This is really a board to board decision. Some Boards require that two signatures from the Board be present on the invoices and then the checks after approval, some boards give the manager the latitude to approve and sign for checks. Sometimes this can be for monthly fixed expenses (mortgage, utilities, management fee, etc.) or it can be anything under $1,000 (for example).

If the rest of the Board doesn't agree with you, I think that you should be requesting an up to date monthly copy of the paid bills on an ongoing monthly basis. If they don't allow you, as a Board member, to view the paid bills and expenses, then I think that you have a problem.

As a board treasure, I agree with what Mark described. I want to add that as a minimum you should be receiving a monthly report from your managing agent showing all account (operating, capital reserve, sinking funds, etc) monthly opening and closing balances, a breakdown by budget category and item of income and expenses, a reconciliation of your operating checking account, shareholder maintenance payment, and shareholder arrears broken down by who is delinquent and how many months they are late. In addition, you should receive copies (either from your managing agent or directly from the financial institutions) of *every* account owned by the Co-op, especially the ones I listed above. Something else which is very helpful is a photocopy of every invoice received and paid by your managing agent along with a copy of the check voucher used to pay the invoice.

Now for the fun part. Read each of these documents *carefully*, month after month. Your treasurer should be doing this. If he isn't, get a new treasurer. The only way to prevent fraud and embezzlement and other nasty surprises is to review the paper trail. If you (or your treasurer) is *not* getting all of this paperwork on a monthly basis, raise the red flags. Either get documents (as far back as possible) or get a new managing agent.

An example: Our former super had his parking paid for by the Co-op because he used his vehicle for Co-op business. When he retired, the automatic monthly payments were supposed to end because the new super did not own a car. It was only by reviewing the monthly report line by line that I was able to determine that the payments continued for four months after retirement (in spite of my notifying the managing agent all four months that the payments needed to end) because no-one told the managing agent's accounts payable department not to honor the invoices they were receiving. It took a face-to-face with the managing agent's CFO to get this accomplished, but it saved us $1500. I believe it was an honest mistake because they had personnel changeover during this period, but it is still shareholder money saved.

I know this is a bit old,but whatever method they state is the procedure, I would ask for the written documentation of the procedure and also how this procedure was implemented . I have a managing agent and BOD prez that everything that comes out of their mouth is a falsehood. Since the board never performs due diligence and actually reads the proprietary lease paragraph in question , the problems just continue to grow.

Unfortunately, this is a common problem. The coop that I live in has the same issues of dishonesty among some of the BOD's and the Managing Agent.

Can anyone recommend a good Managing Agent?

Yes, virtually all By-Laws allow the board to replace a director without an election. The language in our own By-Laws reads as follows: "Vacancies in the Board of Directors resulting from death, resignation or otherwise may be filled without notice to any of the shareholders by a vote of a majority of the remaining directors."

A board member resigned. Must the board fill the vacancy

No, they do not. They have the option to fill the vacancy, but they don't have to do it. They can wait until the next Annual Meeting and then fill the vacancy.

I'm very surprised Habitat Magazine has not (as far as I can tell) published anything about the recent expiration of the abatement. For up-to-date info from a Co-op board perspective, monitor the Council of NY Cooperatives and Condominiums (CNYC) homepage at http://www.cnyc.com. They have some recent news you will find interesting.

Nothing the co-op can do after all these years. Focus on larger problems.

i have been telling people for about 4 years that the value is going to be way down in a down market with all these non owner occupied apartments, olus i have tried to explain to them that the whole crew from the managing company to the board members ,are the ones causing the problem. Theere was one new guy that got on, i had high hope for him, thought he had a spine,but he woouldnt even perform his due diligence and look at the wording of par 14, took the MA word, after i had pointed out and argued with the MA about what it said and had posted a copy of the proprietary lease on line, plus all the rules that the pres and some other board members were self dealing with their family members.
As far as bigger problems there are no bigger problems, since all the problems stem from having such a loew owner occupancy ratio, I guarantee that if you sell and dont disclose, or lie, lie the board or whoever signs off with the bank, because they want to know, and the price differece between 90% and 50% is substantial, at the least the buyers if they have any spine will have you in court for fraud and not disclosing a condition that affects the value of the real estate, same as not disclosing mold, murder in the home, etc.
It is also criminal and mortgage fraud. Which i am pursuing. Along with all the self dealing.
I will do my best to get the 50 years in back sublease fee's, All their storied fall apart when some of the original buyers have the paperwork from when they were on the board that disproves many of the lie's/fraud that they put out. Just in case they tried to change the paperwork. Those treasury reports sure come in handy. I informed the new board members that their board and officers insurance does not cover fraud, fiduciary irresponsible acts, self dealing, no due diligence, everthing they have done since being on the board, even told them that they will not be free from being sued when they move Plus i told one how to protect himself when he was worried about a disability lawsuit due to a insane self dealing act . However he didnt do what i told hi to do , as far as showing he voted against this self deal,the reason why, self dealing, and to record the meeting and get a copy of the minutes,withing the minimum time, and make sure what he said and voted no on was in there. Otherwise he would be screwed if it came to a suit. There are so few owners occupiers left, however my copy of my letter that was in the ny times posted every place they posted their proprietary lease violating proxy procedure was, something that has been peeing me off for the last 5 years when they started the improper wording. Stating that the shareholders should give their proxy to a board member, and this year stating that they are to be given to the super. prop lease states give them to any shareholder that is going to the meeting , or mail it in. That is how they manipulate everything,but i have pictures of all incorrect ones and most likely the letter itself.

see above

Your managing agent needs to go, the board needs to go and the building sounds like you having an aging populations who all they do is kvetch but don't do anything to help out all year. Time door knock all your pathetic neighors/shareholders and tell them the value of their units is going down down down due to their lack of participations.

IS IT TRUE?

As I was reading your message, I noticed that Habitat had an article on this very topic. I captured the URL here: http://www.habitatmag.com/PDFs/Window-Air-Conditioner-Installation-Tips

I am not a lawyer, but I think the ultimate responsibility belongs to your board because managing agents, supers, etc are all agents or employees of the board. There are fines if the DOB does an inspection and finds improperly installed window A/C units, and there is a lot worse if a unit falls out.

We had the same situation in our building. What we did was contract with an A/C installation company to install brackets under every unit that needed them. We then sent around an email to all shareholders informing them of the requirement and their responsibility for proper window A/C support. If they needed brackets they simply had to reply to the email with the number of window units. A few days were set aside for the super to escort the company to every apartment that needed brackets and to supervise the work. The cost was $165 per A/C for the bracket and labor. We charged this back to the shareholders on their maintenance bill. We are fortunate in that our shareholders are very cooperative in situations such as this. They understood the need for the brackets and accepted the charges.

Board members already contribute their time. Here, they're also contributing supplies & their own labor so as not to impose on shareholders. We usually hear the OPPOSITE complaint [shareholders pay but Board members are exempt].

Board members may be erring on the cautious side because they'll get the most direct & frequent benefit from the improvements. How refreshing.

You're entitled to disagree--most votes don't need to be unanimous. However, you were asked to contribute...not forced. You may decline & still enjoy using the redecorated meeting room.

A board can certainly donate time, material, and even cash to the Co-op. There is nothing ethical or unethical about it. The concern I have is that from Anne-Marie's description, it sounds like some of the board members took it upon themselves to lay out the money to purchase the renovation supplied, and then requested donation after-the-fact. I find this particular approach very unfair to the rest of the board. If some of the board members felt their meeting room should be renovated, they should have brought it up with the rest of the board *before* starting. That way, every board member would have a say about the budget, style and decor, time frame, etc. The way it was described by Anne-Marie makes it sound as if some members of the board purposely choose to exclude other members from the decision-making process while asking them to help foot the bill. I would be as upset as Anne-Marie if that happened to me.

Yes, setting fees for amenities is certainly within the board's authority. They aren't required to abide by a petition signed by shareholders. It would have been nicer if they'd explained the reason for the increase -- something along the lines of, "We felt our garage fee was too low based on comparable figures in the area, and with all our expenses going up, we believed that raising this fee was preferable to a general increase in maintenance." However, no such explanation is required and the shareholders have no recourse other than kicking out the whole board and electing one that will repeal the increased garage fee. But of course that may well annoy a lot of OTHER shareholders ...

As for the garage increase, it was noted that people who own their own houses are renting out their driveways for more that we pay in our co-op garage. Cooperators stated this was like comparing apples and oranges. Also, the financial report at the general meeting showed our finances were in good orders especially since we had just increased our maintenance the month prior to the garage increase. What would have been more acceptable was if a reconsideration of the previous board's actions would have been taken. The fact is we elected 3 new members to the board at the general meeting and they were not given a chance to reconsider this decision.. The president refusing to allow it to come to the new board has sewn a lot of ill will on t he part of those who thought their views would at least be brought up again.

Curious, how long has it been since your co-op raised the garage rent? How much are you paying now?