Major US corporations direct proxies to a trustee (usually a bank representative) with some rules on how the vote is going to be directed for those shares where no preference is indicated.

I find co-ops should institute something similar. At best, shareholders should direct the proxies to Management or to the co-op counsel for purposes of counting and making sure a quorum is attained. However, a good board should make some provisions, policy or decision by way of resolution on how proxy statements should be voited if the shareholder fails come to the meeting. Such decision should be part of the instructions on the proxy. In this way, every shareholder will feel confident of returning a proxy in the event you are not familiar with other shareholders way of thinking.

Finally, if I were you, I would write a letter to the board stating your idea. Similarly, if you want to "rock" the meeting, this would be a good topic that you should be introduced at the annual shareholders' meeting to increase confidence on the proxy system. Again, seize the moments and use it to your best advantage!

AdC

Beth - If you allow proxies to be left at your front desk, they should all be given to the managing agent who should give them to the Inspectors of Election at the annual meeting. You didn't say if they were left at the front desk in sealed envelopes - they should be. Front desk people, other staff and shareholders not named on the proxies have no business being involved or privy to proxy information. You also didn't say if proxies left for a candidate that were accidentally delivered to another candidate were transfered and tallied properly - or if the candidate who got them by mistake used them for himself.

Because some people are Board directors doesn't mean they have the right to access proxies or know who named whom as their proxy. I think your Board is wrong in not allowing a ballot box or lockbox to be kept at the front desk for proxies which, as I said above, should be kept sealed and given to the Inspectors of Election at the meeting.

Your super also has no business soliciting shareholders for proxies - and he should be told so outright by the managing agent. Shareholders should be advised in writing that a Board has a duty to do the best possible job for the coop and shareholders should use sound judgment and carefully consider all candidates based on their experience, ability and qualifications. This can be done in a diplomatic way.

Just because a super likes someone or finds someone easy to work with (maybe because that person makes his job easy by letting him do what he wants or do things his way) doesn't mean that someone is a good Board director. The super is an employee, not a shareholder, and has no vested interest in the coop, except for keeping his job and not having to work harder than he has to.

Hi BP,
You sound very knowledgeble, are you in the realty business, and if so, can I contact you directly?

Thanks for the compliment, Beth. Sorry but I'm not in the realty biz - just a shareholder who's been on the Board a long time, like to live in a nice place, and have a say in making it the best it can be for everyone. Our mgmt firm used to tell me I should become a property manager. I may be a sucker for punishment by wanting to be on my Board for so long, but a property manager? I'm not looking for that much punishment - haha!

I forgot to say in my other message that you can't totally prevent your super from talking about Board candidates to shareholders and if he does it quietly you likely won't know it. You said you got complaints from people about his soliciting for their proxies. The managing agent should let him know if he values his job he'll stop doing that. You should keep reminding shareholders that as the Board goes so goes the coop and the action of any Board can have long-term impact, so whom they choose to represent their homes and investments should not be taken lightly.

While I agree with you BP that the super should not get involed or canvass during election time, there is usually a reason one does. I have seen in the past where boards/management make house rules etc and the first ones to break them are the ones that set them in place to begin with. If in fact the super is canvassing (which I do not recommend)there is a reason behind it. After all the super is the "eyes and ears" of your Coop and probably knows more than anyone else about the "going ons".

FN

FN - I agree with you that the super is a coop's "eyes and ears." He can be a source of info, but I've also found that when you ask for help he often resists. He doesn't want to tell people they don't recycle properly or are supposed to clean up their dog's mess in the lobby. He's afraid they won't like him anymore or doesn't want to be the "bad guy" and risk not getting $ at Christmas.

FN - I also agree with you that Boards/mgmt are sometimes the first ones to break rules, and there's usually a reason a super tries to canvas during election time. If you have responsible, fair, honest Board members, they shouldn't let one of them break rules. No one wants to turn a coop into a police state but the law of "what applies to one applies to all" should stand. Also, if a Board lets one Board member break rules, it reflects poorly on the entire Board.

Just my opinions --

BP,I agree with most of what you say. If only it were so simple. If you are going to ask the super " to police" your building you had better back him 110%. To be quiet honest it is not a great idea to put the super in the line of fire as just by doing his job he may be in trouble. Example you inform your super to enforce a house rule regarding dog in the lobby. Soon enough all the people that walk their dog through the lobby will be pissed off with the super and fabricate stories etc. Come holiday season he suffers.

Now my question to you is, do you compensate your superintendent for loss of potential earnings at holiday season for doing a very good job and carring out your policies?

FN.

FN - I too wish coop life was that simple. We do back our super 110% and make it very clear to shareholders that he's following directives. No one gripes and he doesn't suffer at holiday time. In fact, he does very well. I think people appreciate him more because he does a good job and he DOES remind people about certain things when he has to -- and in a firm but courteous and non-confrontational way. Bldgs have to decide about a super based on their specific needs.

I mentioned people cleaning up a dog's mess. Works for us, maybe not everywhere. Our super lives in but works Mon-Fri, 6am-2pm. He has another PT job, night school, doesn't get home until 10pm. We had 4 dogs when we enacted a no-dogs policy so they stayed. After them, no more dogs. We have a very expensive, dark-color lobby rug. The dogs are old now and make messes that aren't readily noticed - until someone steps in them. The super is told about dog accidents and he reminds owners it's their job to clean them up. In this case, he gets support from residents for doing this because no one wants to step in it, and it ruins our rug.

Like most things, when people see that rules a super helps to enforce benefit them they don't complain or take it out on him. Won't always work, but we keep trying to find ways to do our job, keep as many people happy as we can (they won't all be happy all the time, of course) and keep the coop environment cordial and...cooperative.

BTW, if anyone's wondering who cleans up dog messes when our super isn't on duty, it's not a problem anymore. The dog owners do because they know everyone in the bldg knows who they are, and if anyone will take heat about dog-doo in the lobby, elevator or wherever, they will.

It boils down to doing what is profitable and easy versus doing what is right. The shareholders can break the house rules and the super allows it so he won't get short changed at Christmas by correcting them. What ever happened to doing the right thing?

V, with all due respect you are missing the point. The issue we were discussing was doing the right thing and (here is the kicker, the board weighing in behind you). It is not a financial gain at holiday season for enforcing their policies (although it is nice to know that the board/residents appreciate you " policeing" their building on their behalf)

FN

that went on for years at my building. in fact, the assistant manager used to call some people down to the office and "suggest" they sign a proxy. with Honest Ballot our elections are a lot fairer

Our managing agent gets our proxies but a shareholder insists on us using a suggestion box. The managing agent doesn't do anything to discourage this person. Our election results were in question once and management blamed the errors on the software.

We have a board member who was caught forging proxies...
He signed in for owners he knew would not attend the meeting, filled out their proxies, and voted for himself.
We have no idea how long this has gone on. And, unfortunately for a number of reasons (another issue) we do not trust our management to count the votes. Therefore we had the votes counted at the last Shareholders meeting, with observers.
I believe that shareholder have a legal right to have the counting of the votes monitored. There are agencies who specialize in this, and it’s a common practice -- telling us that we are not paranoid.
Some, management companies prefer (ours is very tight with the forger) specific board members. IE: Board members who don’t question their recommendations. (Another issue)

>

yes a big problem. the first time i ran for the board i lost by 2 votes. two people came up to me and told me that when they went to vote in person they were told a proxy was already submitted and were not told they could revoke that proxy by voting in person. one was a person who was in the hospital and was not expected to be home ---this was known to management. i wonder how many other proxies were voted by management and the board.