Who's Boss? The MC or the BOD?

Seems to me that many of the postings are related to problems with Management Companies. There is a current thread that describes the problems of getting bank statements from the MC. It’s puzzling to find that cases like these are permitted to go on, and it’s mystifying to wonder why the BOD allows the MC to disregard its responsibilities.

These are all stories of “the tail wagging the dog”. Isn’t the answer simply to have a contract between the association and the MC that spells out the terms of the MC’s engagement? Three important sections bear mentioning. (1) The contract should list a complete range of services the MC will be expected to provide. (2) There should be a clause that says … “in attention to the specific duties outlined, the MC will be expected to provide the BOD with prompt and acceptable responses to all other requests that can reasonably be expected to be answerable by the MC. (3) The MC shall be aware that unsatisfactory service in regard to the carrying out of the MC’s obligations may result in a cancellation of the contract, at which time payment will be made up to the day in which the MC leaves the position.

I am not a lawyer and it would be a good idea to get the above worded in a more “lawyerly” manner. But surely, a good understanding of the duties of the MC, by the MC, and a good understanding of “who’s working for who”, would put a lot the anguish to rest. Agreed?

I find that the Management Companies often can drag out issues simply because the Board is made up volunteers who typically have jobs during the day, so much of the business is handled by phone or email during business hours. If a property manager at a management company ever answers the phone it's a rare occasion. Messages can go ignored. Many times, the only face-to-face contact is at the monthly meetings.

I have found with more than one company, that the BOD gets slowed down to the pace of the MC, which will promise to take care of all requests, but when you follow up, you find little or nothing has been done.

Others here may have different opinions but the Board is supposed to direct the work, not do it themselves. They are unpaid volunteers and are called Directors for a reason; they direct the work. For example, It's understandable they want calls to go via the MC. They are not the HOA help desk, unless they choose to be.

They should however set the policies like the fining policy.

We have a situation that I believe needs addressed asap, not after the next meeting, still weeks away, and not when the mc can "get around to it." I have not been given the authority by the board, but have the time, and can begin to gather information, talk to a few people, etc, to have that info ready to present to the board. In fact, if it turns out as I think it night, the situation might be taken care of before the next meeting.
I have time to do some things some of the time, and this is one. One bm has accused me of not acting as a board member, but rather being king, and telling them what to do.
So now what? It's not an emergency that requires a board meeting NOW but needs repaired. Things can work slowly: board meeting several weeks away, then decision as to steps to take, mc addresses problem, agency schedules inspection, inspector submits report, super schedules work according to time/equipment availability, and by then more damage may be done.
Where if I make a phone call or two today, at the very least, things are speeded up. Yes, that bm probably will scream. How the other bms react is anybody's guess.
what would you do?

JC,

No board member has the authority to act unilaterally. If something needs immediate attention, I would try to get the board together for a special, emergency meeting so we could address it together as a group. That's the way the board is supposed to operate.

However, I see no problem in gathering information to be better prepared for a board meeting.

"why hasn't your Board established a violation policy?"

I have no idea, I have been asking them to do so when I was first on the Board at take over, after I resigned and now again that I am back on the Board. As I stated this is the second time they have decided to go after the satellite dishes, wasting everyones time, knowing darn well there is no enforcement policy....The Board received the bid for shurb replacement (I have a copy in my files) but did nothing, that was over a year ago.

When the Association was working with the first two MC's, for the cheaper fee for $558. a month, the Board was asking to much from them. As above, taking their time to acquire bids and then not acting on the request. The Board complained that they never got replies from phone calls & e-mails, well can you blame them, the MC had no time to waste. on them. With the first MC I was on the Board, the 2nd I was not..but I received everything from them I requested and I even went to the office myself, looking through files to get what I wanted. They did a lot for the HOA/Board....Our President now hired this new MC for almost double the cost and they actually do less for the HOA...They charge extra for every little thing and they refuse to file liens (the old MC did this for us at $20., $10. to file and $10. for their time. If we were to file a lien now it would cost us $325. each by attorney. The Association does not have the money for this so therefore there will be no liens filed on our at moment are 14 delinquenties..a total of $15,400. outstanding.

Once again, I believe that the MC is only as good as the Board....the HOA can only survive if there is a adaquate Board who places the welfare of the HO's/community above all else....If the Board can't do this or has no time, don't volunteer for this job (to build your ego), they are bring more harm than good.

Sidney,

Re: satellite dishes: As Mary said - FCC rules on placement also depend on the type of community.

Also, I overlooked something you posted. It was: "The MC send out letters to the HO's to remove them or show a letter of proof from the satellite company that is the only place to get the best service"

This is backwards according to the FCC rule. The burden of proof is on the Association to prove to the FCC that the HO CAN get adequate service by placing the antenna in the permitted location. The HO can ignore such a letter from your MC - it's worthless. Also, since the dishes have been in that location for a number of years and now you want them moved, the HO can argue that it is an additional expense.

As Mary suggested, I strongly urge you to copy the relevent FCC information and give it to your board members. You not only have to be careful about your restrictions, but about any approval process and any attempts at enforcement. Your board may be opening a can of worms and may end up looking foolish if they are not careful.