Sounds alot like my building. It's taking years and several sales to change the atmosphere. Story might vary a bit. Our old board was in power for over 30 years. It wasn't until a major tenant to tenant battle occurred and people realized board had been seeping for 30 yrs. and was quite dysfunctional. What the newer boards had to do was wrk from the inside out. We firmed up PL and house rules and communications. Then started on the buildings mechanics, facade, etc. it's taking lots of work and most people don't want to put in the time - it is all volunteer.
My advice to you is to gather as many signatures as you can and call for a special meeting to address your concerns and to voice your opinions about how things shoukd be handled.
While the majority rules they still need to hear from the minority and listen compassionately.
There is a lot of give and take in a coop but there is also a way to be respectful and thoughtful. But, that too fluctuates on any given day.
A coop is not summer camp. We don't always agree and many harbor ill feelings towards their neighbors. That's where strong backbone and house rules make life equal.

WOW for a small building you would think there would be harmony. You have to remember you voted the board in, you can also vote the board out. Also your don't have to like each other, but you do have to respect each other. Like Frank stated your can call a special meeting and discuss the issues your feel the board is doing wrong. Then meet with the board to DISCUSS the matter. Hopefully this will help the healing process.
Good Luck

Appreciate the encouragement but definitely an uphill climb. I think the new people won't be happy until all the old ones have moved out. Big culture shift with the escalation of property values and the focus has become more on that (protecting the share value)than fostering a harmonious community. What is frustrating is that there has never been a real attempt at healing the rift. There is still a lot of suspicion on both sides and no one wants to talk about it-preferring to push on, hoping the others will just "go away." I doubt if anyone on the new board will ever allow anyone from the old board to serve again.

Hi deb,

To answer your question about whether the building completely healed. The answer is no. The conflict which was 1.a dysfunctional board that did not represent the community and did not even uphold the PL and house-rules. 2.board comprised of all sponsors was in power for 33yrs and gave out misinformation. Clearly there was a conflict of interest. 3. Objectionable tenant , 4, neglected building.. The list could go on. But, the biggest problem was that every time each problem was raised those responsible made personal attacks on those questioning them. It still happens. It's like kindergarten around here.
I just can't see myself working with people like that. They also, don't read. And, always say "they don't understand". Very frustrating.

Non board members who were on our PL committee two years ago now state they didn't know what they signed and want to revisit a vote taken two yrs ago. This happens at every meeting.

I'm a superintendent on the east side looking for a Westside building

I have 16 years experience.

joserivera124@hotmail.com

I'm a superintendent on the east side looking for a Westside building

I have 16 years experience.

joserivera124@hotmail.com

Hi Frank- in your building did you ever get the two "sides" together? Or just wait for people to move out? We have had some turnover but still enough are around for bitterness to seep in. It really seems intractable as each group feels they are the injured party, and really, all efforts to try to get groups to talk are regarded with suspicion. Some on the current board are especially bitter that they have to consider the concerns of those they feel "did them wrong," and there is mistrust all around due to this never being addressed.

The Star credit and the others - Senior Citizen, Veterans, etc are not allowed unless the apartment is Owner Occupied - and next year even the Coop/Condo will be reduced by percentages and then be 0 if the apartment is not Owner Occupied - I would really like to try anything that could help shareholders be treated correctly because that is definitely not what is going on now - Definitely the Senate and Assembly bills would help, but they have been there for over 10 years and can't get passed - I have tried practically everything , the AG, the DA, our State Senator, Assemblyperson, letters to practically every agency and nothing has worked. I definitely believe in would be wonderful to get the media involved and tried many, many years ago, the problem again is how many people will be willing to participate and say that there is a problem in their coop, especially the upper Manhattan Owners; yes they have the same problems as we but they definitely do not want publicity unfortunately for their coops and they have the money to hire the lawyers and solve the problems- Stephanie

somethings up. Maybe they know about a lot more assessment that will be coming up and by the illegal powers of self dealing . try to get out soon.
Also there has been a push for sponsors to sell not rent, this is what they were supposed to do from the get go. However I would make a paper trail to the BOD concerning this, questioning this. and get everything in writing, so someday if you find a real lawyer, that works for shareholders, you may have a good case. Keep the papers/letters , do it certified or find a way that it can be proved given to BOD , 5 years from now,In my case and in other cases there is a BOD members or members that are in cahoots with the managing company/ sponsor and are making deals , that are illegal, deals that are not covered by the O and D insurance, since its fraudulent, and not performing item #1/ fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders by BOD
twitter @escapefrmyonker

What do you know about the sponsor and his management co? Is he looking to retire and move out of state/country? Maybe he won't make the profit he wants with the assessment in place. Why do you have a 4 year assessment? You need more information. Do you get copies of the annual financial statements? When is your next annual meeting? Have you spoken to any of the board members? Maybe there is a good, simple reason. No need to get legal unless you can't get any answers.

How small is small as in group? Sounds like you have a recipe and attitude for disaster. Legal quite likely but probably not cooperative living.

The board spent one year sending out information about the revised PL. a well written letter by the lawyer which was not "legalese" explained the major changes, the 5 major changes were again listed and a chart was made that highlighted our old method, our new method and the method used by most co-ops. We did spoon feed everyone and made calls. I guess you have to trust me when I say we have a small group of people that ran things (selfishly I might add) and were not looking after the other shareholders. They talked about batteries in our smoke detectors while pocketing monies from our commercial space and keeping maintenance artificially low. They held two hats, they were the sponsors of the building which had control of the storefront and their rent was based on maintenance, the lower our maintenance was the lower their rent was and the more profit they made. They kept this secret for nearly 25 yrs. whe it was discovered and the bundling was in big debt their board control was overruled. So, if you speak about vindictive it's not the new board. The old board is never happy, is always claiming board doesn't communicate. The new boards are working very hard, it took years the unravel the subterfuge, get the debt paid, build a true reserve, run a balanced budget, etc. the disgruntled ones find things everyday to complain about and to discredit the board.

It's wearing on those tht volunteer.

I don't believe coopertive living means everyone gets their way. And, sometimes the minority have to accept what their fellow nieghborhoods vote in.

This is a very small co-op. A Board comprised of nearly half the residents may easily have well above the amount of combined shares(presuming they vote as a block) which would keep the non-board shareholders in a permanent minority.
The writer states this "older group" never runs for the board. I find that surprising. The legal counsel given to the Board is unfortunate in that it treats a very small co-op the same as a large one, where it makes much more sense to have the board deal with these matters, but each unit not having as enormous an effect on another. The financials of new applicants were never open to non-board members in our co-op. but we did meet them before the vote to admit, after the Board brought it to that point of approval. But the final vote was one in which we actually had a face-to-face and the board had presented them to the rest of the co-op. That never seemed so onerous a task for anyone and we met our prospective neighbors before it was a fait accompli.
Does the Board have regular meetings where all Shareholders can air concerns? Is there an open policy of communication? Is there a common area where people see each other and can informally speak?
Without that things can get pretty ugly quickly, with bad feeling lasting a long time. It is essential that a board, especially one with this power, be one which is very forthright and proactive regarding communication and doing all it can to promote community in so small a building. If not, it is truly a recipe for disaster, as another wrote.

I think there may be a problem on how the changes of the PL may have been handled. In a small building as yours, if it is a CO-OP building, the best way to address the changes in the PL would be to verbally explain the changes at a meeting of the shareholders to make sure everyone understood them and bring it up for discussion then a vote. This way the older group would fully understand what the changes are and then you could have discuss the meet and greet idea at that time.

The older group is probably looking at your small building as a CO-OP and not a Condo. If your building is a CO-OP I can see why the members would want to have a say or have an input on who shares the space on the same floor or above or below them. In a Condo that is not the case. If it is a large CO-OP it would be very hard to have that type of input. As far as financials from a potential buyer that is always for the Board and management eyes only.

We have protocols. People must contact Board/management with renovation plans. Depending on the scope board might require shareholder to pay for the building's architect to review plans and to do an onsite visit (make sure work follows submitted plans). All fees involved are charged to shareholder.
For smaller projects or "maintenance" projects just letting the board/management know is sufficient. Our super might be used in that case to do site inspection.
If built ins have to be removed for building project I believe the shareholder is responsible. But, I would check with PL or building's lawyer.

Thanks, Frank, this is helpful esp noting if the work was submitted to the building architect or engineer. If the original work was approved with regard to allowing the built-ins, and not shown to an engineer or architect, then the shareholder might not be responsible for work if the building allowed the placement in this location. We also have a shareholder who wallpapered their unit and the paper is no longer available and his chase must be opened. If we have to hire some kind of professional to do this specific work, would the building or shareholder have to pay for this kind of specific person to handle working with wallpaper? so much to consider and this has never been dealt with before. Thoughts?

Who? Also the Super demands a fee.
But the coop demands he install it OR an insured third party.

You'd be crazy to rely on any answers you receive on here for a question that carries such a high risk of potential liability. The legal advice you receive here is worth what you pay for it.

Good point. But some people here may alrready hae done that and may
know the answer.

Thanks

Unfortunately your situation is not terribly uncommon. Unfortunately, from experience I can tell you that there is no place to bring your complaints except if it involves the sponsor owned units. In that case the Attorney General is the agency to contact. On board related issues, I haven't found anywhere to go except Supreme Court in your county and that can become expensive. Please,please, please, contact your state senator and assembly person and beg them to support the ombudsman bill. This is the only possible way we the shareholder, will have an opportunity to be heard when a board is not acting in the best interest of the shareholders. Believe me, we have worse problems than you and there is just no agency who will help.

Problem is the law on what is a sponsor held unit has flipped back and forth, like the and, or par 14 clause in the proprietary lease. To top it off the AG site had the old 1988 memo stating that the sponsor must be certified and bonded, That holder of unsold shares cannot be a private individual , unless they put up a bond for about 5 years of maintenance.
That has been flipped flopped quite a few times since 1988.
I also noticed that the AG site mentions nothing about having a affidavit about not being in the business of selling names for the last 5 years, as many co-op attorneys will say is required. I am sure if i went with a print out of the AG site , to court , the judge is not going to side with the co-op.
lawyer.
They co-op attorneys are just trying to stop the proper legal process.
I will contact my state rep about the ombudsmen, but it needs a lot of media coverage, so the real estate market realizes it is in their best interest to fix the problem. Every co-op buyer should be informed that they should inspect the board and the board operations , the buyers should be interviewing the BOD about their knowledge of finances, ask to see the bids for the last 5 years of major projects. NO 3 bids, every BOD knows little if nothing of the finances, ADIOS.
The 1998 recommendation by the DA office i will post on my site, and get out there in the wild, so buyers are informed. No reason to let other buyers get robbed. A friend who has been reporting i the courts on real estate know how i can start this in the supreme court, pro se.
I am going to push ny legislatures to have the AG post a flow sheet of how to bring a case to court pro se on their site.
Or i will have someone write it up and circulate it. Anyone can bring the board and MC to court, anyone can subpena the documents that the board refuses to provide. I am sure the judge will not hesitate to have the records turned over , when BCL dictates.

You need not spoon feed. Just set the plates of information at the shareholders table and let those who are hungry pony up to the bar. If there's nothing to hide why try? Excuse for privileged vs. underprivileged? Information is power, share it!

Absolute "transparency" whether some might think that word is tossed around or not. Every shareholder is the Corporation, they are the one to vote for representation, if those feel they are too important to represent or be "transparent" then possibly they should think of themselves as a shareholder first and not with a full head of control.

Two things happen- board gets a small group that needs the report explained to them, in fact, they need each word defined and explained. Then, they discuss the many reasons to stagger the work or not do the work at all. Thus group drove the building into great debt and always postponed work. To summit up, they don't trust the board - probably because they don't trust themselves.
Micro managing the board to this degree is nit helpful. Especially, when the majority of the building can read and express ideas but also acknowledge the board is being responsible ad transparent.

I have to agree with Luna that every shareholder is the Corporation. The board should communicate whatever is relevant to the shareholder in terms of how this will or will not make an assessment necessary, if that is what the concern is. The board is there to represent the interests of all the shareholders, not just the ones they don't find annoying. This is a bad case of the board vs everyone else, not a happy community.

Let the actual company do the "engineering" and examinagion of your facade. all the arthictect and engineering fees are unesesaty and they also go on year after year and add tens of thousands to your project.
Also you should get several companies to examine your facade - as part of the proposals.
The entire facade thing is a real scam in NY. You have to take off your blinders and be open to understand you may be getting ripped off no matter what your managing agent says.

Why is giving info to the rest of the shareholders "spoon-feeding"? Is it that difficult to communicate the relevant info? That is part of the job of the board - to do the work of the shareholders on everyone's behalf and the clarity of that should not be burdensome. If so, maybe it is time for someone else to do that job. Information that affects every shareholder should be disseminated so at least an informed choice may be made. If someone chooses not to use it that is their option. But the board is already "spoon-feeding" and, frankly, being derelict in its duty by not being forthcoming with info that has a great impact- an assessment - on all shareholders.