It is not clear which woman you are referring to, but neither one referenced in the article ever held the position of board president.

A request to all: Please double check the accuracy of your information before posting.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

The building has millions of dollars of construction defects. The ppl in the article sit on the coop board. Who care what there real role is the man point is the developer has constructed a building which has leaks, defects and also has left other buildings in NYC with the same crappy problems. People can't afford to be living in some building where there maintenance goes up large amount to fix repairs caused by crappy construction. Coops should not have to taken out loans to make repairs due to bad construction by developers like Donald Capoccia. At least these women are speaking up and the corruption continues at HPD.

> Join the conversation Comments (2)

This subject came up in conversation the other day and I discovered I have a colleague who knows someone who was on the board of this building. Apparently, the Daily News article tells only part of the story.
The three people being sued were on the board. The woman interviewed in the article is also on the local community board 11, of East Harlem. The building board was in the process of writing to city agencies, seeking help for construction defects. The woman who's also on community board presented a letter which she claimed CB11 wrote on her behalf. The building board reviewed this letter, but voted to reject it as being too hostile.
The three people in question then took this letter around the building for signatures, and sent it out anyway, without knowledge or approval of the full board.
This action raises many questions; when board members showed up at people's doors with a letter on corporation letterhead, it would stand to reason that residents would assume it was a board effort. Unbeknownst to them, this defiant act placed the corporation under possible serious liability.
When the rest of the board learned of this, they took legal action by serving the three with a letter of censure. In my opinion this was the wisest move they could make to protect the corporation.
The article was clearly intended to gain public sympathy, but there is a serious lesson to be learned here: board members should never assume to act on their own. Like it or not, we must abide by majority vote. As I mentioned in my previous post on this subject, once the board takes a stance, it must act together, and under legal counsel in certain instances. It was incredibly lucky that this was caught in time, as the corporation could have been sued. The censure leaves no protection for the reckless action that these three people took. They don't even qualify for the insurance normally afforded to board members, and the flimsy claim about civil rights violations is laughable.
Side note: I also learned that none of these defendants suffered from leaks due to construction.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

While what SFC stated is PARTIALLY true, it is not complete. The person on the Community Board is the one that thought of trying to get help from the Board and local political people and explained that to the Board. The Board was in favor in the beginning and then there was a meeting of many shareholders with a committee at the Community Board. At that meeting they were told to write a letter to HPD and others and the Board helped and wrote the letter for the shareholders. The then building board was very divided and chose not to go along with the Community Board letter and basically nix everything and go it themselves, so basically riding on the coat tails of the 3 members who thought of getting help. Where this article is wrong, is that all the shareholders knew the member of the Community Board and went along with that member, knowing that member had more connections then the 4 building members. It was not written on Letterhead as was mentioned and it was signed by Concerned Shareholders.
Whether you are a shareholder, board member or whatever, you have a right to file a complaint. The censure was a waste of money and time, anyone can file a complaint. The shareholders of the building backed the letter that Community Board wrote and clearly knew about it. Again, it was not on corporation letterhead. The people knew the division of the building board, no person assumed anything.
So again, the statement from SFC not completely factual. Many facets to this issue.

> Join the conversation Comments (2)

I did some checking and yes, the letter in question was written on the letterhead of the coop. This is a detail mentioned in the complaint that was filed, and considerably changes the dynamics of the action these people took.
Yes, anyone can register a complaint. Anyone can contact their elected officials. But we're talking about three members of a coop board acting against a majority vote.
Ismith, I find your logic somewhat flawed. This is a forum for board members to both seek and give advice pertaining to particular issues. The intent is to enable board members to act in the best interest of their corporation. Clearly, members who act arbitrarily, against majority vote, and without the knowledge of their peers, are not acting in the best interest of the corporation.
These three people put their corporation at great risk of liability. They misrepresented their shareholders when they, as members of the board, circulated this letter, on letterhead. They then misrepresented the corporation when they sent it to city agencies, without the knowledge of the other board members.
Kudos to them for recognizing the possible consequences, and taking the legal action that they did. In doing so, they protected the corporation. Now, the three rogues are on their own, to answer for their reckless action, without the insurance protection normally afforded to a board that acts as a board. The legal fees alone can be serious and Board Talk is hardly the forum to condone and/or encourage this type of behavior. Better that all on this forum learn a lesson by this. Thank you.

> Join the conversation

To SFC:

Once again not sure where you get your information. It was NOT on Letterhead, clearly you don't know what the Letterhead looks like. These 3 were members, but also are Shareholders, which is the way the letter was signed. Also, the letters sent to agencies were basically identical, from the Shareholders, the Community Board and the 4 Rogue board members who chose not to get help from the Community Board and sabotaged the issue. Just in case you are not familiar the 3 that you are speaking of had the contacts that were trying to help. The 4 did not, it was a control issue, a divided board. The 4 members grabbed on to the coat tails of the 3 that suggested getting help. The shareholders in the building were on the side of the 3, just in case you weren't aware of that. The majority vote is the way the shareholders feel, they are the majority of the building. They know who had the contacts and who was trying to get results. Propaganda and sabotage was what transpired with the 4 members. Where is the best interest? One of the 4 members tried to contact the people the Community Board member knew and never received a response. The Community Board member kept getting calls asking "Who is this person"? What does that say? So instead of letting it play out with the people who had contacts, they needed the control and caused this fiasco. You can say or believe what you choose.

> Join the conversation

Just want to comment FrankieD, he is absolutely correct. Who cares what role anyone played, the ISSUE is the Building was left with defects and many, many leaks that people of lower to moderate means had to and have to pay (via loans) to have fixed. Who does anyone think has to pay those loans back? People bought these apartments in good faith through a City Program and the developer received tax breaks, etc.
When you want to file a complaint, you go to the City. You are correct FrankieD.

> Join the conversation