What Should a New Mgmt. Co. WANT to Know about MY HOA?

I apologize for my poor typing above. We have an execute contract with the new MC, which I haven't read yet. Various Boards have considered "in-house management," which our restated ('22) CC&Rs now allow, but, what's done is done. Our GC heavily vetted the contract, I'm told, and also is the GC of a few other MC high rise HOAs in our area who are his clients.

Aidyl wrote: "I've seen too many [transitions] that have been very contentious. I am surprised your HOA stayed with the MC that long knowing the quality of candidates they gave you. I fault the MC, not the manager for the problems."

I had sort of an "exit interview," when my final board term ended 2 years ago with the then-board president & VP (now president). It was not the first time nor the last that I asked what the hell they were going to do about our MC? But my immediate concern was our then-PM, who'd been w/us 18 mo & was very weak in many ways. She was "transferred" a few months later by her MC to a smaller less complex single tower HOA, which probably is a better "match" as they say.

BUT, then our Board hired a "property manager," literally, a man who had a dozen years experience managing large complicated mid-rise apartment complexes with lotsa amenities in nearby suburbs. I knew the Board wanted someone with much more experience with infrastructure, I looked him up online right away once hired and saw that he worked for a "management company" that I hadn't heard of, but I assumed they managed HOAs in the 'burbs.

GAH! After about a week here, I took on the task to help the ARC rewrite our ARC Guidelines, it became terrifyingly clear that the new PM could barely spell HOA and had zero knowledge about our governing docs nor CA statutes about HOAs. Luckily, our Mgr. Asst had been here for a while and handled ARC apps, so that continued to be OK. When it was time to send the ARC package to Owners for a 28-day comment period re: rules changes, neither mgr. had the foggiest idea about the Civ. Codes requires. I had to give a lot of "help."

Meanwhile the MC failed to provide financials to our Board (and thus owners as they're on our protected website after board review every month) for five months! Though maintaining confidentiality, It was obvious the board was very ticked off about this and it was, indeed, the last straw. For several years, our MC was headed by a very smart woman and we were their first account in our area. Among our first few full-time mgr. assistants, 2 of the 4 were promoted by the MC to manage "their own" downtown lone-tower high rises. They're both doing very well and we even invited one back to apply for our PM spot when open a couple of years ago. Since that last left, in maybe ''14 with one exception the quality of PMs to interview declined a lot! Ditto the asst. mgrs. I've speculated that the MC grew too big & too fast in my region and it simply cannot find enough qualified candidates. The really good COO, etc. retired form the MC perhaps 4 years ago.

I did read the recent advice on a New MCs on this forum and Shelia's and Mark's comments on transitions. And I will read CAI materials & other online sources. Our Board comprises ll very well-educated ppl. some with very strong backgrounds in areas that should be helpful. BUT they aLL seem to think that theire previous activities in other sectors of the economy are portable to non-profits. And they DO NOT READ HOA stuff.

Any insights would be fabulous. Thank you.

Thanks, Barbara. I'm hoping that the new company--I still haven't read the contract-- will have a survey of their own that they may have administered -- a sort of s customer satisfaction survey, but more along the lines of what Owners would hope to see in a new MC & perhaps PM. I'm certain our board would appose it, but would want a needful of items of thier own.

I'd think there's be standard items such as:

Written communication and notices from your manager:
1. a. Is Not frequent enough b. Is Too frequent. c. is Just about right

2. a Is often too lengthy b. Is a good length. c. Often is too brief.

Responses from managers

About how many times a week do you

Phone the PM: a.0. b. 1-2 3. 3 or ore
Email the GM

3. a. Must wait too long for responses. b. responses are timely within 24 hours. c. I rarely need responses form mgmt.

4. a. Responses are generally helpful. b. responses provide too much detail. c. responses do not provide enough detail.

I think I'll need to do a serious search!

Yes, yes, I know the Board does the hiring just as I was a part of doing lotsa hiring when on he Board for many years. I'm glad to know mgmt. companies do sometime supply surveys to be administered to owners.

Hadn't occurred to me that owners would respond rudely and with hostility!! Still, I think that a board would want to know if there's widespread unhappiness about x or y. I'd hope that out of 200+ condos we'd get a return of close to 100. I know about 70 would be acceptable. If 2-3 owners complain bitterly about x, hmmm, maybe no concern depending on the topic. If 10+ complain, imo, it's something the Board & PM need to consider and perhaps address.

I say if one is unhappy with their MC, they shouls sit down and try to work things out before changing. Much easier that way.

If owners are to be perceived as "customers," why not survey owners about their satisfaction with the board?

A new MC's sole interest should be complying with the terms of the contract. If a survey of owners is not in the contract, the new MC should not be doing one.

I reject the notion that owners are "customers" and that MCs should be doing things outside their contracts.

Uh huh. I think the Board should be surveyed to see how satisfied it is with the COA's owners.

Re: "customers", homeowners aren't the customers, the HOA is. The owners aren't parties to the contract that the manager signs, the HOA is the other party.

The problem is that fundamentally HOAs are weird, and they don't totally fit into the model of non-profit corporations that statutes are meant to regulate. Homeowners are owners of the corporation and they are persons whom the HOA serves. In other words a homeowner is simultaneously a recipient of the services and an owner who is ultimately responsible for the providing the services (via their authority to elect and remove the board if the board isn't doing their job). It's why the phrase "you're just suing yourself and your neighbors" is a cliche and is also accurate.

Yes. Word.

Many owners have zero understanding of what a "covenant" is. Many owners do not understand that management, by contract, has a significant role in enforcing covenants. Treat owners like customers, and IMO it is further down the rabbit hole they go. They are more likely to believe they call the shots, and managers should take direction from them (because the owners are the customers).

In general I wish HOA managers were more knowledgeable about covenants, HOA statutes and corporate statutes. But when it comes to passing a "HOA 101" test, my money is on the average score of managers being significantly higher than the average score of owners. To me this means that a survey of owners about management's role is going to turn up weird, irrelevant responses.

California statutes' requirement for an open forum at every board meeting is wonderful. During open forum, owners may speak on any HOA topic. It offers owners the option of giving feedback regularly.

It sounds like you are unhappy with management or want to try to ensure the new management does xyz. Why not just raise this at open forum? You might gain allies, too.

So take your beefs to open forum. Encourage others to do the same.

Because of open forum, surveying is not necessary. Surveying only adds to everyone's workload.

Of course if you are determined to try to make surveying happen, at open forum state you could state your desire to survey owners, the board and I hope the MC, so everyone is as happy as possible. Wait, maybe your HOA should survey all the vendors too.

You should know better.

And yet here you are, casting doubt on the abilities of a new MC, insisting a survey would help get them off on the correct foot.

Kerry, it is your often wrong answers; your frequent hijacking of non-California threads with California law references; your harassment and stalking of others who face difficult legal situations; your ad hominems; and your lack of logical thinking skills that I dislike, among other things.

If I agreed that a new MC should "want" to know things about the owners or "should" do surveys on the issues you raise, then I would say so. I do not agree with you, and I regret your failing to recognize that open forum is a highly generous (and statutorily required) mechanism for accomplishing what you want. To coddle owners into thinking they need not attend board meetings and need not speak at open forum, but instead should wait for the next survey (which is not cheap and costs all owners), is a terrible idea IMO. I understand if you think it's just a swell, hunky-dory idea.

Yup, stalking.

Of course you think my posts were not constructive. Logic is not your forte.