WillM (California)
Posts: 2
Posts: 2
Posted:
pardon in advance for the VERY detailed story....
I'm on a 5-person board of a 300-unit condo building. One board member (we'll call him "A") hates dogs and is a control freak. Currently, our pet policy states only one dog is allowed (although 2 cats, or a dog and a cat, are allowed). Ours is the only condo in the city with this restrictive policy, and we sought to change that 18 months ago, but with two board members absent, "A' and his friend on the board (no longer on the board) voted against me to 2-1 to table it. More than a year later, we've brought it up for a vote again and four members are voting yes to change the policy to allow two dogs and meet the standard at every other condo.
However, before the current likelihood of the board voting to make this a condo-wide policy, I wrote to the board for permission to get a second dog (as allowed to do per the CC&Rs). We have a pug. An executive session was conducted (I could not vote and waited outside). While "A" did all he could to muddy the issues and keep us from getting approval, the board members voted 3-1 to grant our personal request (in part, because we knew that in the next board meeting we'd be voting 4-1 to make it a building-wide policy).
After the executive session and we were told our request was granted, "A" secretly instructed the building manager to ask the building's law firm (at $300 an hour) if pugs are a fighting breed and if he could get our current pug removed. Shockingly, the building manager did it ("A" intimidates her as he's been a board member the longest). She also sent the attorney two "A" -supplied website links which "A' thinks shows pugs are part of the "mastiff family" and since mastiff are listed as a fighting breed in the pet policy, he could get our pug removed, as well as stop us from getting another one.
The (worthless) attorney said our pug could not be removed; however, he was lazy and wishy washy on the rest. Bizarrely,the attoney's letter declared pugs a fighting breed based on these two worthless website links (didn't bother to do more research or even ask a pug group or a vet!) yet said the board could not prove relation to a mastiff without a DNA test. FYI Pugs are an ancient dog breed originating in China 2000+ years ago. There is no mastiff "family" of dogs and while pugs and Tibetan mastiffs might be related, it was 2000 years ago!!! Pugs are generally regarded as one of the top 10 condo- and child-friendly dogs around. Our pug is perfect (never barks, no violations, etc....NO reason for the vindictive action).
I was shocked that (1.) $1000+ of HOA funds were spent for this vindictive request (2) Our dog was targeted simply as retribution for "A" losing the battle (so he'd win the "war") (3) the building manager was willing to accept the ridiculous findings of the attorney and declare pugs a fighting breed (and thus, put any pug at risk of being banned, removed at a later date.). The actions of "A" and the bldg. manager seems nasty, unethical and I wonder if it was even illegal? Imagine if every resident who had a complaint, or "won" an decision was then vindictively harassed or target for retribution. I complained to the management company who expressed remorse for the situation and said they'd talk to the bldg. manager. later, They said the bldg manager felt "in the middle." However, I don't believe anything was really done (another board member, who is shocked at what has transpired, thinks they are afraid of a lawsuit).
I want "A" to be censored or kicked off the board. And for "A" have to pay for initial engagement of the attorney for his "revenge." Moreover, I now want the HOA to pay to re-engage the attorney in order to accurately research pugs, etc. and thus, remove the fighting breed label. I've lost all trust in the bldg. manager.
What course do I have, both as a resident and a board member? Should this all be discussed at an executive session (our next meeting is mid-June) with the 5 board members, bldg. manager and her bosses? or do I simply tell the board AND owners present during the actual meeting about this nasty, unethical situation? During that meeting, there will be a vote on the two dog policy and "A' will surely raise a ruckus (he is already campaigning to stop it via the building's yahoo groups page..recruiting other anti-dog people to attend the next board meeting) even though the other board members are likely to vote 4-1 to make the alteration of the pet policy and allow two dogs.
Obviously, I feel personally attacked (and our dog attacked) and want to keep this board member from doing this to other residents (he's already rubbed many residents the wrong way with previous comments and decisions and is considered a "bully"). I also want the management firm to be held accountable, both for being a part of it, spending HOA funds and frankly, not questioning the lazy work of the law firm.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Will
I'm on a 5-person board of a 300-unit condo building. One board member (we'll call him "A") hates dogs and is a control freak. Currently, our pet policy states only one dog is allowed (although 2 cats, or a dog and a cat, are allowed). Ours is the only condo in the city with this restrictive policy, and we sought to change that 18 months ago, but with two board members absent, "A' and his friend on the board (no longer on the board) voted against me to 2-1 to table it. More than a year later, we've brought it up for a vote again and four members are voting yes to change the policy to allow two dogs and meet the standard at every other condo.
However, before the current likelihood of the board voting to make this a condo-wide policy, I wrote to the board for permission to get a second dog (as allowed to do per the CC&Rs). We have a pug. An executive session was conducted (I could not vote and waited outside). While "A" did all he could to muddy the issues and keep us from getting approval, the board members voted 3-1 to grant our personal request (in part, because we knew that in the next board meeting we'd be voting 4-1 to make it a building-wide policy).
After the executive session and we were told our request was granted, "A" secretly instructed the building manager to ask the building's law firm (at $300 an hour) if pugs are a fighting breed and if he could get our current pug removed. Shockingly, the building manager did it ("A" intimidates her as he's been a board member the longest). She also sent the attorney two "A" -supplied website links which "A' thinks shows pugs are part of the "mastiff family" and since mastiff are listed as a fighting breed in the pet policy, he could get our pug removed, as well as stop us from getting another one.
The (worthless) attorney said our pug could not be removed; however, he was lazy and wishy washy on the rest. Bizarrely,the attoney's letter declared pugs a fighting breed based on these two worthless website links (didn't bother to do more research or even ask a pug group or a vet!) yet said the board could not prove relation to a mastiff without a DNA test. FYI Pugs are an ancient dog breed originating in China 2000+ years ago. There is no mastiff "family" of dogs and while pugs and Tibetan mastiffs might be related, it was 2000 years ago!!! Pugs are generally regarded as one of the top 10 condo- and child-friendly dogs around. Our pug is perfect (never barks, no violations, etc....NO reason for the vindictive action).
I was shocked that (1.) $1000+ of HOA funds were spent for this vindictive request (2) Our dog was targeted simply as retribution for "A" losing the battle (so he'd win the "war") (3) the building manager was willing to accept the ridiculous findings of the attorney and declare pugs a fighting breed (and thus, put any pug at risk of being banned, removed at a later date.). The actions of "A" and the bldg. manager seems nasty, unethical and I wonder if it was even illegal? Imagine if every resident who had a complaint, or "won" an decision was then vindictively harassed or target for retribution. I complained to the management company who expressed remorse for the situation and said they'd talk to the bldg. manager. later, They said the bldg manager felt "in the middle." However, I don't believe anything was really done (another board member, who is shocked at what has transpired, thinks they are afraid of a lawsuit).
I want "A" to be censored or kicked off the board. And for "A" have to pay for initial engagement of the attorney for his "revenge." Moreover, I now want the HOA to pay to re-engage the attorney in order to accurately research pugs, etc. and thus, remove the fighting breed label. I've lost all trust in the bldg. manager.
What course do I have, both as a resident and a board member? Should this all be discussed at an executive session (our next meeting is mid-June) with the 5 board members, bldg. manager and her bosses? or do I simply tell the board AND owners present during the actual meeting about this nasty, unethical situation? During that meeting, there will be a vote on the two dog policy and "A' will surely raise a ruckus (he is already campaigning to stop it via the building's yahoo groups page..recruiting other anti-dog people to attend the next board meeting) even though the other board members are likely to vote 4-1 to make the alteration of the pet policy and allow two dogs.
Obviously, I feel personally attacked (and our dog attacked) and want to keep this board member from doing this to other residents (he's already rubbed many residents the wrong way with previous comments and decisions and is considered a "bully"). I also want the management firm to be held accountable, both for being a part of it, spending HOA funds and frankly, not questioning the lazy work of the law firm.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance.
Will