Hi Ellennora,

I am sorry to hear about your troubles. I am a Board President myself. I cannot imagine my co-op being in such dire straits as to not afford postage (a little sarcasm here :)!

My co-op produces an electronic version which we make available: on our website; and via e-mail. Why don’t you offer a compromise? Ask them to e-mail it to you. If that doesn’t work, reply to this post.

Good luck!

my co-op put up a email site SEND THEM AN EMAIL AND YOU NEVER HEAR FROM THEM ITS A GULAG and an info site .. ONLY IF YOU GO THERE IT WARNS YOU IN RED TO STAY AWAY AS THE SITE IS COMPROMIZED. TWO TIMES I WENT THERE AND MY COMPUTOR CRASHED. I HAD TO HAVE MY SON COME AND RENEW MY COMPUTOR. I TOLD THE BOARD ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND THEY INSIST I KEEP TRYING. MY DAUGHTER GOT THRU AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE SITE. TWO OTHER SHAREHOLDERS TOLD ME THEY HAD HE SAME PROBLEMS. AS THIS BOARD REFUSES TO LET US HAVE THE MINUETS OR TO ATTEND ANY MEETINGS THEY FOLLOW THER OWN SECREAT GUIDLINES. SEVERAL SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOW TRYING TO RUN FOR THE BOARD TO HELP OPEN IT UP. I OFFERED ALL THE HELP I CAN TO THE CONCERNED SHREHOLDERS. ALSO IF YOU GET THE MINUETS OR THE TREASUERS REPORT. IT HAS NO SIGNATURE OR THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CORPORATION. I TOLD THE BOARD AT A REBELLS MEETING TO CORRECT THIS . THEY TOLD ME TO BE QUITE. NO TALKING ALLOWED. I REALLY DONT WANT TO SELL BUT I CANT TAKE THE HARASSMENT. THEY TURNED DOWN MY RENTERS BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM AND THEN RETAILATED WHEN I TOOK IN ROOMATES. I FILED WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD REFUSES TO ANSWER ANY OF THE CHARGES. HOPING I WILL GO AWAY. I THINK CO-OPS HAVE A BAD NAME NOW AS I HAVE READ ABOUT SO MANY OTHER CO-OP SHAREHOLDERS SUFFERING FROM A PLAGUE OF XENOPHOBIC MAJESTERIAL BOARD MEMBERS. MY APT IS NOW FOR SALE . I HOPE THEY OK MY BUYER IF I GET ONE. THANK YOU ALL FOR THE INFORMATION.

As Steve said, good luck!

Unfortunate that there is more than one bad apple in the Big Apple. There are reasons that Condos have become more predominant as some Co-op Boards have become bad landlords with poor regulation. Some in the State Legislature are taking recognition of this.

Another issue with failed regulation of co-operative and un-co-operative housing. Consider implications of ADA if Steve's good suggestions don't produce results.

I am not sure if any building has received the information for 2012/2013 yet. Our accountant is awaiting data for a number of buildings he handles. The way the legislation reads is that all owners will get the full tax rebate now and the city will send a bill for 50% of the tax rebate later this year to take back the money from non primary owners. The building will have to pay this as part of its tax bill and collect the money owed. The 2013/2014 statement will have the correct amount (25% of the old rate). There is a two page information piece in the NYC Finance web site that has an overview of the new regulations.

Unfortunately, I think it is going to be more complicated than that, especially with the phase-out for non-primary residents. The DOF is going to need co-op board cooperation to determine which apartments are not used as primary residences, and they will have to provide very clear guidelines for making that determination.

In any case, it's going to cause a lot of pain for boards and managing agents to determine which apartments are not primary residences, and to figure out how to structure any assessment so it is fair to both primary and non-primary residents.

If shareholders have multiple residences it will be up to them and the DOF to determine which is primary. Our board and management has no idea who claims an out of state or out of city residence as their primary. The DOF will probably base it on their tax returns which the building does not see.

Also, the DOF determines what each shareholder gets as far as the rebate. The coop can't take the entire rebate for the building and divvy it up the way it wants. The DOF sends the coop a list of each shareholder and how much they get back.

my MANHATTEN co-op forces me to pay them the star rebate i would have recieved if i lived in the building. as i rented out my co-op apt. and did not live there. I was told to pay $1780 to $1800 dollars to the co-op THSI HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 4 OR MORE YEARS. which i did. now i am trying to sell my apt what will happen to the so called star rebate. will i be attacked by a ClAW BACK AFTER I SELL THIS YEAR. ?? WHAT TO DO AT THE CLOSING IF I SELL?

Ellennora - Take a look at this webpage. It explains STAR eligibility: http://www.tax.ny.gov/pit/property/star/eligibility.htm.

To be absolutely certain of what will happen at the closing, check with the attorney who is handling the closing for you.

"Corporate board members have a fiduciary responsibility to care for the finances and legal requirements of the corporation. They must act in good faith and with a reasonable degree of care, and they must not have any conflicts of interest. That is, the interests of the company must take precedence over personal interests of individual board members."

I have a situation where the President who self managed the building without any other officer in other words there was no other member on the board but herself, There is only 5 shareholders , She self managed the bldg for 4 years straight with no minutes in this 4 years but my main concern for writing is because we viewed the bank statements and she has withdrawn over 25k via atm machine and she was still voted in as a Treasurer and with UHAB urban housing assistance borough help,2 of the shareholders including myself demand that she step down and inform of us of where the funds of our building went, She never responded and continues to collect rent and have authority of our bank account once again what can we do its only 2 of us that care the other 2 no disrespect but is not that educated and really does not care these elderly ladies are all friends and have no concept of what an hdfc coop is , Please help us 2 that do care what can we do to remove her? To have her explain these withdrawals ?

Unfortunately, it sounds like there is very little you can do directly. But from what you describe, it sounds like the "gang of 5" are taking actions which are borderline if not outright illegal. I am not a lawyer, but I suggest you and the other disenfranchised board members contact an attorney who is familiar with Co-op laws and regulations (definitely *not* the board's attorney!). There may be actions you can take through the Attorney General's office to get things changed.

It doesn't sound like you're helpless, but first:

1--Are you 1 of the new board members? [It's implied, but not stated.]

2--You say that any homeowner can see financial records; does that actually happen, or is it just supposed to...per your by-laws? And, how are "financial records" defined therein?

3--It's clear the forensic work you desire has been blocked, but have any board members been denied individual access to building information & records?

I'm one of the newcomer board members. Bylaws allows homeowners to view financial records once a month; "financial records" isn't defined. I spoke yesterday with the managing agent, who told me that the Treasurer, who led the coup, told him not to let one of the other newcomers see the financial records. (She told him the board, meaning the Gang of 5, had to decide and get back to him; she never did after weeks, of course.)

He said if the boardmember were to email him a request asking as a homeowner, that then he'd have to let the requester see the records. So he's trying to do the right thing, I believe. We'll see. But still -- the Treasurer forbidding another board member from seeing the records just to protect herself and the other incumbents from the homeowners finding out about their mismanagement (or worse)? It's horrible.

I appreciate you and the others here offering advice and suggestions. It's nice of you to take the time.

Try contacting ACCO; they're doing work on board member access to information.

advo@condocoopowners.org

Thanks, I will.

I had a similar issue in my building the first thing you need to do is get a support group and get the shareholders to take an interest in this shady behavior. unfortunately it cost us 2 years and $60,000 in legal fees to finally get 70 percent of the financials. We now have the majority on the board and we still had to subpoena information from past directors.

If you dont want to spend that kind of money your best bet is to get shareholders to notice the issues and vote them out come election time.

good luck too you.

I had a similar issue in my building the first thing you need to do is get a support group and get the shareholders to take an interest in this shady behavior. unfortunately it cost us 2 years and $60,000 in legal fees to finally get 70 percent of the financials. We now have the majority on the board and we still had to subpoena information from past directors.

If you dont want to spend that kind of money your best bet is to get shareholders to notice the issues and vote them out come election time.

Not that I've ever heard. Just make sure the Seller, whether you or broker, adhere to all the rules about showing, etc.

What do your bylaws or house rules say? That is what you have to go by.

there's nothing in the pl, bylaws, or house rules other than the "transfer of sale" rules. should we put something in the house rules? in the past board was always kept informed. there are still some bitter shareholders who got voted out and they continue to make life difficult for new board.

It sounds like there are two issues here: (1) rules for showing apartments, and (2) dealing with disgruntled ex-board members.

The board should come up with a set of guidelines for showing apartments on the market. They should include things like allowable viewing hours and days, require the seller or broker provide front door security (if a doorperson isn't on duty), limit the number of people allowed to see the apartment at the same time, etc. Procedural, safety, and security common sense items.

Dealing with disgruntled ex-board members is a different. The new board cannot be vindictive or approve any rules or regulations which have the appearance of being aimed only at the disgruntled shareholders. If the current board has the support of the majority of shareholders, they should not be overly concerned.

Yes there are two separate issues. This can be remedied by the board not being vindictive or secretive. Especially in the case of a very small co-op which has no arrangement or accommodation for ease of communication, no common space where everyone comes together except the one annual meeting. The board holds more than enough shares as currently comprised and still feels threatened by these "bitter" ex-members? Really? The board is there for all shareholders, and this attitude is poisonous indeed. One reaps what one sows.

It doesn't seem too friendly to *upscale* coops/condos. I'm sure all the buildings whose assessed value per apartment is less than $30k are very appreciative. I would imagine that the decision-making process involved in determining a cutoff level centered on how much of an effect would the lack of an abatement like J51 have on future capital improvements. Probably a disproportionately larger effect on buildings whose AV/P is below $30k than those above.

Before determining ethical, find out if it is legal. You said that it was apparently legal. What do your bylaws say about filling vacant seats. Some require an appointment, with majority of existing board agreeing, others a special election. In other words, how is this handled according to the laws you live under. If there is an appointment, there should be an interview with interested parties and then a decision after discussion. Were you specifically informed at the meeting that what was happening was in compliance with your bylaws? If it is legal, then, unfortunately there would be nothing unethical since the board would be in full compliance.

I would be happy to answer this. There was a board meeting in the morning which is when the Managing Agent told us of a board member resignation. That left six members out of seven. One of the members was absent from the meeting, thereby giving us a quorum of five. The decision was made to appoint the next person who ran for a position at the last election. The last election called for four opened spots. Five people ran, four got on. So at this last board meeting the decision was to bring on the fifth person who ran to fill the vacant spot and showed interest. That is legal. The majority of the board can appoint for a vacant spot. Which was done and was in compliance.

Again, my only concern is what do the bylaws say about filling a vacant seat. If you were in compliance, then, of course, it is legal and ethical. However, if your bylaws give a different description of the process of filling a vacant seat then you are not. Were the actions in compliance with the bylaws?

Here is a copy of the By-Laws which were followed: The President did not like the outcome, thereby now saying it was not legal and is trying to circumvent the By-Laws: Reading this what is one's opinion? Thank you.

Section 4.4 p.268 "Vacancies in the Board of Directors resulting from death, resignation or otherwise may be filled without notice to Tenant-Shareholders by a vote of a majority of the remaining directors present at the meeting at which such election is held even though no quorum is present."

Section 4.6 p. 268 "The vote of a majority of the Board of Directors present at the time of a vote or a duly constituted meeting shall be the act of the Board of Directors."

On a board of seven, the quorum is 4. Not three. Regardless of resignations or absenteeism. Correct me if I'm wrong!

There was a quorum of 5 to answer your question. You are correct a quorum is always half plus 1.

Yes, the board/management company should be sending something to your sister, unless they are simply sending to one person, you, who would be acting as the principal, since you own together, so it seems that if one portion of the party receives information, the board is doing the right thing.

I don't understand the issue with the phone call...can you clarify?

Before we started using email and downloadable PDF files, it was our policy to send a single paper copy via the Postal Service to each apartment in our building. We did not send individual copies to each shareholder. I think most buildings that still use the postal service do the same. So your sister's not receiving anything is not unusual or is it any indication that the MA or board are doing anything sinister in this regard, as long as you are receiving copies.

Regarding receiving a copy of any video surveillance recording that was made, your attorney should be handling this. There are privacy concerns that the board needs to comply with, so any transfer will most likely be made under a procedure your attorney and the board will have to agree on.