Let me try to clarify: It happens that several Board members currently have heating deficiencies in their apartments. The one Board member who does not--he had too much heat and the prior board, of which his wife was a member, bought him a danfoss valve to reduce the heat in his unit, and two of the other Board members at that time bought themselves new radiators to replcae original baseboard. By the way, their lack of legal heat was never verified.

Now the Valve guy who is on the current Board wants the Board members still without legal temps when the weather goes below freezing, is hemming and hawing about it not being ethical for the needy to vote for their own upgrade to their heating units. He wants them to rescuse themselves from the vote, get multiiple bids, be verified by a third pary as to temperature (who is a non-partial 3rd party anyway?) all the thinks the prior Board, of which his wife was a member, did not do. It appears very hypocritcal especially coming from someone who possibly benefitted in a way that he shouldn't have in the first place.

Just trying to see if any of his points are valid or usual practice.

Thanks.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

Are you on the Board?

There are mechanical engineers who can look at this system for you and document deficienceis and problem areas.
This will not only assist in making neccessary adjustments to the system, but in showing that most of your concerns are valid and that some of these individual changes in the system may have effected the system as a whole, in a negative way.

~AR

> Join the conversation