or etc, He tried to bs me, by stating that our proprietary lease said both and/ or, i told him no it didn't, since i had copy with me. Then he said that the laws still uphold the children living there. i explained that the recent court decisions, did not. i had the article printed out, he didn't want a copy, but the board president asked if he could have it, so i got my point across.
i will make more copies and put them under the other owner occupied doors, i was low on printer ink so i only had a couple of copies to hand out, but that was golden.
i am an ex union steward, so i am used to reading the contract almost daily, looking things up, and knowing where the info is, and studying the outcome of cases won or lost by arbitration is the only way to operate.

Make sure the Annual minutes reflect what the Managing agent said. The CEO of the Management company should be sent a copy of both and asked for comment... in writing.

i really have no experience in this, but probably nothing can be done. i could see wall to wall carpeting being as a health issue for many people. the chemicals used in manufacture of wall to wall can be quite different than the area rugs. in out building 80% is the number. plenty of area rugs that can be made of non allergic/ toxic material are available.
wall to wall and the padding has a lot of checmicals that release toxins, nothing you would want your baby on. we didn't know yers ago, same as abstetos, as we learn we change out behaviour. Except for the smokers, they are too addicted.
sounds like noise is the real problem, and maybe the house rules should be upgraded to this century.
there are plenty of non allergic/ non toxic floor materials that reduce noise.

There are many carpets that are hypo allergenic including padding these days. Wall to Wall can be fine if you use those types of floor covering, I have that in my apartment, you can use Berber and there are many others that are hypo allergenic or even commercial/industrial which is hypo allergenic. Things have changed since many, many years ago.

There a many companies know that sell non toxic wall to wall
just go on line and u will find the companies that supply them. Throw rug are not a sound barrier.

area rugs with padding can be just as effective sound barrier as wall to wall. For example a 12 by 15 room with an 8 by 10 area rug in the middle
The quality of padding is important.
There are free-floating laminate flooring made from cork. Plus there are also specific noise reduction padding for these laminate floors.
They are probably more expensive than wall to wall, but probably much better at sound reduction.

While that is true, the perimeter of the area rug is wood and will still cause much noise. I know about the laminate flooring, correct, it will cost more, so for expense purposes decent noise reduction padding should help other residents.

That is very true. Thank you for the non toxic issue. That is what I was trying to say, Hypo Allergenic. Area Rugs are not a sound barrier by any means.

I agree with you, there is also an issue in all Leases, whether they be a rental, co-op, condo, including Commercial Leases that affords everyone Quiet Enjoyment. No one shall impede on anothers Quiet Enjoyment, that's a problem with living in a Bldg. I have been in Bldgs where people did not get along and noise was imposed for "just because". That is one very important reason that the Ordinance of a Carpeting Rule was effectuated. An area rug is Not a Sound Barrier, so sometimes one must go further to avoid a situation. There are non-toxic carpets, they have come a long way for people who are sensitive, have allergies. People have been living with carpeting for years, many years and more homes than not have it.

Why not simply sit down with the new Shareholders and see what can be worked out?

If they will be using hardwood floors only, for example, and there are health issues associated with w2w carpeting, you could point out that studies have shown a tremendous amount of pollution is tracked into the home on shoes - perhaps they could live in a socks-only home? That would certainly cut down on any noise from that area...

It is my strong feeling that boards and shareholders need MORE, not less, communication - and a good place to start is by talking with new shareholders about House Rules and why they were formulated.

Puzzled - I'm just curious. Why does your coop require wall-to-wall carpeting? Most House Rules state that 75% (or 80%) of floors must be covered with "carpeting, rugs or equally effective noise-reducing material." That typically means in the living area rooms and excludes hallways, the kitchen and the bath.

Do all your residents have wall-to-wall carpeting? That seems a lot to ask, and it can be expensive. Just wondering why you require this. Thanks.

Most buildings have an 80% rule and it states at LEAST 80% as long as there is no disturbance to another unit. It also states NOISE REDUCING Material. Just an area rug, and many are quite thin (padding controls some of that), does not reduce noise if there is much noise from another unit and carrying over to others. That is why NY does have that rule, living in apartments is difficult when you are surrounded by many others, it isn't fair to other surrounding, above or especially below. Noise, such as barking dogs, etc. does become a nuisance and infringes on others. Hopefully we all try to reduce noise in our apartments and consider others.

While it is true that you do not have the right to approve or disapprove, and regardless of if they are buying a sponsor unit or not, they will sign a Proprietary Lease, and subsequently must comply with it. and it's subsidiary documents (Bylaws and House Rules, etc). Only exceptions are if the Offering Plan specifically states that they are exempt from this rule.

I have a Shareholder in one of my buildings that had the same "health issues" with carpeting due to allergens, off gassing and a number of other things, but we did work together and find a non allergenic, all natural carpet that she was happy with.

Good luck!

~AR

Interesting enough the general wording requires definition by way of policy that is well-known to all shareholders, i.e., resolution that is distributed. First thing that comes to mind is being current in your maintenance. It's up to the Board to define if good standing means being current for 12 months, 6-months, etc.

Living in the co-op or litigating is not part of being in good standing. A person who elects not to live in his/her unit for any reason or no reason at all should not be deemed an uninterested party of his/her investment. There are doubts that absentee shareholders are familiar with everyday issues of the co-op and consequently, the general thinking is that it is best to exclude these shareholders from office.

Shareholders with outstanding litigation or even insurance claims: Anyone has the right to start a legal action or even claim from insurance if they believe that there are grounds for litigating and if all recourse has been depleted to sway the opinion of the Board. If the person is elected, then there is such thing as being excluded when dealing with the litigation in question. Obviously, many shareholders may feel that this poses a conflict of interest. A disclosure of this litigation should be known by sharholders before their vote.

AdC

unless your bylaws have wording that decides who can run for office, anyone over the age of 18 can run and get on the BOD.
Your building is already ahead of that curve, by requiring that they be a shareholder, and a member in good standing.
Some buildings require that the shareholder be a full time resident, that would also be in the by-laws

There have been instances where Board Members brought actions against other Members. They were still considered in Good Standing. It's according to the issue at hand.

A shareholder cannot have his right to vote removed under any circumstances.
Your bylaws should have some sort of general guidelines on who is eligible to run for election.
In Good Standing would mean that the shareholder does not owe the corporation any money. ( that's zero $0)

If you feel that your bylaws have too many loopholes, you can amend them with a majority vote.
For example, a clause requiring a shareholder to reside in the building to be eligible.

In no way challenging right to vote, but rather asking about good standing and running for office if in arears, if lawsuit outstanding, etc.
....
So challenging voting rights are off the table...
...
But, can ya review and perhaps embellish your response....thanks?

You are correct.

Years ago I had the same problem in a building. Have the management company contact the buildings attorney and have the shareholder served with a notice informing them that time is of the essence and that by delaying access to the apartment they could and will be held responsible for damages.

Good luck!

This is exactly what must be done... A certified letter to the SH informing them that they are in breach of the Proprietary Lease Agreement and access must be provided to make necessary repairs. Any denial of said access will result in additional damages that will be charged directly to their account.

(And since they are selling it is good timing to ensure you are getting paid as they can not close otherwise)


~AR

I agree with Mike, but I would also add make sure you have done your homework and you are sure that the leak is coming from that particular apartment. It is no good ripping up the floor to find out the leak was further up the riser etc. Also document the work and take photos

Happy hunting,
MRM

I agree with Mike and MRM about the floor repair. Also, if the leak comes from inside walls and isn't caused by fault or negligence from the apt above, I believe it would be the coop's responsibility to repair it and the damaged floors of the shareholder who's trying to sell. If so, all the repairs should be made quickly, and I wouldn't see why the selling shareholder should object to this. He might get new flooring that would add value to his apt.

The resident with the water damage, has anyone thought about opening walls and running the water from the apartment above to see if in fact it is coming from the apartment above? I assume the wall/ceiling have water damage open up that ceiling and have your staff or even better the pro come in to do complete inspection. E-mail me i you have any questions.

Yes I did mention in a previous post to troubleshoot all areas first.

ARA

I had a building exactly like this!
They were even wanting to fine people $1000 for loitering in the halls!!

What I did was contact a few X board members that i would like to see replace them and them asked them to please run for the Board at the upcoming annual.
Obviously since the current Board members were a building nuisance, they were not re-elected and the building was at peace again.

Good Luck!
~AR

Following up on socialistic boards? I have one that want everyone to obey the "house rules", the staff to enforce them, while you guessed it, the biggest offenders/violators are the board. The board then look to descipline the staff for not being able to enforce the rules..

Should we call in the national guard.

Go figure, RMM

Gee, that sounds like my building, although I do believe House Rules should be enforced, that's protection for all and hopefully everyone wants to live in a good environment. When House Rules are tossed out, we just might become a Project. I wouldn't think anyone wants that.

Why would you want people hanging out in the Lobby? A lobby is an ingress and egress. Wouldn't you or anyone want to live in a place where standards are brought up NOT down? That's the object of a co-op, more exclusivity than a rental. If that's the way people want to live, why not stay in a rental. It seems a GOOD rental has more control. Explain.

If any shareholder including Board Members see actions by visitors (non-residents) that are abusive, beligerent and giving a guard/door person a difficult time then there is no problem in that Board Member or shareholder to step in. Security is a major issue for all living there and non-residents acting up would be cause to step in to protect oneself and others. As for a nuisance holdover, there is no basis, especially if - once again - the issue is a non-resident being under the influence and/or causing a problem.

I might add something to Anonymous 1's statement - if the person acting up is a non-resident and was asked to leave, that could be cause for Trespassing. So the action of a Nuisance Holdover (whatever that is) would be VOID!

if someone is visiting a resident in the building, i don't see how they could be charged with trespassing. There was no mention in any of the OP posts concerning their conduct, so speculation, is pretty unwarranted.

it is so easy to video tape people in the hallways, so evidence of improper conduct would be pretty easily obtained, and that would solve the 3 side to a story,
i have a netcam where my door viewfinder was.
i remember i sticky situation in my building where a woman got a Order of protection against her x boyfriend, who really was and is a nut and was and is very dangerous. The cops said they couldn't keep him out of the building , since he had 3 relatives that lived there n 3 different apartments, and he had to walk by her door to get to the elevator. unless the relatives signed that he wasn't allowed in, he had the right to visit. the relatives were too scared of what he might do if they signed, so they didn't sign anything,

If your statement is true and as you said no action has been taken concerning the two board members would it be possible that they are acting within the guide-lines of the house rules?

If the guest(s) visiting the resident are following the house rules I don't see why this person would have to be questioned. Unless they are not acting within reason than the proper steps should be taken by security.

What what CMJ described, these two board members are interrogating (his word) visitors in general. Since not even police can compel you to give more than than your identification, these board members are clearly acting in an unjustifiable manner.

Being on a board doesn't give them, outside the board room, any powers that other shareholders don't have. And as shareholders, they have no right to interrogate other shareholders' guests.

As CMJ said, the co-op has security personnel tasked with preventing trespassers and keeping the peace on this private property. In this case, aside from board members acting arrogantly, you have a case of shareholders creating a nuisance to other shareholders.

Bottom line: Being a board member does not allow you to behave in a way that other shareholders cannot behave.

As you stated if what CMJ states is factual, when non-residents,guests enter a building and are causing a problem for the guard/door person any shareholder board member (who is also a shareholder) when noticing that the guard/door person is having a difficult time has a right to protect themselves as well as the building for others who live there. If the shareholder speaks to the guard/door person with NO interaction with the guest (which is not known at this juncture) and the guest was asked to leave again, that can be considered as Trespassing. If this guest is not a shareholder, not on a lease and being disruptive any shareholder or board member can advise the guard/door person to seek help and/or file a complaint. This is not exclusive to board members as stated any shareholder concerned about where they live.

I must agree with one thing. Has anyone heard from the other side or just from what is being told by one side? Always remember, there are 3 sides to every issue, "Yours, mine and somewhere in the middle is the truth". That being said a Nuisance Holdover is invalid in this instance. Basically a Nuisance Holdover is for a Noise issue, non-compliance with pets, sublet issues, disruption to other shareholders i.e. legal tenants. If security has done what he/she had to do in compliance with the rules, by calling the Tenant (and no one answering)or Tenant did not want guest to go up, the security would relay that, if further disagreement happens that further steps should be taken to make sure guest leaves, if guest then refuses and any legal tenant or board member (legal tenant) observes this, there is no problem in advising security to either file a complaint or seek legal remomval. No one can be sure what a person causing a problem can and may do. I am of the belief that any Tenant (legal) should protect their living quarters from any problem that may and can lead to something bigger, whether it be an intense argument (screaming) or anything else that might erupt.

The original post from CMJ? stated that the people being questioned by shareholders were guests as opposed to someone walking in "to case" the area. There is a world of difference. While I believe we should all be vigilant let the staff you hired take care of these issues.(well trained staff are your eyes and ears). I have personally witnessed shareholders who had no business whatsoever questining individuals sitting quietly in our lobby as to who/why they were here. If you fit "certain profiles" you are liable to be questioned.This is embarrassing and wrong....

How do any of us know if the Guest was questioned? Possibly the Tenant (Legal) just spoke to the Security. We are just looking at it from CMJ's point of view. That's the issue. A legal Tenant or board member, who is also a legal Tenant, if seeing something that could escalate or someone not adhering to Security, I would think can speak with the Security. They do work for the building and the protection of such building and all legal Tenants.

I think we're getting our signals crossed. I don't see CMJ saying anything about the board members only dealing with problem visitors.

He's saying the board members take it upon themselves to interrogate whoever comes in.

He's also saying he considers this a problem, i.e., harassing fellow shareholders' guests.

We don't know if that's factual? We have not heard the other side. Anyone can say anything, not necessarily what actually is. Thereby, all of this back and forth on this issue can be a moot point. Do we actually know EVERYONE who comes into the building is Interrogated? Of course not. Are these Tenants/Board Members standing by the front door waiting for people/guests to come in to jump on them. I find that a little beyond comprehensive.

CMJ never identified by building, so what's beyond comprehension is why he would lie about it. He wanted to get advice about a situation as he perceived it -- he's not trying to score public-opinion points.

Your tactic of exaggeration is typical of those who don't have a leg to stand on via logic. "standing by the front door waiting...to jump on" guests? Please. We all know board members can behave autocratically. We all know people with a little power can abuse it. (DMV clerks, anyone?) I'd have to wonder if you're not one of the board members CMJ labels as a "nuisance."

You sound like you are a friend of CMJ's. Is that so? I responded because it seems like many answers to what was stated seem to be listening to something that is not even confirmed by any other person. None of us, including you JB, really know the issue at hand, just a comment from someone. Correct a little power can be abused, do we know if the question posed or issue discussed is not from someone who is doing that same thing?

I've no connection to CMJ or even know what the initials stand for. I'm operating strictly from what he or she is saying.

CMJ has no reason to lie -- it's an anonymous setting, where none of us know what building it is or who is involved. As far as any of us on the outside are concerned, it's a hypothetical situation -- and you attack the person proposing it.

CMJ came here seeking help -- and instead you impugn the victim's motives. If you don't believe he/she's telling the truth, why comment at all? CMJ was only asking for advice; if you didn't have any ... well, one wonders what your motivation could be in attacking CMJ.

JB get a grip

I agree with what you stated, none of us know the situation. I am playing Devils Advocate, how do any of us know any situation. Don't know CMJ either, I'm looking at it from a different prospective, a what if - if that makes any sense. Anyone can ask any question that choose to, but that particular issue seemed like certain people were being attacked and none of us know what is real and what isn't, what is fact and what isn't. All the answers seemed to advise in a derogatory fashion. It would be great if all knew all circumstances. Every one asks questions on their preception, doesn't mean they are lying but sometimes all is not factual.

While I am not an expert,I would think the pay scale would be a reflection on how much you value your employee and the responsibilities he/she has. I know some non union supers making more than unionised supers. I guess if you were to give specifics regarding the property ie, number of units, staff, A/C system, heat system etc.. one could then give an educated guess.

RMM.

Live-in Part-time super 2-3 hours day. 32 unit in Brooklyn. Basic cleaning, maintenance and repair. 24/7 on-call

For similar supers we pay 18-23K per year plus the basic benefits (housing, utilities, phone, vacation and sick pay)

Im Manhattan the salary would be more like 28-32K

~AR

Sally as I understand it in a Coop you own shares so that does not entitle one to do as they please when renovating. I would ask the neighbour if you could see their "approved" architectial drawings for the renovation project before agreeing to anything. The size/operation of the new duct/vent may also have an effect on the mechanicals of the building as it may off balance the system. I would also suggest running it by your super/managing company.

MRM

Sally I agree with Manhattan RM regarding the building exhaust duct work. If they are renovating their bathroom they should have a approved alteration package. In the package should be the requirements for the upgrade for the duct opening if they allow it.

The size/operation of the new duct/vent may also have an effect on the other apartments in that line. In some apartments the air would push in instead of out, throwing the system out of sync.

Mike good to know you agree with me. One of your buddies in the field that speaks highly of you.

ARM

HI Mike - The renovating resident just found out it is a working vent. the super , who does not know much, had told the arthitect it was a dead vent.
it physically runs though the revnovators apt - it is very old but works fine. if they are renovating and wanot shrink it down (it is huge) - which neighbor should pay????

If the management company/board of directors approve of the downsizing of the opening, then the shareholder doing the renovation should pay for the new vent cover. I don't see where the building or other shareholders would have to pay for something that a shareholder is changing inside their apartment? If it is working properly, I would keep it on record that all apartments are working fine and if they do change the size of the opening and their is some problems with the vent, then I would have them pay for any and all expenses to correct the problem(s).

Sorry about that I responded the question.

Sorry about that I responded the question.

Hi Mike - thanks. it is not the vent cover - it is the entire vent compartment. very old. runs though the neighbors interior space. they are renovating and claim it must be brought to code. and that we should contribute$.

Okay, if the vent is working properly and the shareholder who wants to renovate his/her apartment should be responsible for the expenses. The other shareholder didn't want to change the vent? Why should they pay?

You are not responsible for maintaining or bringing back to "code" any structure owned by the coop and certainly not the ones located in your neighbors apt.

Even if your property lease had a paragraph stating that shareholders were responsible for the maintenance of those vents ( which I doubt ) .... that would not cover the vent next door.

How should board (eventually shareholders) handle a president who engaged a company to remove asbetos without proper certification? None of the safeguards were applied? including having the employees help with the removal. There is an open violation and when EPA comes back they will want to see that all paperwork was correctly filed. We are going to be faced with massive penalties.

HabitatReporter here again, with another opinion from Ellen Kornfeld of the Lovett Group. Ms. Kornfeld writes,

"If a Board member or Officer of the co-op engages a company to remove asbestos by a non-certified company, the questions we have are, did the other board members or managing agent know about this, and were other bids obtained for the project by certified companies? If the answer is no to both of these questions, I would ask for the President's resignation. The Board President did not conduct himself as a fiduciary and not only violated building code and EPA rules, they also exposed their employees to asbestos and could be faced with lawsuits down the road. The Director's and Officer's liability insurance would most likely not elect to cover the board should a suit be brought due to the failure to adhere to EPA requirements. It is for this reason that the board should require the President's resignation because the D & O coverage could be in jeopardy if someone were to sue the coop. D & O coverage would not cover acts of a President if they were illegal."

Several other bids from certified companies were solicited by management. President at board meeting came in with a significantly lower proposal. Board and managing agent became aware that work had been completed when agent sent another certified company to bid on the project. They in turn notified agent that work had been completed. When management asked if the appropriate paper work for asbestos removal was completed president replied yes. Yet to date has not been able to produce it and insists that remodeling company has licensed. A board member contacted the state and company is not licensed to remove asbestos and is now out of business. Majority of board members are not concerned yet managing agent says we are due for hefty daily fines as this is an open violation. Do shareholders have recourse against the board as a whole, if these fines are imposed?. What about the staff that I have recently learned were also part of the removal of debris?

In the end, if the Board made a conscious decision to use an unlicensed company, there is negligence. Your in a predicament, but not one that cannot be fixed. Fines are heafty... Was there an ACP-5 or 7 done?

Unfortunately the information required to accomplish this is a lot more than can be transferred through a post and some things with this type of liability should not be posted.

I do not usually do this, but I included a link to my email above and would be willing to talk with you concerning this and let you know what actions some other people in similar situation have or would have done.

~AR

AR: would love to speak with you! no email was in your respose.

Sorry I did not respond sooner, I have been on vacation (finally!)

Please feel free to email me at REAPLLC@aol.com
Anthony

You're a welcome addition. My question revolves around a contractor who worked without any authorization from the Board. We had urgent work to be done on our roof, put it out for bids, his was $4,000. I asked the management agent to get his proposal in writing. The next we heard, the superintendent (who is new & on probation) gave him access, and he did the work. The mgt agent said he must have thought it was an "OK" to do the work because she asked for a written proposal. We all know that that's malarky, but how do we handle this?

It's a 2-pronged job, he started both at the same time, and he's still on the 2nd part. We had our engineer check his work and the engineer required he modify what he's done before completing it.

Thank you for your input.

HabitatReporter here, with an expert opinion from Ellen Kornfeld, representing the Lovett Group. She says,

"If a contractor were to work on any property we manage without approval or written authorization, that contractor would not be paid for their services. The Superintendent should have checked with management to make sure the contractor was permitted to work and that the managing agent had an insurance certificate naming the building and the managing agent as additional insured before giving them access. When did the managing agent find out they were working without a contract and who put it out to bid (managing agent or engineer)? Since the Superintendent is new, what experience did he have being a Superintendent? Certainly, the Superintendent knows the difference between a contract and a proposal if he worked in this industry before. This incident would make me question the Super and his ability to handle affairs at the building and I would consider letting him go before the probation. I would be concerned that the contractor took it upon himself to determine what needed repair. If it were my property, the contractor would be charged for the cost of having the building's engineer inspect and review the work and for any re-inspections needed for changes that have to be made."

www.twitter.com/habitatmag

Thank you very much for this important information. I'm going to share it with the full Board of Directors when we meet next week.

To answer your questions, the managing agent put it out to bids. When I heard the bid I asked management to have the contractor give us a written proposal. The next communication from her was that the work was already done but that it was just as well because "it needed to be done". The superintendent is on probation with us but has several years of experience working for a rental building (and still working there after his full day here). The sup't. showed the contractor the job, and then according to management, allowed him access to do the work without clearing it with them. I doubt that management has an insurance certificate because it was done without being put into writing, but will check into that.

Thank you too for your suggestion to charge the contractor for the engineer's examination & follow-ups of his work. (I'd asked management to ask the engineer to check it to examine the quality of the work.)

- Can an In-House Managing Agent in a small Co-op (who with spouse owns 60% of the Shares) vote to hire themselves for pay?

- Can this pay be in the form of a 50% maintenance reduction? If so, should this considered taxable income, and as such, a deduction on the Co-op's tax burden?

Myself and the other Shareholders believe this situation is a violation of the Business Judgement Rule and have voted to hire an independent Managing Agent. The current Managing Agent/Shareholder has sued us to block it. Our case is in Court now, and we suspect the outcome may be of interest to your readers.