Thanks for all the feedback. We have 2 co-presidents (it is a really small building with lots of problems so they are splitting it). The problem person is secretary. We are not really talking about cigarette smoke, though there are small smaller issues with that within the building. It is pot smoke. Just to re-cap, management sent a letter last year whereupon the behavior got better but it always reverts. A shareholder spoke to him directly about the smoke and was sent a note apologizing saying a new air filter was bought. While that has lessened the odor for now, it will come back. The bass noise is always audible in the lobby and halls and travels through the floors and walls into the shareholders units above. He is only on the Board to protect himself, and probably assumes we will be in this confused position about how to deal with it.

If the offending shareholder is a heavy pot smoker, why wasn't the illegality of this used as leverage to get him to be more compliant? Couldn't this be used now?

I generally agree with AdC and Steve with an exception - that if the board wants to do X and the president wants to do Y, the coop's lawyer has to do what the president wants.

The lawyer doesn't work for the board, the president, any one board member, any shareholders or management. He works for the coop - the apartment corporation. He is not duty bound to do what the president wants. His job is to work in the best interests of the coop as a whole. If he believes that what the president wants doesn't accomplish that, he isn't duty bound to comply, and he can't just do what he wants either.

Much of a lawyer's job is advisory. If a board disagrees on what to do in a particular case, he should advise them as to what's legal, proper and best for the coop. He shouldn't just do what anyone wants. If a board (including president) can't agree on something that will be in the coop's best interests, he shouldn't do anything until they can agree on this. Some lawyers may not follow this precept but this is what they should do.

For your info, as a board president, if I have a disagreement with the board, i.e., I think one way and the majority another, I ask the attorney to speak with the board (all members) and go over the situation. Everyone gets the education and the benefit of the doubt.

But it's not me and my lawyer. As you well stated, it is the co-op legal counsel. The day I want to pay for my personal advice, I will count my pennies and open my pocket.

AdC

Glad you agree, AdC. A coop attorney works for the coop. We had a Sh who wanted to sue two board members. He claimed they OK'd a new coop fee that he couldn't afford to pay and they knew he had financial problems because he told them so in private as "friends". Our attorney said he couldn't address issues for individual board members and they'd have to get their own attorneys to handle it. (The Sh eventually dropped the whole thing.)

A friend who's on a board in another coop had problems with three Shs who openly told lies about him to get themselves elected. He wanted to sue and asked his coop's attorney for help, but the attorney said no because he only works for the coop. (He got his own attorney and sued the three Shs for liable. A few Shs appeared in court for him to attest that they were told the lies, that were easily disproved, and the three Shs had to pay a hefty financial penalty.

A coop attorney works for the coop, plain and simple.

In my case as a board member I have written correspondence to the lawyer asking for explanation of board presidents "law expertise" & it has been over two months & no response from lawyer. I guess our coop lawyer does not know that he works for the entire board of directors and the shareholders as a whole.

Obviously, you did not read my paragraph from my original posting. This is the answer you are looking for. I have corrected some mistakes in quoting:

"Over the years, what I have objected from some ignorant (not to call them ILL-INTENDED board members) is their calls to the co-op counsel, insurance brokers or other professionals to consult [their] the particular board member's own point of view or TO raise issues that reflect their own point of view WITHOUT BEING DELEGATED BY THE BOARD TO DO SO. This is AS IMPRUDENT AS the PRESIDENT acting on his/her own. Unless a board member is empowered by the board to do the contacts and report back, individual actions send the signal of a weak, divided board or the wrong decision. Thus, to act as a board, all participate, all volunteer, all work in the measure of their talents and all live by the decisions of the majority; the minutes will reflect the desenting vote."

NOW, if you find that certain opinions of the president regarding legality are wrong, you challenge it in front of the other board members and request that the "legal opinion" be clarified with the co-op attorney. If you find the other board members to go with you, no big deal for the president to say, OKAY, let's consulted. WHO VOLUNTEERS to do the calling and report back to the board? Otherwise, to send an e-mail to the co-op counsel with the question with copy to all board members will do. If you have no e-mail, then the person who does have one will make copies of the co-op counsel's asnwer and distribute.

The case is closed!


AdC

I don't think that the lawyer only represents the President by law - according to New York State Law - It is the board, not an individual that makes policy - which makes sense because then why would you need 9 people and a vote - Our lawyer says he represents the board - however that is not true

Actually, this isn't correct.

The co-op's legal representative works for the entire Board. Generally, the Board will interact with the lawyer only through one person, in order to avoid confusion (and keep the bills low) -- but, for example, if the president and Board are at odds, and the president is in the minority, the legal agent must represent the majority's decision, not that of the president alone.