Managing Agent v.s Manangement Company

Is there any viable difference between "agent" and "company?" I have heard MC's refer to themselves as "higher" on the food chain and thus "closer" to the board (not in terms of working relationship/proximity, but status), than the landscaper, pool company, or the janitorial service. It is my understanding that the MC is just another "hired hand" "employee" or "contractor," who serves at the pleasure of the members (by way of the board).

Since we have folks on here who are on both sides of the coin, I figured that I would put the question to the group....

Jadedone, a Management Company is hired to be an Agent for the association. They are not classified as an employee nor as a contractor. The Management Agreement authorizes them to act on behalf of the association for the items listed in the Agreement. This places them "higher on the food chain" and much closer to the Board. We believe it is a key function of a Managing Agent to provide guidance to the Board.

Brad/Roger/Joseph,

Appreciate the clarity - I think that the issue is that when "broad" terms are included into MC agreements/contracts that allows for certain misguided assumptions of where the true power and reponsibilities reside. From my understand (and the mentorship I have recieved here) the board establishs policies to be executed by the MC - and the contract is the defining tool by which the authority(ies) are defined. When you have a poorly drafted MC agreement/contract, or one that was entered into by a developer board, the issue of "control" is often (or at least in my case, is constantly) challenged by the MC. I know that some here will state that this is a bad MC, or one that is unwilling to understand the intended roles of the membership, board, and MC. Not every MC, who is involved with developer to owner control has these issues. While it may be "semantics" when I hear words like "guidance" instead of "advice" is does cause some concern. I do however take what was responded in posts here, in the totality of the personality of the poster (from previous posts, and the general tone). Therefore I know that here the words mean the basically the samething as we are all attempting to navigate the minefields called HOAs. However when those very same words are used by a real time MC, and when mis-information is presented as factual, it is something that causes red flags.

I do also make the distinction of the MC being in closer proximity to the board, by virtue of the ability to make decisions on behalf of the community. Yet, when those decisions are poorly crafted, there is a valid reason to limited the MC's decision-making powers, so that they are at the level of employee/IC/contractor. No board wants to "micro-manage" the decisions of the MC - the relationship truly exists (when functioning properly) to make the membership's lives easier (of which the board is also a member). Particularly when the "termination clauses" were drafted as such to limit the board's ability to end the agreement/contract, there needs to be a "checks and balances" mechanism in place so that the board's fiduciary duty; the community's needs, are properly protected. What has occured in my situation is that MC attempts to wield the agreement/contract (and the broad terms contained) as the "justification" for their poor decisions.

Make no mistake about it, there are more "positive" MC's then "negative" MC's - the world does not work well in chaos - so by default and by varying levels of what a community requires or desires - their needs are being met sufficiently by the majority of MCs. There are however a healthy portion of MC's who do not perform to the satisfaction of their respective employers, the membership.