I had a building exactly like this!
They were even wanting to fine people $1000 for loitering in the halls!!

What I did was contact a few X board members that i would like to see replace them and them asked them to please run for the Board at the upcoming annual.
Obviously since the current Board members were a building nuisance, they were not re-elected and the building was at peace again.

Good Luck!
~AR

Following up on socialistic boards? I have one that want everyone to obey the "house rules", the staff to enforce them, while you guessed it, the biggest offenders/violators are the board. The board then look to descipline the staff for not being able to enforce the rules..

Should we call in the national guard.

Go figure, RMM

Gee, that sounds like my building, although I do believe House Rules should be enforced, that's protection for all and hopefully everyone wants to live in a good environment. When House Rules are tossed out, we just might become a Project. I wouldn't think anyone wants that.

Why would you want people hanging out in the Lobby? A lobby is an ingress and egress. Wouldn't you or anyone want to live in a place where standards are brought up NOT down? That's the object of a co-op, more exclusivity than a rental. If that's the way people want to live, why not stay in a rental. It seems a GOOD rental has more control. Explain.

If any shareholder including Board Members see actions by visitors (non-residents) that are abusive, beligerent and giving a guard/door person a difficult time then there is no problem in that Board Member or shareholder to step in. Security is a major issue for all living there and non-residents acting up would be cause to step in to protect oneself and others. As for a nuisance holdover, there is no basis, especially if - once again - the issue is a non-resident being under the influence and/or causing a problem.

I might add something to Anonymous 1's statement - if the person acting up is a non-resident and was asked to leave, that could be cause for Trespassing. So the action of a Nuisance Holdover (whatever that is) would be VOID!

if someone is visiting a resident in the building, i don't see how they could be charged with trespassing. There was no mention in any of the OP posts concerning their conduct, so speculation, is pretty unwarranted.

it is so easy to video tape people in the hallways, so evidence of improper conduct would be pretty easily obtained, and that would solve the 3 side to a story,
i have a netcam where my door viewfinder was.
i remember i sticky situation in my building where a woman got a Order of protection against her x boyfriend, who really was and is a nut and was and is very dangerous. The cops said they couldn't keep him out of the building , since he had 3 relatives that lived there n 3 different apartments, and he had to walk by her door to get to the elevator. unless the relatives signed that he wasn't allowed in, he had the right to visit. the relatives were too scared of what he might do if they signed, so they didn't sign anything,

If your statement is true and as you said no action has been taken concerning the two board members would it be possible that they are acting within the guide-lines of the house rules?

If the guest(s) visiting the resident are following the house rules I don't see why this person would have to be questioned. Unless they are not acting within reason than the proper steps should be taken by security.

What what CMJ described, these two board members are interrogating (his word) visitors in general. Since not even police can compel you to give more than than your identification, these board members are clearly acting in an unjustifiable manner.

Being on a board doesn't give them, outside the board room, any powers that other shareholders don't have. And as shareholders, they have no right to interrogate other shareholders' guests.

As CMJ said, the co-op has security personnel tasked with preventing trespassers and keeping the peace on this private property. In this case, aside from board members acting arrogantly, you have a case of shareholders creating a nuisance to other shareholders.

Bottom line: Being a board member does not allow you to behave in a way that other shareholders cannot behave.

As you stated if what CMJ states is factual, when non-residents,guests enter a building and are causing a problem for the guard/door person any shareholder board member (who is also a shareholder) when noticing that the guard/door person is having a difficult time has a right to protect themselves as well as the building for others who live there. If the shareholder speaks to the guard/door person with NO interaction with the guest (which is not known at this juncture) and the guest was asked to leave again, that can be considered as Trespassing. If this guest is not a shareholder, not on a lease and being disruptive any shareholder or board member can advise the guard/door person to seek help and/or file a complaint. This is not exclusive to board members as stated any shareholder concerned about where they live.

I must agree with one thing. Has anyone heard from the other side or just from what is being told by one side? Always remember, there are 3 sides to every issue, "Yours, mine and somewhere in the middle is the truth". That being said a Nuisance Holdover is invalid in this instance. Basically a Nuisance Holdover is for a Noise issue, non-compliance with pets, sublet issues, disruption to other shareholders i.e. legal tenants. If security has done what he/she had to do in compliance with the rules, by calling the Tenant (and no one answering)or Tenant did not want guest to go up, the security would relay that, if further disagreement happens that further steps should be taken to make sure guest leaves, if guest then refuses and any legal tenant or board member (legal tenant) observes this, there is no problem in advising security to either file a complaint or seek legal remomval. No one can be sure what a person causing a problem can and may do. I am of the belief that any Tenant (legal) should protect their living quarters from any problem that may and can lead to something bigger, whether it be an intense argument (screaming) or anything else that might erupt.

The original post from CMJ? stated that the people being questioned by shareholders were guests as opposed to someone walking in "to case" the area. There is a world of difference. While I believe we should all be vigilant let the staff you hired take care of these issues.(well trained staff are your eyes and ears). I have personally witnessed shareholders who had no business whatsoever questining individuals sitting quietly in our lobby as to who/why they were here. If you fit "certain profiles" you are liable to be questioned.This is embarrassing and wrong....

How do any of us know if the Guest was questioned? Possibly the Tenant (Legal) just spoke to the Security. We are just looking at it from CMJ's point of view. That's the issue. A legal Tenant or board member, who is also a legal Tenant, if seeing something that could escalate or someone not adhering to Security, I would think can speak with the Security. They do work for the building and the protection of such building and all legal Tenants.

I think we're getting our signals crossed. I don't see CMJ saying anything about the board members only dealing with problem visitors.

He's saying the board members take it upon themselves to interrogate whoever comes in.

He's also saying he considers this a problem, i.e., harassing fellow shareholders' guests.

We don't know if that's factual? We have not heard the other side. Anyone can say anything, not necessarily what actually is. Thereby, all of this back and forth on this issue can be a moot point. Do we actually know EVERYONE who comes into the building is Interrogated? Of course not. Are these Tenants/Board Members standing by the front door waiting for people/guests to come in to jump on them. I find that a little beyond comprehensive.

CMJ never identified by building, so what's beyond comprehension is why he would lie about it. He wanted to get advice about a situation as he perceived it -- he's not trying to score public-opinion points.

Your tactic of exaggeration is typical of those who don't have a leg to stand on via logic. "standing by the front door waiting...to jump on" guests? Please. We all know board members can behave autocratically. We all know people with a little power can abuse it. (DMV clerks, anyone?) I'd have to wonder if you're not one of the board members CMJ labels as a "nuisance."

You sound like you are a friend of CMJ's. Is that so? I responded because it seems like many answers to what was stated seem to be listening to something that is not even confirmed by any other person. None of us, including you JB, really know the issue at hand, just a comment from someone. Correct a little power can be abused, do we know if the question posed or issue discussed is not from someone who is doing that same thing?

I've no connection to CMJ or even know what the initials stand for. I'm operating strictly from what he or she is saying.

CMJ has no reason to lie -- it's an anonymous setting, where none of us know what building it is or who is involved. As far as any of us on the outside are concerned, it's a hypothetical situation -- and you attack the person proposing it.

CMJ came here seeking help -- and instead you impugn the victim's motives. If you don't believe he/she's telling the truth, why comment at all? CMJ was only asking for advice; if you didn't have any ... well, one wonders what your motivation could be in attacking CMJ.

JB get a grip

I agree with what you stated, none of us know the situation. I am playing Devils Advocate, how do any of us know any situation. Don't know CMJ either, I'm looking at it from a different prospective, a what if - if that makes any sense. Anyone can ask any question that choose to, but that particular issue seemed like certain people were being attacked and none of us know what is real and what isn't, what is fact and what isn't. All the answers seemed to advise in a derogatory fashion. It would be great if all knew all circumstances. Every one asks questions on their preception, doesn't mean they are lying but sometimes all is not factual.