You need not spoon feed. Just set the plates of information at the shareholders table and let those who are hungry pony up to the bar. If there's nothing to hide why try? Excuse for privileged vs. underprivileged? Information is power, share it!

Absolute "transparency" whether some might think that word is tossed around or not. Every shareholder is the Corporation, they are the one to vote for representation, if those feel they are too important to represent or be "transparent" then possibly they should think of themselves as a shareholder first and not with a full head of control.

Two things happen- board gets a small group that needs the report explained to them, in fact, they need each word defined and explained. Then, they discuss the many reasons to stagger the work or not do the work at all. Thus group drove the building into great debt and always postponed work. To summit up, they don't trust the board - probably because they don't trust themselves.
Micro managing the board to this degree is nit helpful. Especially, when the majority of the building can read and express ideas but also acknowledge the board is being responsible ad transparent.

I have to agree with Luna that every shareholder is the Corporation. The board should communicate whatever is relevant to the shareholder in terms of how this will or will not make an assessment necessary, if that is what the concern is. The board is there to represent the interests of all the shareholders, not just the ones they don't find annoying. This is a bad case of the board vs everyone else, not a happy community.

Let the actual company do the "engineering" and examinagion of your facade. all the arthictect and engineering fees are unesesaty and they also go on year after year and add tens of thousands to your project.
Also you should get several companies to examine your facade - as part of the proposals.
The entire facade thing is a real scam in NY. You have to take off your blinders and be open to understand you may be getting ripped off no matter what your managing agent says.

Why is giving info to the rest of the shareholders "spoon-feeding"? Is it that difficult to communicate the relevant info? That is part of the job of the board - to do the work of the shareholders on everyone's behalf and the clarity of that should not be burdensome. If so, maybe it is time for someone else to do that job. Information that affects every shareholder should be disseminated so at least an informed choice may be made. If someone chooses not to use it that is their option. But the board is already "spoon-feeding" and, frankly, being derelict in its duty by not being forthcoming with info that has a great impact- an assessment - on all shareholders.

The current interpretation seems to be, according to our Insurance Company inspection report, our Management Company and comments by a DOB inspector: is that all thru the window units need to be supported by a bracket that carries the full weight of the AC unit and is attached to the window frame, independently of the AC unit itself, such that if someone opens the window the unit cannot fall out and down. Depending on the size of the AC unit these brackets can run from $30-75.00 plus installation. They have to be installed properly. There is no rule that says it has to be by a licensed Contractor, only that it is understood that you and the Coop are liable if it fails due to inadequacy of type/size/manufacture or a failure to install properly. It took 8 months for people to comply and we had to send the super around to yank the last 8 units that shareholders were ignoring. We charged for the removal, and will charge for the brackets and re-installation this spring. The penalty for failure due to fines and real liability is huge. It is not just the front of the building on the street. It is all units in all windows as they can fall and whack an employee, a contract worker, neighbor or playing child. Everyone accesses yards, passageways, and service entrances at some point. If it's on their head, it's on your head...! (we also had to make everyone take the flowerpots etc. off of the fire escapes as well. Insurance Co. and the Fire Department will nail you for that, big time.

The current interpretation seems to be, according to our Insurance Company inspection report, our Management Company and comments by a DOB inspector: is that all thru the window units need to be supported by a bracket that carries the full weight of the AC unit and is attached to the window frame, independently of the AC unit itself, such that if someone opens the window the unit cannot fall out and down. Depending on the size of the AC unit these brackets can run from $30-75.00 plus installation. They have to be installed properly. There is no rule that says it has to be by a licensed Contractor, only that it is understood that you and the Coop are liable if it fails due to inadequacy of type/size/manufacture or a failure to install properly. It took 8 months for people to comply and we had to send the super around to yank the last 8 units that shareholders were ignoring. We charged for the removal, and will charge for the brackets and re-installation this spring. The penalty for failure due to fines and real liability is huge. It is not just the front of the building on the street. It is all units in all windows as they can fall and whack an employee, a contract worker, neighbor or playing child. Everyone accesses yards, passageways, and service entrances at some point. If it's on their head, it's on your head...! (we also had to make everyone take the flowerpots etc. off of the fire escapes as well. Insurance Co. and the Fire Department will nail you for that, big time.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that every through-the-window A/C unit be supported by a properly sized and installed bracket. At just about the time we started a project in my building to bring every unit into compliance there was a story in the news about an A/C unit that fell out of a window and into the play area of day-care center no more than 5 minutes after the children went back inside. We sent a copy of that article to every shareholder who balked, and we now have 100% compliance. We billed back the cost of each bracket and installation to the shareholder.

It is better if staff is not allowed to do this. The coop can be liable for millions.
The individual apartment owner will not be liable unless they pay him.
However the coop will also probably be liable.
If he drops it on his foot - the coop is liable.
Hire an insured person.
If you have a casement sleeve unit - you can do it yourself if the case has the proper safety bar attached.

Francis - As a starting point, read your co-op's bylaws and amendments, but there are most likely laws and regulations that govern this as well. The right of a shareholder to vote in a co-op corporation election or other shareholder ballot measure is a very serious legal matter and exclusion needs to be done under very careful and strict legal supervision. Instead of asking for informal opinions about this ("the advice is worth what you pay for it"), talk to your board's attorney. If you believe you are the excluded party, you need to formally engage an attorney (yes, it will cost you) on your behalf. As you noted in your original post there are many differing opinions about this. If you choose to pursue the matter, hire a lawyer to guide you through the nuances.

You can review my firm, Excel Bradshaw Management Group (www.ebmg.com). Our largest concentration of clients is in the Brooklyn area.

On the assumption that you are zoned residential that means your shareholder tenants should not be using their spaces commercially. In my coop we have House Rules that allow home offices for the shareholder and his family and quite frankly we are a little loosey goosey about what would constitute foot traffic and so we don't really address it. If the foot traffic were for piano lesson students and these lessons disrupted the piano teacher's neighbors, we would prohibit it.

So I don't think it's nonsense. And I doubt your lease explicitly addresses any use of your space other than as residential.

There is a building security issue when there are a lot of non-shareholders going in and out of the building. This is not so much that the people who are let in by the shareholder are a concern, but "tailgating" behind the invited guests is a major way un-invited "guest" gain entrance. Especially if your building does not have a doorperson.

Other factors to consider: Wear and tear on the lobby, elevator, and other common elements, and the liability issue if a music student slips and falls in a common area on her/his way to a lesson.

steve - sounds like you need to love in to a building that does not allow relatives or any visitores at all. wait - even better - one that does not allow inhabitants ! That way there is no "wear and tear." anyhow you miss the point- the point is that the lease gives your the right to have an occupation with foot traffic no matter what any fuss budget on the board says. of course, not excessive traffic - but you may have some.

Very odd postings from you. I am not clear why you are so confused
OK let me explain again: 1) Refer to the 'Use of Premises" section of your lease. Most lease allow for home occupations permitted by local zoning laws.
2) Then check your local zoning laws.
Got it?

Lee - Here's another odd one for 'ya. After going on and on about inalienable rights bestowed by some magical section in your ("and most") proprietary leases, you have now twice tried to pivot this discussion around to what is in *my* proprietary lease. Clearly you won't (or can't) stand behind your blustering, which is a shame. I was really hoping to learn something new, instead of dealing with specious claims and an unsolicited tutorial in creative lease reading and comprehension. I'd still like to see the part of your lease where it permits what you say it does.

Did your board shut down you down and that's why you're upset? What kind of business are you trying to run?

New Rule Affects Home Businesses
Real Estate Q & A
Submit your real estate questions to realestateqa@nytimes.com.
Go to Real Estate Q & A

Connect With Us on Twitter
For news and features on real estate, follow @nytrealestate.
Q. Our co-op has a new house rule barring shareholders who have home-based businesses from having clients or customers come to their apartments. This is in direct conflict with the lease, which states that we may have any home occupation permissible under local zoning laws. How can we persuade the co-op board to rescind this rule? And if we can’t, what can the board do if we violate it?

A. If a new rule materially alters a shareholder’s rights and obligations, it may not be enforceable, because, it can be argued, it is an impermissible change to the terms of the contract between the co-op and the resident, according to Matthew J. Zangwill, a Manhattan real estate lawyer.

A co-op’s proprietary lease is the principal document that sets forth the dos and don’ts of daily living in a co-op, and the house rules are usually part of the proprietary lease. The lease, which is a contract between the co-op and the tenant/shareholder, usually gives the board of directors the power to adopt new house rules without the consent of the shareholders, Mr. Zangwill said. But a new rule would not be enforceable if it changed the terms of the contract.

KLee, all the NYTimes Q&A is saying is that the board cannot pass and enforce a new house rule if it conflicts with the lease. That's been a settled point for ages and is not news. Changes to the lease require approval by a super-majority of shareholders.

The interesting part is the question-asker's claim that their lease explicitly allows home occupations. That would be quite an unusual provision, if actually present. I see above that you believe your own lease also has such a provision - could you please post the language from your lease that states this?

Our own lease is based on the same template as many co-op conversions from the early 1980s. There is no mention of home occupations or zoning, and the language in Paragraph 14 ("Use of Premises") explicitly rules out any use except as a private dwelling: "The Lessee shall not, without the prior written consent of the Lessor on such conditions as Lessor may prescribe, occupy or use the apartment or permit the same or any part thereof to be occupied or used for any purpose other than as a private dwelling ..."

FYI - here's what out PL says in paragraph 14. Use of Premises

"The Lessee shall not, without the written consent of the Lessor on such conditions as Lessor may prescribe, occupy or use the apartment or permit the same or any part thereof to be occupied or used for any purpose other than (i) any home occupation use permitted under, and subject to compliance with, applicable zoning law, building code or other rules and regulations of governmental authorities having jurisdiction and (ii) as a private dwelling for the Lessee and Lessee's spouse, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters and domestic employees, and in no event shall more than one married couple occupy the apartment without the written consent of the Lessor."

Hope this helps.

Thanks for posting Paragraph 14 from your lease. It's quite different from the "Use of Premises" paragraph in our own lease, which was based on a common template from the early 1980s (possibly the same one used by Steve Rosenstein's co-op, to judge from the discussion above). You should check with an attorney to be sure, but it certainly appears that your board could not prohibit home occupations via a house rule with that language in your lease.

For comparison, here is our Paragraph 14 in its entirety:

"14. Use of Premises: The Lessee shall not, without the prior written consent of the Lessor on such conditions as Lessor may prescribe, occupy or use the apartment or permit the same or any part thereof to be occupied or used for any purpose other than as a private dwelling of the Lessee and Lessee's spouse, their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters and domestic employees, and in no event shall more than one married couple occupy the apartment without the prior written consent of the Lessor. In addition to the foregoing, the apartment may be occupied from time to time by guests of the Lessee for a period of time not exceeding one month, unless a longer period is approved prior thereto in writing by the Lessor, but no guests may occupy the apartment unless one or more of the permitted adult residents are then in occupancy or unless consented to in writing prior thereto by the Lessor."

steve - sounds like you need to love in to a building that does not allow relatives or any visitores at all. wait - even better - one that does not allow inhabitants ! That way there is no "wear and tear." anyhow you miss the point- the point is that the lease gives your the right to have an occupation with foot traffic no matter what any fuss budget on the board says. of course, not excessive traffic - but you may have some.

K Lee - Could I ask you to please cut-and-paste the sections from your proprietary lease which gives you the right to have an occupation in your unit that allows foot traffic? Thanks!

Steve - Actually, can you check your lease. What does it say in this clause? Can you tell us please?Naturally, it does not use the term "foot traffic" but it does tell you what occupations you may have -it will probably mention 'zoning' - You may not make disturbing noise or odors or use an area over 25% of the footage. Obviously, you cannot have tons of traffic. But you are certinaly allowed some. You can even have an employee. If your lease cites zoning laws - then there is no grey area. and what of nannies, housekeepers and dog -walkers - they are not 'foot traffic'?

I did check my PL, and I couldn't find anything near what you described. This is why I asked to see what it said in your's.

can you tell us what yrs does say?

Like I said, I could not find anything resembling what you described in your previous post regarding "Most co-op leases allow you to have occupations alowed by zoning. In NYC, this includes professional offices (shrink, artist studios, etc) as well as conducting music lessons for a single pupil at a time." Nor could I find anything that says, "the point is that the lease gives your the right to have an occupation with foot traffic no matter what any fuss budget on the board says." My PL must be deficient on both counts because I found nothing I can copy into this thread.

So please, K Lee, share with us the wording in *your* lease regarding occupations with foot traffic, or regarding anything having to do with allowable occupations, excepting, of course, provisions for "domestic employees", which most PL's *do* allow.

The point is to do your own research. Most co-op leases allow you to have occupations alowed by zoning. In NYC, this includes professional offices (shrink, artist studios, etc) as well as conducting music lessons for a single pupil at a time. Thanks god for this - it allows musicians and teachers and artists etc. to exist. It is a great thing - you can do home office deductions, etc. If it disrupt the neighbors, you can always take sound-proofing measures . Anyhow if your board tells you otherwise - check the lease.

We had to take legal action against a Shareholder using his apt as an office -- the Coop won.
For years he had worked out of his home, with a part time assistant and no traffic -- but he expanded to three employees, clients and constant deliveries/messengers -- all overwhelming the staff AND, the ONE - staff operated elevator.
The floor landing was used as their Telephone booth -- strangers were hanging around on the landing and the lobby became a meeting room.

Safety and Insurance became issues. We began to have other request for client based businesses.

The bottom line is that we do not have the staff or extra elevator to handle all the traffic. The employees came to work when the owner was away. Insurance and Safety became serious concerns.
The Safety, legal exposure and quality of life -- came first.
VP

I read that with jaw dropping. To give over all responsibility to an accountant would absolutely be reneging on your fiduciary responsibilities and, frankly, allowing an entity with no shareholding risk to be the only one "in the know", opening possibilities for who knows what kind of dealings. There is a big difference between a co-op and a condo. Sounds like you need a condo, where it is real estate property vs communal shares. If you do not trust your neighbors you have no one to blame but yourself for not being upfront about these concerns. And if info is getting out, it is coming from the board and not those who are not already privy to that info.

Hi Sid, I'm sorry you and your building had to go through this, and I hope no one was injured, or worse. My building had a similar experience in the mid 1990's, and although I was not a resident at the time, I've heard stories and understand the difficulties you are going through.

To answer your question, let me throw these out. You may have already taken some of these actions.
* Get your board attorney involved. She/he should be your primary source of information and guidance as to your rights and responsibilities regarding the habitability of your building.
* Contact your building's insurer. They should have the resources to help you get your building back into a habitable state. They should be able to provide you with funds (within the limits of your coverage) to help you pay for repairs, and will work with your attorney to recover expenses not covered from the neighboring building's insurer.
* Have your shaeholders contact their insurance carriers for whatever help is available under their individual policies.
* You may need to engage an environmental engineer to survey the problems your shareholders are complaining about and provide you with a remediation plan. That will be your roadmap to recovery, and will also answer the questions your shareholders are asking about what the board is doing.

The best of luck to you in your recovery,
--- Steve

Sorry about or the typo errors. It's early morning and I've got to get off the work. I did want to add this shareholder has always been difficult. And, serviced on the board once for a brief time. They got things paid for in their apartments that normally are billed directly to shareholder. No one wanted to confront this person because they know lies always follow. Some feel better to grease the squeaky wheel then to confront.

Oh my! I've got to proof read.... Again, my apologies. They don't "pay" me enough to do this job!

Your managing agent isn't doing his or her job. The board has set policy and fees -- it's up to the managing agent to handle the day-to-day operation of those policies and fees.

If the board is deciding to single this individual out for preferential treatment, then any subsequent shareholder can refuse to pay the fee. Your fellow board members are putting the co-op at fiduciary risk.

Thanks JB for sharing your thoughts. Our managing agent did invoice. Repeat offender sents discourteous emails and ranting calls to both management agent, super and board. It always comes down to he said , she said. These shareholders are in the process of selling their unit so they are being a little more civil but still make their point. They are contesting the hours the super has submitted. I believe we must stand behind our super.

This sort of thing has happened in the past and my views have gotten out. Shareholders now see me as "out to get them". It's been a rough go. I can't pin point the leak. Plus, I had served on the board at the time this shareholder served for one year. In the year they got all their self serving policies. My views were clear in board meetings.

It's very hard serving on a board and having strong views and values. Many times confidentiality goes out the window and personal attacks take over.

One or two bad apples really do spoil the cart. Also, there is a difference between board disscussions being held in confidence, personal lives protected and board members acting in professional manner following PL, by laws and house rules as their guide. Not personal preferences.

Your board needs to put some time in and prepare some documents.
House rules should be distributed with a purchase/application package, with a sign off sheet for all signing/titled parties, to be returned with the application, acknowledging receipt and understanding of the rules. No sign off, no application review. An additional document needs to be prepared regarding moving in/out. We collect a $1000 deposit from a seller within 10 days of an approved sale application, and the same $1000 from the buyer at closing, to offset any potential damage to the building during moving. Refunded to both after move is completed. We also have a carpeting rule, move in/out refund occurs after apartment is inspected by a board member or super for compliance. Include info about the elevator staffing in the document, have both the moving party and the employee sign off with the starting time and completing time. Document can also be handed out with application package with a sign off, so everyone knows up-front. Post documents in a public bulletin board in the lobby or other common area, no excuse that 'I can't find it'. Video cameras with recording in the elevator, lobby, hallways, etc. are invaluable. Recordings can be checked to see when and who is going in or out or using the elevator. As the judge says, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.

My board oresident does the exct same thing at annual meetingd, Stating that he has never seen the rule against children playing on the terrace. He has lived here for over 30 years and raised two boys and knew about the rules, but since the shareholder was complaining about another board members kids, creating an atmosphere that would guarantee a lost of sale if a prospective buyer was in the apartment,
Basically he was just continuing the boards self dealing.
Now , along with my tape recorder and videocamera, i will have to bring the house rules on a posterboard. The shareholder who had complained informed me she is no longer attending annual meeting due to the verbal bulling that he had pweformed. It was quite a lot more than what i mentioned, and saud rule highlighted.

As far as fee's in house rules, i would check with attorneys, I was under the impression that all fees, such as flip taxes, have to be in the proprietary lease or by-laws. The fact that the co-op billed the shareholder for co-op property makes the whole thing look suspicious As a shareholder i would request to see all the moving bills the co-op had issued from day one.

The discourteous shareholders are trying to sell? Fantastic! All you have to do is refuse to give them letters that their maintenance is paid up until they pay the fees they are "disputing". They will threaten up and down, but at the end of the day if paying off the fees means they can close, they will pay. Maintenance Paid letters are required by just about every bank and purchasers attorney, so you have a very strong hand in this.

In a broader sense, the board needs to stand together on this, especially when it comes to your staff. If it is only a small minority who are causing trouble, they can bluster all they want but at the end of the day the board is in control. If you sense that a large minority or possibly a majority of shareholders are dissatisfied, they you need to find out what is behind the dissatisfaction and takes steps to get it cleared up. If you don't, a new board may be put in place after the next annual meeting.

Hello Frank, as President of my cooperative, we do not have a policy in place. When the security cameras were installed, we told our shareholders only management can view the security tapes if there is an incident. This protects the privacy of our shareholders who are just going about there day. The securitycamera footage is only used to view a thief or accident. We had objections and they appreicated the privacy.

We recently had security cameras installed which caught the super and his buddy verbally assaulting me. They were on their usual topic of how I belong in a mental institution. Since the MA witnissed the attack I turned to him and said "Now do you see that I mean?" His response was "You were not physically hurt, and no laws were broken because the constitution allowed for freedom of speech". I had reported this behavior in the past but the board and MA insisted that it was my "perception" and a "he said she said situation" and they needed to consider the supers side of the story. When I asked for a copy of the tape the board president told me I could not have it because I would use it to sue the co-op. He is 100% percent correct and if he had ever thought about giving me the same consideration he gave the super he would not hae this concern. The super and MA got the boot on March 31 and in the few weeks since the building nmhas undergone major changes. It is much cleaner and most of the junk that lined the asement hallway is gone. The best change is I can enter the basement without dreading another encounter. But I have hard feelings toward the board because of the shabby treatment
I received from them. I sent them a certified letter stating that I want the video preserved for my pending legal action. From what I have observed it is reasonable to assume they havealready destroyed it, which will not be a good reflection on them.

It sounds like the board took action based on your complaint and probably prior complaints about the super and MA. They did what was right so you really have no reason to take any further action. They should not release the security footage to you but they should also not destroy it.

it is important to know the time frame you are working with . Many e security systems have only a 3 day timeframe before it auto records over prior footage. Some use a motion detection system, and it is a longer time frame. Some are 5 days. They all are all automatically written over. unless the media is removed from the device. Also my experience with video tapes that i have shot for possible court use, is that the original tape has to be presented to the court, plus a chain of custody provided.. This is in the criminal court system, i am not sure of the civil requirements.. Find out exactly what they are before you need them, know the minimum time frame before it is recorded over. Make sure you subpoena the time frame and camera in question, and most important of all , realize many security cameras do not record AUDIO. In a case like that, it may be best to call the police and have them come and take the he said/she said , get a copy of the report from your precinct, so you have credible evidence, mention the camera to the police and they will ask the MA the overwrite time frame and may be to .take the recordings if a crime has been committed, ie an assault/battery,
otherwise you now know your time frame and can contact a lawyer or subpoena them yourself,

From a purely technical perspective, most surveillance systems in use today by co-ops and condos are DVR (Digital Video Recorders) and not VCR (Video Cassette Recorder). They record the video image(s) on one or more multi-gb hard disks. The only way to extract the image for external viewing is onto an optical disk (DVD) or USB drive. I'm not sure how "chain of custody" fits in here. With hard drives, depending on how many total gigabytes the DVR has, how many cameras are in use, the frame rate and image resolution for each camera, and if it is continuous record or event-driven, images can be stored for weeks or months before being over-written.

But in spite of all that, the very first thing MK should do if she/he is contemplating any legal action, is to contact an attorney. Going it alone is probably the worst think someone with MK's issues can do because they will invariably run afoul of the process for pre-trial discovery and either not get what they need, or disqualify themselves from receiving it in the first place.

From what you describe, you actually DO have a privacy policy: "We told our shareholders only management can view the security tapes if there is an incident. ... The securitycamera footage is only used to view a thief or accident."

I've been speaking with board and managers who say they don't have a policy -- but then when I ask who can see the footage and when, they rattle off conditions and safeguards. Policies ARE there -- de facto policies not written down. And de facto policies dangerous, being prone to misremembering, misinterpretation and on-the-fly changes since, not being written down, who can naysay your version of them? Boards leaving themselves open to claims of ambiguity, and of policy applied differently for different people, which can lead to lawsuits -- whereas a written policy you can show a court and show how you lived up to it.

Do you have a corrupt super or one with those tendencies? Then you have a real problem as videos can be misused.