I work for a very large pension fund at a large NYC insurer. I am also a president of a Co-op Board. Our investing approach is dynamic. From a risk perspective, our Board prefers to have little or no risk to principal. I like the Vanguard long term treasury funds (VUSUX) when interest rates are falling and Vanguard Short Term Treasury Funds (VSGDX) and bank CD's when interest rates are likely to rise. Also, if you have over $100k invested in a fund, you can get their Admiral Shares which have a lower imbedded cost. Switching to the long term vanguard fund last year allowed us to earn $80k or so in interest/dividends/realized & unrealized gains last year on a base of about $600k - which was very good for the type of year that it was. Our earnings are much less this year however we were able to turn the unrealized gains from last year into realized gains this year.

Is he union or non-union? If union, I'd immediately file a grievance with 32BJ and seek restitution. "Not knowing a weed from a plant" is no excuse, and also hard to believe; the super could have asked someone. It sounds as if he used the opportunity to get back at the board for some reason.

If he's non-union, it depends on his record. If he's otherwise done his job properly, I'd work out some restitution, like foregoing his bonus this year, or deducting the $600 from it. If this is the latest in a pattern, that's a different story.

You should thank him...Did anyone should him what they wanted done? I always find it better if someone showed the man the work that needed to be done, they you could say he over did it.

With all due respect to the previous poster, how on God's green earth can you possibly say "You should thank" the super who destroyed the co-op's gardens?

This sounds like maybe the the super himself writing in. (And I use "writing" loosely: "Did anyone should him what they wanted"? "they you could say he over did it"?)

No one should have to show a supposed professional how to do a simple task well within the bounds of his job. If the super is too mentally challenged to understand "pull out weeds," then I'm sorry, but the building is at severe risk. Building emergencies come up, and they require someone with an IQ of above special-needs.

Met - you said "no one should have to show a supposed professional how to do a simple task well within the bounds of his job." Pulling weeds isn't necessarily part of a super's job. Whoever told him to pull weeds should've shown him what they are, and he should've spoken up if he doesn't know the difference between weeds and plants.

Many NYers aren't from homes with gardens and don't know what weeds look like. If the super didn't know, that doesn't mean that he's "mentally challenged". An owner on a bldg's gardening committee (if there is one) or one who knows gardening and volunteers should pull weeds if the super doesn't know how to, or a landscaper should do it as part of regular gardening maintenance.

The super should also be told not to touch any plantings without talking to the prop mgr, board (or gardening committee) first.

Is it in his job description to be a gardner? Don't the building have a landscaper that they hire or is the building just picking on this superintendent? You and the managing agent should sit down and explain to him just what he did wrong and see what his response is, then decide what action to take from there.

Does this super have a full command of English?
If not, was he given instructions by someone fluent in his native language?
Have miscommunications been a problem in the past?

I think before anyone jumps to conclusions about motives, etc.....
we just ought to know more about the specifics.

Anonymous makes some good points about whether things fall under a super's job description. I would agree that cutting and removing tree branches, for example, generally requires a specialist.

But pulling weeds? Aren't we setting the bar awfully low? Pulling weeds, for heaven's sake! Children in Third World countries pull weeds. Oakie 8-year-olds during the Great Depression pulled weeds. How about mowing the lawn? Teenagers not old enough to have a driver's license can mow a lawn. How about trimming a hedge? Does that require a specialist?

And in response to RLM, who also makes what seems at the outset to be a reasonable point, a super who is responsible for the day-to-day care of a co-op or a condo, and who has to deal with oil deliveries, city inspectors, residents' in-wall plumbing issues etc. needs to have a full command of English.

Even with someone who doesn't, I find it inconceivable that anyone's thought processes would lead him to think, "Let's pull up ALL the plants." What could possibly be the internal rationale for that?

I'm probably getting too worked up. It's just that in this economic environment, with so many good people unemployed in a wide variety of fields (not yet me, thank goodness, so this isn't a personal thing), that this building has someone who clearly is not as good as others in his profession. Like any other business, why not try to hire the best you can afford?

Or maybe THAT'S the real problem: The board's not paying enough for a proper super.

I agree that a super needs to have a full command of English. The truth is, many don't. And some Boards won't pay a salary high enough to attract one who will.

I agree with you, just think the super you are hiring to maintain your multi-million dollar building don't understand English. The Board of Directors of these buildings should do their homework a little better in hiring building personnel.

Re Responsible hiring, I fully agree that a super needs a good command of the English language, reading and writing it as well -- in order to be able to communicate with residents, sales people, management, etc. But he needs experience too.

English is the first language of the super who cut down the garden. I wasn't on the Board that hired him but they apparently banked on his "assistant porter" (but no superintendent) experience. They allowed him to stay past his probationary period, and now he's the only staff in this building. Besides some directors, the management company looks the other way when he fouls up, and it's going to be a long haul training him. The shareholders are our first responsibility, first, last, and in-between.

I really thank you all very much for your support and ideas on this problem. Some directors and many shareholders are asking the same questions -- what could he have been thinking? What was his rationale? Inexplicably, some Board members would prefer to look the other way and ignore the visual and financial cost to the shareholders, so the problem is not only with the super, but with sympathetic directors and property manager.

Whenever I start feeling a little blue now that I am on the commercial side of the business I make it a point to visit the Cooperator.

Looking at the number of replies and general interest in regard to this subject I have to ask what on God’s green earth is all the fuss about.

“The super made a mistake and took out some ground cover, “oh my God six hundred dollars worth of plants, lets demand a grievance with 32BJ.”

Are you out of your minds? Is this all you have to dwell on? At worst the super made a simple mistake.

Oops, I forgot, we are dealing with co-op’s and boards.

I now believe the super should be shot at sunrise and buried in his mistake.

Best of luck to you all.

I have to agree with Ex Res Manager, did anyone ever explain to the superintendent what he did wrong? And is he remorseful?

Ex Res Manager – We come to Board Talk for information to help solve problems and better run our buildings. To ask if we are out of our minds and what all the fuss is over the super who pulled out plants instead of weeds insults everyone who replies to it. Whatever the issue at hand is, that’s no reason for ridicule. It’s impossible to get all the facts on any issue here but this is a help line not a sitcom.

You make fun of the point that what the super did cost $600 to correct. Maybe $600 is money the original poster’s coop can ill afford to spend on this. Maybe the super didn’t make “a simple mistake” as you stated. Maybe he makes many mistakes and should be better instructed, or terminated. The original poster was asking for advice or suggestions, and other posters were trying to offer that.

I’ve been on Board Talk for a long time, and I think it’s admirable that people here not only look for help but also want to help others. If you were a building manager and are now on the commercial side of the business, we may benefit from some of your knowledge and experience. If all you can offer is criticism, you’re in the wrong place.

Thank you, BP. Well said as always.

To play devil's advocate for a minute, I think Ex Res Manager sees this as an example of those tedious battles that plague all boards from time to time. Think of those protracted disputes over the precise shade of light green that should be used for some bit of trim in the lobby:

"It should be Apple Green!"
"No, it should be Forest Fern Green!"
"Apple!!"
"FOREST FERN, YOU MORON!"

That said, I don't think this particular dispute falls into that category. The original poster has confirmed that the super's native language is English, so it's understandably disturbing that the super took the instruction "Remove the weeds" and turned it into "Remove every scrap of vegetation you can find." That's either incredibly stupid or actively hostile. I would have a polite but candid talk with the super to figure out what went wrong. Let him know you're not happy with the results, and tell him to please ask for clarification if the details of a job are unclear to him. Maybe his next job should be discreetly monitored to make sure he's doing what was requested.

Thank you, CDT. I know what you mean about tedious discussions that all boards have at times. I have one every December with mine!

"Why not a Christmas tree in the lobby?"
"No, it will offend non-Christians."
"But the fact is - it is Christmas."
"But it's also Hanukkah and Kwanza."
"Let's have decorations for all of them."
"No, the lobby will look like Disneyland."

I think we solved it last year. We had solar mini lights on our front bushes and large white poinsettia plants (a seasonal flower) in the lobby. That appeased everyone but I could've written a book in the time spent on this. As Mason said to Dixon, "You've gotta draw the line somewhere." :-)

Why should a Christmas tree offend non-Christians? A Hanukkah candle doesn't offend non-Jews. In any event, there's nothing religious about a Christmas tree -- unlike a creche, you can put Christmas trees on school and government property without violating the Constitutional line between church and state.

Jeez! (Ironic-wordplay joke there.)

A-Moose: Some of our residents object to a Christmas tree bec it's called a "Christmas" tree which acknowledges a religious holiday. They insist that if we do that we should acknowledge Hanukkah, Kwanza, etc. too. Talk about tedious discussions. We all want the same things - peace, good will. Now we just go with seasonal decorations like candles, lights and poinsettias to avoid debates on this every year.

To BP: I am so sorry to hear how close-minded and intolerant a powerful enough group of your residents are. Despite the name, Christmas is a federal holiday, which acknowledges the secular as well as religious aspects (as opposed to, say, Easter), and, as noted, a Christmas tree is considered secular by the federal government.

It's hard enough for a board to deal with all the usual pettiness and unreasonable demands of residents in general. Add to that this Taliban-like insistence on a reductively narrow interpretation of what is and isn't religious, and I feel for you. It sounds like a horrid place to live, and running it as a board member must be very trying. You have my sympathies; religious-zealot bullies are the worst kind, since they justify all their views as being the word of God.

Happily, we haven't had any arguments about winter holiday decorations. We've always had both a Christmas tree and a menorah in the lobby in December, and there have never been any complaints. No one has ever asked for Kwanzaa items, but I don't believe there would be any objections, so long as they weren't huge or aggressively religious.

On the other hand, we don't put up any decorations for Easter / Passover / Festival of Xipe Totec / Vernal Equinox since that's a more exclusively religious holiday. We might get away with some Easter bunny decorations, but no one has ever requested them.

Thank you, CDT, for your well-considered reply, and for your good suggestions. I feel the same way about the reasons he did it, and neither is good.

In all honesty my original response was a bit of a poke at what looked on the outside as a somewhat harmless mistake in the grand scheme of what it takes to manage a building the greater New York City area. Having said that and having posted in this forum with what I believe what was constructive comments let me say the following…

One of the largest issues faced by management companies, managers and other professional staff serving the Co-Op and Condo side of this business is the well intentioned and often misguided shareholder.

Let me reference a posted remark “I'd immediately file a grievance with 32BJ and seek restitution”. Now I will try and do my absolute best to behave here, but this may have not been the best advice.

“If he's otherwise done his job properly, I'd work out some restitution, like foregoing his bonus”. Let me again bite my lip and remark this also may not have been the best advice.

Let me also respectfully request for you to review this forum to audit the number of replies based on topic noting that the thread on this issue is expansive while others dealing with true fiduciary issues remain for the most part muted.

Let me again state in that context “Looking at the number of replies and general interest in regard to this subject I have to ask what on God’s green earth is all the fuss about.”

While I offer my most sincere apology if the original poster took offence for the remark “Are you out of your minds?” my original intent remains the same.

We didn't mention a grievance with the union. The problem is more than the cost of the plants. Yes, the super made a mistake. The mistake cost the appearance of the building, the bank account of the shareholders, and more. The ramifications of his mistake don't get thrown in the trash like he did our garden.

Again, thank you for what was coined in "Cool Hand Luke" as "getting my mind right".

Gardening Committee?

We had one.....wayyyyyy back when I was a Res Manager.....eight shareholders arguing about planting one rose bush.

I just have to love it.

Don't expect a person that you hire to do porter or superintendent work do landscaping because you assume every person in this type of business should know about weeds or trees. Ask the person first about his compentence, then train the person to do the work, but never assume. You could be highly surprised or equally disappointed.

Finally, $600 of landscaping is not as bad if you never trained him.

AdC

You're right about asking the person if he knows a weed from a flower before asking him to pull up a row of weeds in front of a window and then come home to see he's pulled up & cut down an entire garden, including a small tree. $600 in cost is only the price of materials replacement; the cost to the appearance to the building is inestimable, as is the cost to the shareholders' confidence in the person.

I'm never a fan of any building allowing residents in any shape or form to have their own installations on the roof. The reasoning goes beyond the hazards of having anyone on the roof, but also each hole that is drilled into the facade of the building is a leak just waiting to happen. If it isn't properly flashed and waterproofed you are just inviting the water to come on in. Also, these dishes can tend to be an eyesore and the Prop Lease probably prohibits the installations anyway.

There are two ways that you can go about this, in my opinion. If the problem is related to satellite dishes, you can send everyone a note clarifying the Board's position on this and request removal within a specific time frame. If they don't take the dishes down themselves, you can certainly do so after that time frame has come and gone. There will now be holes in the facade from where the screws were in place, so you're going to either have the building staff, or an outside company come in to patch things up to ensure that there is no water infiltration from that point on.

If there are a lot of people who have their own dishes, the building can look into getting a Master Dish that would serve up satellite to anyone in the building who wants it. This could be costly as the initial installation and wiring in the building will be expensive. The upside to this is that you can do it once and have only one penetration in the facade of the building and it will be regulated by the Cooperative.

If you do end up leaving the dishes, I would make sure that you do the work now to patch up the areas around the insertion points to alleviate the future need for waterproofing repair and possible insurance claims. Perhaps you can set up an inspection process and bill those Shareholders for the cost of maintaning and repairing those insertion points that will cause issues.

Not to mention that you want the dishes to be installed correctly, god forbid one flies off your building and injures/kills someone.

Your current house rules may state something similar relating to hanging of radio or TV aerials from windows or making use of the fire escapes for purposes of placing objects:
Windows.
No radio or television aerial shall be attached to or hung from the exterior of the building. The building is wired for both a TV antenna (located on the roof) and cable TV, which can be hooked up inside each apartment at the Shareholder's expense.

Public Areas.
9. No article should be placed in the halls, on the stairway landings or fire escapes.

The legality of denying permission to residents who wish to install such devices including TV dishes may be founded in the following documents that are available through the Internet. They will help you understand the Board’s rights to decline such requests:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cosumerfacts/consumerdish.html
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

pmweeks - I know of a coop that has a realty agent on its board. Their only restriction on him is that he can't review or vote on a sale package for which he is the buyer's or seller's agent. I know of two other coops where the realty agent on their board can't review or vote on any sale packages at all.

Some coops think a realty agent on the board would bring a professional eye to the table and know what makes for a desirable buyer. That assumes that the agent is a good one. Other coops think a realty agent who is also a shareholder might, even subconsciously, reject a sale package if s/he doesn't like the seller or has another agenda that might reflect bias on sales. A personal agenda of a realty agent might also affect sublets.

Not giving my opinion here, just expressing thoughts of coops I know who have a realty agent on their board.

When we updated our By-Laws last year, our lawyer suggested that we added a new section on Conflicts of Interest. Here's the part about brokers:

"Real estate brokers or salespersons, who are members of the Board, shall refrain from engaging in selling apartments in the building or participating in such sales, either directly or indirectly, as listing broker, co-broker or otherwise as an economic participant in such sales."

And there's a catch-all at the end for recusing Board members who refuse to recuse themselves:

"The Board of Directors may, by majority vote, require that a director be recused from participating in any discussion or voting on any matter, when the Board determines that there is a substantial financial conflict between the interests of the director and the interests of the Corporation or that such a conflict of interest reasonably appears to exist."

The Certiorari Attorney is paid a percentage of the taxes saved, not on the change in the assessed value of your building. It is generally calculated over a period of years.

For example, our most recent offer from the NYC Tax Commission, based on the Certiorari's work, resulted in a tax savings of $375,000 over 5 years or about 75,000 per year. We paid the Certiorari $15,000 per year for that same 5 years, which represented 20% of our savings.

e-mail me (mblevine@ebmg.com) and I will respond to you with some good ideas. I have set up a bunch of them for a few buildings. I can show you examples and a how-to.

A basic website will not give you the features and security you want and need and yahoo! does not provide much. Try looking at one of the many hosts like siteground.com or dreamhost.com that can auto-install one of the many free CMS systems like Joomla that can give you security and forum software built in

I agree that Yahoo! and the like have limited use. If you really only want to do a few things, such a service may be fine.

My co-op uses 1and1.com. You can use html if you want, but we just stick with one of the templates so anyone can update it (by anyone, I mean any board member) regardless of technical savvy. We post lots of documents, too, so shareholders don't have to call the property manager and check their mailboxes. See here, under "Application forms"
http://www.thepinehurst.org/residents.htm

We aim to update it regularly, but sometimes it goes a few days without being changed. If you have any questions, contact me through the e -mail on the web site.

We've found Google Groups to be very helpful. Users can control the amount of email they receive, it is secure, and allows for the sharing of documents.

Be careful of any of the Groups that you allow shareholders to voice their opinions. It only takes one dissatisfied person to start an eruption within the group/coop and all hell breaks loose. Then you have to expend time and energy to put out the fire, which could take months and never really dies. Much better to do a website. GoDaddy is inexpensive and extremely secure and easy to navigate. Good luck. CS

http://www.habitatmag.com/co_op_condo_web_site_directory has a directory of co-ops and condos around the city that have their own website. You can e-mail them to ask how they went about it and what/who they use/

Thanks to all for your suggestions!

Hi David,

I think you would be interested in BuildingLink, which provides a LOT of features, including the ones you mentioned. BuildingLink is designed specifically for residential properties, and we are used by several hundred condos and coops in New York alone! It consists of a resident portal, plus a management portal for helping your management and staff make the best use of their time and yours. I'll be happy to provide you with more information, and with references for buildings near you that are using BuildingLink.

Best,

Zach

Are you aware that it is against the New York Fire Department rules to use a gas or charcoal grill on any roof in the five boroughs of New York. It may be popular but it is against the law, not to mention very dangerous.

it is important ti live a little..... peple all over NY do this without a problem.

Yes, it's important to "live a little" - but as a Board Member, your first responsibility is to the building's, and residents', safety. By allowing this activity, you put the safety of both in jeopardy - and the co-op could "enjoy" a hefty fine.

Isn't it enough fun for your residents to HAVE a roof deck?? In NYC, that's a huge perk.

Is there a back yard or a patio that could be used instead? The liability issues of an illegal roof grill seem staggering, and could put the board members at risk -- L&O insurance doesn't cover illegal activity.

On the other hand, were are the specific city regulations regarding roof grills? It may simply be that certain types of grills, such as propane or charcoal, are not allowed but electric grills are. Anyone know?

Here's what the FDNY has to say:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/safety/barbeque.shtml

"Never use a propane barbecue grill on a balcony, terrace or roof. It is both dangerous and illegal. ... Only use a charcoal barbecue grill on a balcony or terrace if there is a ten foot clearance from the building and there is an immediate source of water (garden hose or four (4) gallon pail of water). Otherwise, such barbequeings [sic] is dangerous and illegal."

So there's nothing there about a charcoal grill being illegal on a roof; the "otherwise" seems ambiguous since a terrace with a ten-foot clearance isn't any different than a rooftop space -- essentially a terrace -- with a ten-foot clearance. (How are terraces and balconies different, anyway?)

The FDNY, judging from "barbequeings," may not be the definitive source; they're lay people interpreting the statute(s), and incompletely, it appears. I'll nose around in the city code -- the specifics must be in there.

The full NYC Fire Code is available here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/firecode/july_2008/fire_code_local_law26_final_complete.pdf

For barbecues, see Section 307.5 on page 66. Charcoal BBQs are 307.5.1; propane (LPG or liquefied petroleum gas) are 307.5.3. In the propane section, I have no idea what a "Group R-3 occupancy" is, though it would appear to exclude multifamily apartment buildings.

Following up on my own post: NYC Fire Code Section 307.5.3 allows propane barbecues "on the premises of a Group R-3 occupancy." According to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/cc_chapter3.pdf -- Section 310.1.3 on page 33 -- Group R-3 is defined as follows: "This occupancy shall include buildings or portions thereof containing no more than 2 dwelling units." This means that propane barbecues are not legal *anywhere* in multifamily apartment buildings.

What's the rule on rooftop fireplace? There is a new condo development (currently in construction) touting rooftop lounge with fireplace as an amenity.

Again, see page 66 of the NYC Fire Code:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/firecode/july_2008/fire_code_local_law26_final_complete.pdf

"307.2.1 Authorization. Open fires allowed pursuant to Section 307.1 may only be kindled, built, maintained or used with the prior written authorization of the agencies with regulatory jurisdiction, property owner and other required approvals, and only when such open fires are maintained in compliance with all conditions of such authorization or approval."

That's vague enough that I would assume a properly maintained rooftop fireplace would be legal, given the proper approvals.

Reminder: I'm not a lawyer! If there's a legal issue concerning barbecues or fireplaces in your building, please consult your attorney.

Just searched... the NYT has a May 21, 1997 article, "Sear Thy Steak, Not Thy Neighbor" which seems to indicate that rooftop grilling might be permissible, but only under certain conditions and specifications. The article also cautions greatly about propane's danger and explosive potential.

Good idea to check the fire codes for yourself... and to consult your co-op lawyer.

That's not true. check the FDNY website...charcoal and electric grills are approved for roof tops and terraces based on appropriate space allocation and source of water. Propane is not allowed on roof tops or terraces, only ground level.

First of all, the Prez cannot create policy by himself so any policy statements that Outgoing Prez made would require he made must have the backing of the board to be valid.

Assuming that New Prez is not going it alone in creating policy, the short answer to your question is yes, the board can do that and I see nothing unreasonable or illegal about their decision. The board has the right to manage the corporation as they see fit, regardless of the results of any petition, as long as they are within the law and the governing documents. They are also ultimately responsible for executing all contracts. Even though you say that you "already paid for them", charging back the shareholders provides a means for the corporation to recover some of the expenses of the new gates. That money is also going back into the corporation of which you are a shareholder. If the corporation needs money, the shareholders are the ones that must pay, one way or another.

Last word about the petition - a building cannot be run effectively if the shareholders think they should be involved in everyday decisions. Shareholders do not have the background information, the authority, or the fiduciary responsibilities. Be thankful that you have a board that is doing what it must to offset the corporation's expenses.

New York Roommate Law, you can't charge them. Don't you have a management company and don't you ask them their thoughts...You are paying them, ask them! If not them ask your lawyer!

they cannot do that. period. it is illegal. the roommate law allows you one person - in fact you can also have a domestic servants there so that makes tow people. tell them in writing not to bother you or you will consider it harassement.

Listen to Anonymous - he is correct and your two board members are inviting legal action. The Roommate Law, as well as ALL housing laws apply to co-ops.

If those two board members will not listen to you, your manager or your attorneys, I hope you have an election coming soon.

Agree completely with all negative responses. The Roommate Law holds precedence over your Board's desire for $$$.

Your Board Members have not done their due diligence -- shame on them! They need to familiarize themselves with NYC laws on habitation so this kind of time-wasting and mean-spirited nonsense never even comes up.

People who serve on the Board need to understand what Fiduciary Responsibility is right off the bat - no agendas, no personal biases, no special favors, no vendettas. Anyone who serves on a cooperative board needs rational, levelheaded and clear thought processes or they can put a co-op into real trouble, real fast.

If you have a Managing Agent, make sure they get asked for advice, and make sure they're not just pacifying the loudest members of the Board to keep the business. If needed, consult the Board Attorney, who'll put a stop to this kind of action once and for all.

Lots of good answers here, and I agree with all of them. Just two additional points:

(1) Your two Board members may claim that the Proprietary Lease says they have the right to interview roommates or impose surcharges, and they may even be correct. But this doesn't matter: the Roommate Law trumps the Lease. The Board has no right to screen roommates or to impose any charges for roommates, and they are inviting serious legal consequences by trying to do so.

(2) The Roommate Law does *not* cover the case where the shareholder moves out and lets one of his relatives or friends live in the apartment. That's a sublet, and the Board does indeed have control over that case.

CDT had good additions. I missed the first time that the Board is "interviewing" and "screening" roommates - totally against the Roommate Law and you'd better hope no one sues who wasn't accepted.

Hope you've shared these responses with your two BMs who are badly mistaken.

This has been an interesting conversation, and we have a new spin on this. A shareholder in our coop sublet his apartment to two people, who were Board-approved & moved in. Now one of them has moved out. This is a situation for the shareholder whose apartment it is (will the remaining person be able to pay?), but can the remaining sublessee bring in anyone as a Roommate without that person being interviewed?

What's the proper procedure? Thank you.

Interesting question about replacing a roommate under a sublease! My guess: If at least one person whose name appears on the sublease remains in the apartment, then the Roommate Law would apply and the replacement roommate would not need Board approval. Think of the base case where there is originally no roommate at all: one would expect the Roommate Law to allow the addition of a roommate without approval.

However, this could be completely wrong. With the shareholder out of the apartment, the Board has much more control. Ask a lawyer and let us all know the answer....

Thank you CDT! I'm not sure if the shareholder even knows about it yet -- it just happened on Friday. Yesterday I phoned and left a message to call me back. I'll keep you all posted on this interesting turn of events!

Just to follow up, no one on the board wants to know if the remaining sublessee gets a new roommate. Said it's none of our business. And so it goes.

the landlord of unsold shares has to pay - no?

here is some coops do - they hire a qualified PCO company ( Plus ou have to check all adjascent apartments on all sides above , below, etc with dogs) an then they send the bill to the building sponsor for his or her apartments - for that portion of the bill. they state to the sponsor that his tenants brought the bugs into the building just to cover themselves. this sgenerally saves a coop thousands of dollars

I am surprised there is not actual article covering this specific subject (money).

in short - a coop needs to act as fast as possible to contain any reported cases: if they do this, they will not have large costs due to the fact the bugs can so easily spread and may be also able to bill the resident for remediation. However, a wise coop will encourage people to report a case asap and not threaten to bill them UNLESS it spreads and they have not reported it in which case they could get a huge bill - get my drift.

2) residents need to report any signs of bugs asap and demand the coo. send in reputable experts - then they will be off the hook and the coop is liable if it spreads to any neighboring apartments.

Q: What is a Cooperative’s Responsibility for Eradication of Bedbug Infestation?

A: After practically disappearing since the early 1900’s, bedbugs are staging a comeback in apartments, hotels and homes throughout the United States. However, since 2004, there have only been a few reported cases in New York directly ruling on the issue of bedbugs and none of these cases deal directly with cooperatives.
Responsibility for eradication of bedbug infestation in a cooperative should generally be determined by the provisions of the proprietary lease. The proprietary lease makes a shareholder responsible to keep the interior of the apartment in good repair while the coop is responsible for keeping the building in good repair. Therefore, a shareholder should be responsible for remediating bedbug infestation within his own apartment. There is one exception, namely, the warranty of habitability which is a warranty read into every residential lease, including coop proprietary leases. The warranty of habitability requires that an apartment be fit for human habitation and free of dangerous conditions and may obligate a coop to remediate infestation unless the shareholder’s personal property is demonstrably the source of the infestation. If the infestation is limited to one apartment, chances are that the shareholder brought the bedbugs into the apartment and the warranty of habitability would be inapplicable because the law provides that if the condition at issue is caused by the tenant, the warranty is not breached. However, where multiple apartments are infested and it is difficult to identify the source of the infestation, remediation may become a Board responsibility.
By Albert F. Pennisi of the law firm of Pennisi, Daniels & Norelli, LLP, a law firm that represents Cooperatives and Condominiums located in Rego Park, Queens, New York

CAN SOME OTHER PEOPLE PLEASE RESPONSD!

Unless your proprietary lease is different from most in NYC, you must treat your sponsor the same way you would treat any other shareholder. In the case of pests, the corporation arranges and pays for the cleaning/exterminating, just as it would for any other neighbor.

Why would you decide otherwise?

bedbug treatment is over and above the average monthly extermination a coop might otherwise pay for. it is like mold remediation - something a coop should not pay for. at some point he sponsor must assume reponsibily for the internal mntnce of his own apartments - no?

Yes, perhaps bedbug treatment may be over and above normal extermination services; however the interests of the corporation and ALL the shareholders must be the board's top priority. Do not let finger-pointing get in the way of problem remediation - fix the problem first, then worry about who is going to pay, otherwise you will have a much bigger problem to resolve.

In my previous post I did not mean to suggest that the other writers in Board Talk are not dealing with the problem correctly. I just wanted to stress the importance of not letting the discussion of financial responsibility get in the way of treating the problem. If it is unclear in the governing documents, this may be a situation that would be best handled at a building level because its prompt resolution is in everyone's best interest.

hear, hear!

As a Board Member, your first responsibility is to the health, safety and well-being of the building, property, and residents. Take action first, sort out accountability later.

What are coops doing about bed bug when there is NO SPONSER?

Do they bill the shareholder? Or does the Coop pay?

I've been through this issue this week with one of my buildings (a coop) where bed bugs have seemed to pop up in a few apartments. Dealing with our attorney and with the Board on the decisions going forward, here is the advice that I received based on present law from the attorneys:

Unless you can prove that a bed bug infestation is confined to a singular apartment and that it didn't travel from someone else's apartment the Cooperative is responsible for the treatment and abatement of such an infestation. This is because the Cooperative is held in a landlord/tenant situation with the Shareholders as is provided by the Real Property Law. The only instance that a Cooperative can pass on the cost to the individual Shareholder is if they can prove that that particular Shareholder brought in the bugs and did not obtain it from another apartment.

If the Cooperative waits too long for treatment and it spreads to other apartments, the Board can be opening itself up to litigation as they may be impeding on the warrantee of habitability for the tenants in the building. Personal claims as well as financial rewards may be offered if taken to court.

The bottom line of this is that the Cooperative should take care of the situation first and then figure out which apartments should be responsible for the payment, if any. The fiduciary responsibility of the Cooperative is to protect the Shareholders and all of the apartments as a whole, and by delaying the remedy, they may be causing an explosion in the infestation as well as harm to the Shareholders.

I have asked around and here is how a coop needs to handle this. They send the sponsor a letter claiming the sponsor's tenant brought the bugs into the building themselves and they include the bill for extermination. done. sponsor must pay unless they can prove their tenant did not bring the bugs in.

it is important to remember the any given coop board holds the interests of the COOP and not the sponsor at hand.

RE: "unless they can prove their tenant did not bring the bugs in."

It's impossible to prove a negative. That's, like, first-year law. Asking anyone to prove their tenant did not do something or other is an impossible, and thus, unfair burden that could not hold up in court. If the sponsor wants to fight this, all he or she has to do is demand that the board prove that the tenant brought the bugs in.

dear any-moose,

good point. however it is worth sending the sponsor the bill because most of them are cheap bastards who have raped the coop for years.

Anonymous, you say it's worth billing the sponsor for bedbug extermination since most sponsors are "cheap bastards who have raped the coop for years." If I was ever convicted of a crime, I wouldn't want you on my jury.

Sponsors may not be everyone's favorite people, but you can't take out your dislike of what some of them do by judging one of them guilty of something you can't prove.

If you're just being vindictive, you're not black marking the sponsor by doing what you propose. You're black marking yourself as a board/board member that can't be trusted to be fair, honest and responsible.

Thank you, BP. That needed to be said.

Or perhaps a Board emeber that is not strong enough to stand up to the sponsor in the name of the true best interests of a coop ? If so, Feeling sad for the shareholders in your building..... come on , dont be silly, most of us know the sponsors are cheap looks , for one they sublet at market rate paying no fee to benefit the coop. that is not at all fair, is it?

AND I AM UPSET YOU ACCUSE ME OF BILKING ANYONE? I am merely pointing out they may, in fact. have a legal obligation to pay exterminator costs if their tenants have bedbugs.

funny what sentivitity is brought up by this subject - sponsor talk seems ot be taboo....

The angry tone, rushed misspellings, overuse of capital letters and the McCarthyesque phrase "sponsor symphathizer" is all a bit disturbing.

The law is clear on certain things, and knowingly going contrary to it out of some generalized dislike of all sponsors is not responsible board behavior. This isn't to say many a CEO hasn't many decisions out of such generalizations or personal pique, but such executives are hardly role models, and that sort of thing eventually leads to disgruntled shareholders.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "taboo" subject. Seems we're discussing the subject in detail.

I'm not a sponsor sympathizer. I sympathize with any entity that isn't treated fairly. If a coop claims that a sponsor's tenant is responsible for bugs in the bldg, some proof should be given to back it up - an admission by the tenant, an exterminator's report that a nest of bugs or unsanitary conditions was found in the tenant's apt, etc. How bedbugs got into a bldg is hard prove, but you can't blame a sponsor just because he's a sponsor.

Also, someone posted that sponsors are cheap and sublet apts at market rate with no fee paid to the coop. A sponsor as a holder of unsold shares can charge market rate for rent-stablized apts and must comply with NYC rent stablization guidelines, but he doesn't have to comply with certain coop dictates, at least not per my coop's by-laws. That may not seem fair, but that's the law.

All I was saying is that a coop should be fair in its dealings with sponsors, SHs, vendors or whoever, not because any rule or law says so but because it's the right way to do business, and countering unfairness with unfairness doesn't get anyone anywhere.

thanks BP - very nicely said on your last posting. sorry we crossed wires.

I think if the sponsor just pays the invoice and accepts the reason that his/her tenant brought them into the building by you telling him/her that the sponsor would be a bigger loser then you for proposing this!

I had a similar situation in my coop (different bug). The sponsor paid for continuous exterminating until the problem was resolved. It took months because the tenants did not change their habits and the sponsor eventually had to exterminate the entire building. His tenant, his responsibility. The end.