You indicate that they snow plow vendor refused service due to lack of payment, which is being worked on, so the superintendent is telling the truth - just a truth you do not want passed onto the shareholders. And no, this is not insubordination. Unless you told the superintendent the reasons as to why there is no snow plow vendor (non-payment) and asked him to keep the information confidential. Then it is considered insubordination - going against a directive. I think what you have here is a superintendent that talks to shareholders and who may have complained to him about lack of snow removal and who knows the reasons and shared the info, I would do 2 things:
1. Issue a letter to the shareholders or post a notice and explain to them the reasons as to why the snow plow vendor has refused service to your building and as you indicate, due to lack of payment and that you are working on it. Explain "why" you are unable to pay them (is there an underlying cause here?).
2. I would talk to the superintendent and let him know that when there are inquiries as to why a service is not being done, to refer shareholders to the board; let him know it's not his place to tell or share his opinion to shareholders financial problems or financial issues with a vendor. Document your discussion for his file.

> Join the conversation Comments (3)

I agree with Ned's comments, specifically #1 &2.

I notice that you are in Yonkers, NY, are the staff members of 32BJ? if so, there are specific guidelines to follow when the board or your management company need to reprimand.

Whether or not they are members of the union, due to a very similar experience, I recommend that the staff and all board members sign a confindentially agreement. It should be prepared by your attorney. Their signing the agreement provide the board and shareholders greater leverage, if needed, to reprimand.

We are located in Yonkers as well and will be pleased to discuss this matter with the board.

Good luck

> Join the conversation

I also agree with Ned. Very good advice.

What I would add is that you tell the super to refer complaints to the board instead of relying on the super to know what information he can and cannot give ou. He can simply say he doesn't know the reason and the shareholder should ask a board member. This gets your super out of the loop altogether.

> Join the conversation

I disagree. Unless the Superintendent attends Board meetings or is party to Board correspondence, they lack full knowledge of the situation. Their comment shows a lack of respect to the Board or to the Manager. If the Super needed to have said anything, it should have been to ask the Manager or Board member.

The Superintendent is an employee of the corporation and has to walk a fine line between Board, Manager and Owners. They failed in this regard. Does this deserve a reprimand? Probably not unless it is repetitive.

I agree however with the need to communicate. Don’t make your life more difficult (and put the Super in a bad spot) by relying on unofficial communication.

> Join the conversation Comments (1)

I agree with you Steve; supers walk a fine line and unless this has been clearly spelled out to them; written in their job description or employment contract, they may not realize this (or choose to ignore it). That's why I recommended point 2. Document it and put it in his file. That way you have written documentation that he aware of his responsibility to not comment on items pertaining to the operations that he may not have all the details to and to bring these to the attention of the Board or Manager.

> Join the conversation