DECISION-MAKING WITHOUT TEARS

Here are four examples of when good decisions go bad … and a few interspersed instances of when everything works, the stars align, and nobody goes supernova on you.

No Smoking: A Staggered Ban

In an era when smoking in public is tobacco non grata, one would think enacting smoking bans would be easy. After all, city law already forbids smoking in bars, restaurants and such common areas as building hallways. But banning smoking in a person's apartment smacks of Orwell and all the worst excesses of 1984 (the book, not the year).

Nonetheless, a progressive board — or even one just listening to shareholder complaints about secondhand smoke seeping from one apartment to another — should consider solutions. Several Manhattan buildings have tried to become no-smoking. One succeeded. How?

The first and most notorious attempt was in 2002 by 180 West End Avenue, part of the Lincoln Towers co-op complex, represented by attorney Stuart Saft. "A great many people were complaining about secondhand smoke, and someone died as a result of a fire started by a person [who fell asleep] smoking on a couch," he recalls.

The board wanted to take action, but the attorney felt it would be impossible to prohibit smoking entirely at once without igniting lawsuits by smoking residents. Instead, he came up with the simple idea that new owners, in their closing documents, would agree not to permit smoking in their units.

Unfortunately, the board never consulted shareholders and simply added the requirement as a house rule. That option in general is easy to implement since it doesn't require a super-majority vote by the shareholders, but it's also harder to enforce than a proprietary-lease provision.

The board voted on it on Thursday night, and by Tuesday, someone had leaked the information to the press. The New York Times ran a big story, and after that, "We were besieged by reporters from all over the world," recalls Saft. "It seemed like everyone everywhere wanted to know about this building that had banned smoking – when, in fact, we had not banned smoking" among current residents, only future ones.

Following the contretemps, the board held the policy in abeyance. It then polled the shareholders, who were divided, but before that data could be utilized, the annual election brought a new regime to power. The newcomers dropped the issue.

Another Failure and a Success

Another attempt by a mid-size Manhattan building was equally unsuccessful, but for different reasons: Its board overreached, attempting to ban smoking immediately and completely.

But a third attempt, by a 20-unit property on Manhattan's West Side, proved successful. According to its attorney, Arthur Weinstein, this board took a more measured approach, following the Lincoln Towers model in format but not execution: The board let everyone in on the policy long before there was a vote. "Existing smokers were not affected, but new buyers could not be smokers," explains Weinstein, describing the same gradual approach as 180 West End Avenue. Doing it this way, the policy was approved by 80 percent of the shareholders.

The lessons: Don't try to change the world at once. Sometimes change must be gradual. Also remember that to succeed, a controversial idea needs popular support — you need to "sell" the proposal to the shareholders beforehand. Although there was no official meeting to push it at Building No. 3, the idea was discussed with almost everyone. Questions were answered, fears allayed.

English Only, Please

In 2005, Seward Park, the massive 1,728-unit, four-building co-op on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, reacted to complaints from shareholders about maintenance-staff members speaking Spanish in front of them. The co-op imposed requirements that the staff speak only English in the presence of the residents and that all radio communications among the 43 staffers be in English.

"It is crucial that people be able to understand other people during emergencies," says Fred Rudd of Rudd Realty, the manager for the co-op. "Things happen all the time where communication [in a common language] is essential."

Rudd Realty cited the new policy in a letter to an employee who broke one of the two rules: "You were instructed that all dialogue in public spaces was to be held in English. […] After lengthy discussion, management recommended you enroll yourself in English-as-a-second language classes as a condition of your employment."

When it became public knowledge, the policy created a controversy. "We're being harassed," an employee told The New York Post, claiming he had been threatened with firing after being caught speaking Spanish with a coworker in a hallway. A former porter filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Next page >>