Mellisa - you (or someone like you) posted something almost identical a while back. Until the Habitat staff removes this thread, your bigoted xenophobia is not welcome here.

No, and if I were I would not base my opinion/resentment on the country of origin. More like I made a mistake in hiring an individual.

Some very large coops have a committee of non board members that handle sales. They make recommendations to the board, which in turn makes the final decision. Not the committee or the shareholders.

Regarding disgruntled shareholders, not much you can do. It's part of the daily routine of coop life. Just keep the residents informed, educate them when necessary. As long as your decisions meet the expectations of the majority, and the needs of the building, you should take pride in your work. (it is a non paying full time job by the way)

Frank, With a coop your size it is very common to have the shareholders
vote on sales. That is what makes a coop different form a condo. In a condo the board handles all sales and the shareholders do not have a say. In a coop the shareholders have more control or say in who enters in their building. If you are a Board member this may seem unfair to you, but for a coop shareholder who has to live next to a new family or couple it is their right to have an input on a sale. A sale to the Board could mean something totally different than to a shareholder. The Board may push a sale through because it will bring more money into the building with the flip tax and make their life easier. A shareholder may see it as a quality of life issue. As a Board member you should give a little history of the new people that wants to move into the building and have them meet the shareholders and have an open discussion. Then let the shareholders have a vote, it's called democracy.

Bob,
I've seen this issue from three sides. I've been in the building when we used shareholders voted. It was a bit of a farce. Shareholders were led to believe board did its due diligence and background checks. Little did we know at the time the board did very little research. Board also said "no lawyers" would be admitted,would also have the children come to the voting meeting and on some occasions jjust the board would meet prospective buyers. It seemed to me that the shareholders were simpy voting on "looks" and their idea of a fit. Also, the vote would be a show of hands not a private ballot. No pressure there to say "yes". We ended up with having a lawyer in the building who took the building to several courts.

It's is a long story but this issue of having shareholders vote is not democracy - voting in a board and upholding the community's PL and house rules is democracy in action.

Its funny, as small as the building is no one really sees one another. It's not summer camp and pot luck dinners. It's living under one roof and hopefully all will treat their neighbor with respect.

I would end with the fact that a board follows (or should) code of behavior/ethics and stays abreast on new laws and coop matters. Shareholders do not always put in the effort to stay educated on coop matters.

Hi Frank-I guess my question is this: what would you have these people do? This is a very small co-op - but it seems that there is a really bad feeling that has never been resolved. Either it gets dealt with in a way that everyone agrees is to make a positive change or it will just stay the way it is. You say no one really sees each other and there are no "pot luck dinners"-frankly, maybe there should be on occasion. If the only time people meet as a group is the annual board meeting it is really not a time for socializing or airing grievances. Do you ever have informal gatherings? Has anyone ever suggested this? If people really want it to be different they should put the effort into making a change. I know everyone is busy but it is such a small group there should be a way for enough to get together a couple of times a year. And not for simply a "kumbaya" moment, but a time to behave as neighbors and fellow shareholders who all have a real stake in making a successful co-op. Because in so small a group, despite the efforts of the board, which I am sure is trying to do its best, 3 disgruntled shareholders out of 12 is still 25% and that is kind of a lot. It seems that there is a lot of bad feeling that has to be dealt with or it festers as it seems to have. Also, people who feel they have no other power often are the loudest in their complaints and look to do whatever they can to make themselves heard. Look at congress. I think maybe you should organize a pot luck. With lots of wine!

Thanks everyone for input. I am exhausted however because this small group is caring a grudge and are not interested in community goals. They continue to make personal attacks on certain board members and now attack coop's professionals. I really think their goal is to more vindictive and retaliatory than for the overall good of the community. After this issue they will move on to another and point the finger at someone else.

When they controlled the board I would add they never gave an ear to others.

Hi, we are small coop and our shareholders vote on the sale.

Another aspect to consider is who will be legally liable if a general shareholder vote denies a purchase and the purchaser sues for discrimination. You must check with your co-op's attorney, but in my opinion only those individuals who are at risk (the board) should be allowed to vote. You also need to also check who and what your D&O insurance will cover. A very convincing argument against having all shareholders vote on purchases and sublets is if they know they may be named as defendants in a discrimination lawsuit and not be covered by the co-op's insurance.

If a coop denies a purchase, if it is just the board or all the shareholders, you should never give a reason why they were denied. If you gave a reason then they can use that to come after you with a lawsuit.

A rejected purchaser does not need the formal statement of a reason to start a lawsuit. They can simply *claim* discrimination, start the suit, and then the legal process takes over. Unless all of the shareholders are willing to assume the financial liability of losing a civil suit, they should not be allowed to participate in a vote that can put a small minority of shareholders (the board) at risk.

Currently boards are not required to give a reason for rejecting a purchase, and I agree with that position.

From all that's been posted, they all seem to have baggage, but I would run like hell from Maxwell Kates. They lie and cover up the lies with more lies. The scheming starts at the top and trickles down.

Run from hell from Allarea Management

Veritas Property Management is the best.

I agree with happy. I was on a board for a short time and not on the board for the majority of the time. Maxwell Kates was a welcome relief compared to the MAs we previously had.
And reasonably priced too. I was on the board when we were thinking of switching and we interviewed a few. BHS and Douglas Elliman were both about 25% more expensive. And being that they both had sales depts. that's really what they wanted, the referrals.

I agree - definitely run from All Area - And yes we definitely need the law and someone to represent us - and NYS should be able to take action against management companies - not just as RE companies - There must be laws that are enforced to protect shareholder interests' there are laws now but they are not enforced

This is the truest statement I've heard so far. John, you are so right!!!. Lie after Lie, kickbacks, etc. The worst of the worst. I know no agent is great, but Maxwell is a horror show. Please beware or go at your own risk, take the shareholders into account, they do not care and will spend your money and make their own rules, legal or not. Lie, Lie, Lie.

liar and managing agents are often synonymous. board members are easily bamboozled unless they are sophisticated enough to probe and include architects, people in the construction business and others with business awareness. in my building the lawyer and managing agent, craig lamb, support each other’s use of my co-op as a cash cow for themselves.
the real estate industry lobbies against restraints on co-op boards because it’s totalitarian control would be disrupted by laws favoring co-op shareholder rights.

you both got it right .So called professionals, the lawyers, even a i assime rockie architrct can be so easy BS by managing agents. It is amazing, how little they know about the real world. You need people that know construction, people in trades, home inspectors that know who runs the cash cows, and who runs a tight ship on the maint part. Plus you need financial interested people, on and off the board, whether the board /managing company likes it or not to check the financials , a lot more deeply than the audited report , which is just a check on math, no check on the accuracy of the info submitted. Many people think a conman personality, giving them the answers they want to hear and making them feel important, like they are really smart, while they are being nose ringed led into schems that make the MA extra money .
Time for another round up like in 1998 by the nyc DA. Also there is a 2 page memo , i think from the DA office , but pertaining to boards and safe guarding of funds . Make sure that the board is following that, it calls for every board member to be involved in the fiances and switching every couple of months of duties , so no 1 person has total control. If they refuse to follow it,start a paper trail so that they are personally responsible due to their refusal to perform due diligence and fiduciary responsibilities already drwn up by coop fraud pro's znd tailored to their coop board member responsibilities.
Go to your local counties online data base and look for the convictions page, . Put in your managing agent and companies name, coop name,
and check out the lawsuits and convictions. For a small fee you can get 2 days of full downloads of cases, or go to the court house and get them for free.I'll post a link to the 1998 case when i get a chance, i am sure habitat has it in their archives.
your right the real estate companies have been blocking the ombudsman law for coops, Wonder Why? i mean they work for the shareholders right?
CASH COW protection, os what they are about, They used coops to beat rent control,and turn it into a unsupervised industry.
we need to know who these lobbiest are, and work on them, air their laundry, as in court cases and convictions. I need to learn twitter, it is a good tool to quickly keep people informed and let others know of the scams discovered and how to check for them. Plus start a photo share site more like ungar,instagram, to show the real conditions of neglect,
Use social media it is powerful.cc your legislatures, and the AG office to show what a worthless tool they are.This is what they approved and created but refuse to go after all the fraud, which is a violation of NYS laws. Maybe we can find a fed angle, to bring the heat on..get involved, Lawyers that work both side of the fence, another scam and should not be allowed

thank you, ‘escapefromyonkers’, for ideas for shareholders to overcome the white collar crime rampant in our co-op’s.
i know for a fact that the real estate industry lobbied the new york city council to block a bill requiring the co-op board to provide reasons for rejection of applicants. btw, christine quinn is in the pocket of nyc real estate power.
we haven’t posted about the problems with co-op lawyers who make real money representing the co-op in suits against shareholders that they instigate.
liz kreuger, state senator, who works for co-op shareholder rights, needs support for her shareholder ombudsman bill. i also suggest calling alice in sen.kreuger’s nyc office for guidance in how to fight for the bill.

Escape from yonkers - we need to put pressure on our local council people for this ombudsman legislation, find out how far along it is, push hard. Election time is around the corner, for those in co-ops this is an important issue for everyone that reads this blog. Each of us, push for Ombudsman.

I live in a Maxwell Kates managed building, and they have been wonderful despite several nut cases in our building who sound as paranoid as some of the posts above. It all depends on perspective. Please know when you read these posts, you may only get one perspective, and you can ask for references from any MA to get more of a well rounded perspective.
I agree, no company is perfect. There are 2 sides to every story, so I wanted to write in and let you know my view. At the beginning, I think MKI listened/tried too hard with customer service for the squeaky wheels, but the rabble rousers began with obvious lies and allegations, I know because I was serving on the board to know the whole story.
Use your previous problems to ask as Questions for prospective MA's.
Your board's policies and procedures can dictate what your MA can and will be allowed to do, as well as the board making decisions to direct your MA.
It's up to your board to work on the relationship, which needs respect coming and going. Despite all the lies and abuse our shareholders and "so-called board members" dished out- MKI has remained professional and courteous. That's a pretty big success in my book!

It seems you were one of the luck ones, being on the board. I'm sure there were favors, which is what happens with certain board members. Wonder if you would feel the same not being on the board. Do the other members you served with feel the same way? You speak of squeaky wheels, that too is a perception, who is and who is not considered the squeaky wheel. When MA's lie, do things out of the realm to favor one side or another, not pay attention to rules, concerned about their position in the building, I would say beware. There are boards that are not up to snuff, it's the MA that should inform. Many boards are split, different opinions. I know MKI, people beware. This opinion is from someone who was on the board as stated and partiality does ensue.

I agree with CL, I live in a MKI building, corruption is the appropriate word. Not paying attention to rules, regulations, by-laws, very serious mishaps on their part. Of course, those board members who get what they want will certainly have a different opinion, but by enlarge STAY AWAY. Money spent, where did it go? Who's pocket? Be very careful, so the one who's happy received something.

In our building we are stuck with a small, group of mean spirited shareholders who have managed to bully most qualified people from running for the board. That building is managed by MKI. No management company is perfect but they are competent. Thank god we voted in a new board of directors who more represent the building, especially glad rid of the most hateful member. MKI is not the problem its the bullies,who have nothing to do but endlessly reply to forums like this and make their numbers seem bigger than they are. I have a life so you wont hear from me again unlike my neighbors.

Just gave yourself away. MKI with CERTAIN members (yourself included), not even the majority, chose to circumvent By-Laws, ignore motions, refused to state minutes, complain about bullying that NEVER happened and as a MA went along with all of this. How good are they? Be careful.

I have served on the Board and not been on the Board for longer during MKI's management. I can say my experience has been that I am very impressed with their service both as a Board member and a shareholder with unit issues. I can heartily say that MKI puts Orsid to shame and several others with whom I have experience. I also agree that there is usually at least 1 squeaky wheel a with their own agenda on the Board and most often more than that. Good luck.

Like I said, we don't have to agree; there is more than just one side to each story. But each board is responsible for due diligence in checking references and getting the whole picture. FYI, I've not received any "favors or monetary gains," from MKI. I have paid all my maintenance, charges and assessments in full just like all shareholders should, and in all of my dealings, they have been on the up and up.

I like Don Wilson, Justin Verret and their team at Blue Woods.

We switched to Excel Bradshaw Management, we actually found them on this website. They've been pretty good so far, no complaints.

Be very thankful that you only have had Excel Bradshaw for a short time. Would be interested in Bradshaw stories; I have a boatload.

Be very thankful that you only have had Excel Bradshaw for a short time. Would be interested in Bradshaw stories; I have a boatload.

I think there should be a worst managing agent list.
1. Allarea Management Company would come in 1st.

There should be some kind of zagat guide to managing agents. Unfortunately, in the state of NY all you have to do is get yourself a real estate license and then call yourself a managing agent.

No website, I'd be scared of them, too.

Hey LTD
I think the answer to your question should be answer by your treasurer or Management company. Whoever is writing the checks should know. Plus there should be some kind of payroll records where you can back track the hrs vs the expense.
Hope this helps

They spent 15- 20k a year in overtime. They try to keep some kind of minimally supervised arrangemant with the Super about this and not make it public. So we have to find it in the budget - it is mashed in with other figures.

Is your building a Union or Non-Union Building? How many employees does your building employ? If they are union employees, how long have they been members of the union? The reason I ask is that a union building would have a set number of vacation days for each employee, those vacation periods are required to be covered by relief employees. The union contract gives the option to relieve vactioning employees at a set hourly wage (60% of what the employee being replaced earns). The Board should be aware of this and take advantage of the ability to relieve vacationing employees at this discounted rate. If your building has several employees and they have been in the union over 5 years they may be entitled to 3 weeks paid vacation each. You can see how a building with 6 employees, all working union members for over 5 years, could result in a total of 18 weeks vacation. Members with 10 and 15 years are entitled to even more vacation time. If this applies to your building you should probably look into how the vacationing employees are being covered while on vacation. If it turns out that the vacationing employees are being covered by the other regular union employees working in the building, then your building may in fact be paying them overtime for the additional days worked during the absence of the other workers. This is definitely not good practice and would ultimately result in an enormous amount of overtime at the end of the year. Without any details it would be hard to pinpoint the exact nature of your overtime issue. Hope this helps.

We are union with 6 employees (super, handyman, 4 doormen, 1 new "relief.")
The 18 weeks of 'vacation' time is $853.63 per week or $21.34 per hour.
The Super has been here les than 15 years but takes 26 vacation days.
I think he also charges overtime regularly -( sneaks it in for an hour a week or so.)
Overtime is not clearly stated on our budget break-down - but it is in there somewhere.

The management company should be able to give you a break down on all employees and what it is costing to run your operation. I manage a property in Manhattan and submit payroll each week to management (noting any overtime, vacation etc). If management/board have a question I have the payroll sheets and an answer ready to explain/justify. You can also get an instant readout of employees costs by purchasing software programs which you can hook up to an employee time clock etc. This allows you to track costs very easily. It is really just a matter of staying on top of things and being accountable in the end. Best of luck and hope it was of some help.

Managment was unable to answer the owvertiem quesion at last yr's annual meeting so you can see in our case this may not work so well......

My question now is - What is this $21.34 per hour - Who's wage?

anyhow here is info from 32BJ:

b. A person hired solely for the purpose of
relieving employees for vacation shall be paid
60% of the minimum applicable regular hourly
wage rate. Should a vacation relief employee
continue to be employed beyond five months,
such employee shall be paid the wage rate of a
80new hire or experienced person as the case may
be. I

I believe $21.34 per hour is what an employee classified as others in a Class A building gets paid per hour. You can download local 32BJ contract on the web site. As to the who and why you need an explanation from someone.
MRM

Five years ago we changed MangAgents and the Staff overtime jumped by about $30,000 -- The Agent was too lazy to keep a pool of Non-Union workers to fill in. This pool can also be kept by the Super.
If you are a Union building -- you can LEGALLY use non-union workers to fill in for overtime. They are not paid overtime-time$$$ and the Coop does not pay benifit's.
The MangAgent or Super keeps the list, and calls for emergency fill-ins or regular vacation etc...
The Super/MangAgent have no interest in Saving you money -- the Board has to demand that this pool be maintained.
Speak up or keep paying... VP

If your payroll is processed by one of the large payroll companies (ADP, Paychex, etc), your managing agent should receive a weekly report from the payroll company accounting for every paid hour charged to every employee. This includes straight time, overtime, sick time, holiday, vacation, personal, etc.

Your board should demand they be given copies of these reports on a weekly or monthly basis. If your managing agent cannot or will not provide the reports, then you have a serious problem. At best you have a sloppy managing agent. At worst you have financial shenanigans going on which you need to uncover and terminate quickly.

Here's the link to the SEIU contract covering residential buildings: http://www.seiu32bj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2010ApartmentBuildingAgreement.pdf

If your numbers are correct, I would insist on detailed explanation from your property manager. As you indicate management company was unable to explain at last annual meeting I would direct these questions to the Board Treasurer. Are you a Board member? You may also request clarification or explanation in writing to management company and or Board of directors. May be time to go to market for new Management. feel free to email me directly. Cmasino@bronsteinproperties.com

Hey LTD
If you're not getting answer from the management company or the treasurer TAKE THEM TO COURT the management company works for the building and the treasurer works for the shareholders. It should be some kind of breakdown of the hrs and time each employee works, and your have a right to the information. I think your need to put pressure on the management company and the treasurer to come up with some answer before you go legal on them.
Good Luck

Charles,
Unless your ByLaws specify differently, and the Treasurer is empowered to act alone -- the entire BOARD approves/votes all payments and the Treasurer acts in accordance with the Boards decisions. Therefore if a Shareholder wants to take anyone to court -- it would be the whole Board. The Board has access to ALL documents, and should receive monthly statements to review. If not, than something is very wrong in the Management of your Building -- and your Board.
Unless the Management is writing checks without the BOARD approval -- they are protected by their contract --
BOTTOM LINE? The buck stops with the Board.
VP

Be very careful how you arrange this. Remember that the building has to pay for electricity and water usage. Use the most efficient machines available only(front loaders) and make sure the dryers can be used in intervals (say 25 cents for five minutes) and NOT a set amount of time as they tend to over-dry laundry that way.

We use this company and I don't like them because: 1. The dryers are disgusting. Whenever I use them I haave to first get a screwdriver so I can remove the lint trap. It is the only way to actually clean the filth out (poor design). I line dry my clothes so I don't have to put my clean items in them to pick up the filth. Their front load washers are no better than a cheap top loader. I do not understand why co-ops rent when the could purchase deluxe and energy efficent machines. That is what I would do if I had any say in the matter.

I too say caution is needed. My building installed machines that recycle water (the last person's rinse is the same water for the first wash for the next person). While this does save water, kind of, (often a second wash is needed to fully clean something). Also, when shareholders in my multi-unit building found out about the water recycling, acceptance was not universal, to put it mildly (however, it might be a great thing for a single family home).

In my opinion, it seems that the laundry companies are taking a rental building mentality and trying to fit it into an owner building reality. Owners expect and are due better services.

We are reviewing the contact again. For use, the biggest issues are:
• Not using recycled water
• Having longer wash cycles
• Having pre-wash cycles that actually work
• Adding washers
• Go for the adding time on the laundry card via the internet.

We have one compliment, we like the gas dryers very much!

You might try opening a claim with your insurance company. If the sponsor damage was due to negligence (and it sounds like it was), insurance will pay for fixing the damage (less your deductible) and they they will sue the sponsor to recover your deductible.