Page 12 - CooperatorNews NY March 2021

12 COOPERATORNEWS — MARCH 2021 COOPERATORNEWS.COM We handle all sprinkler system inspections and violations. • Sprinkler System Design and Installation • Maintenance, repair and service • Flow and Pressure tests • Violation Removals • Monthly Inspections • Stand Pipes and Fire Pumps Big Apple Fire Sprinkler Co. Inc. 64-20 Laurel Hill Blvd. Woodside NY 11377 • 718-205-8580 • Fax 718-205-4590 Email: alevitt@bigapplesprinkler.com = Big Apple Fire Sprinkler_Oct2011.qxp:Layout 1 9/20/11 2:07 PM Page 1 ing their money for a big project. It’s impor- tant that they see and feel where the money is spent. It gives them a far better perspective when they talk to shareholders—and that’s extremely valuable.” Bryan Hughes, president for New Eng- land for FirstService Residential, says, “This can be difficult to generalize as each com- munity, and each board, has a different flavor. They are made up of people, so each situation is different.” He divides his boards into three categories: too engaged, appropriately en- gaged, and disengaged. “For management, disengaged boards may be easier to deal with on a day-to-day basis,” says Hughes, “but that isn’t necessarily a good thing. Although in those communi- ties board micromanagement isn’t an issue, it’s often difficult to influence the board to make needful decisions. This demands extra time from the manager to educate and re- educate on circumstances and issues, and of- ten manifests as deferred maintenance if the budget isn’t properly funded or the manager isn’t empowered to take care of the property.” At the same time, a board that is too en- gaged can make management of the property difficult. “Part of the fiduciary responsibility for the board is to oversee manage- ment,” says Hughes, “but this doesn’t take away from the board’s primary du- ties to cast vision and to vote. If they’re too involved in the day- to-day, they lose the perspective that they need to have to focus on the greater macro-picture of the property.” Hughes concedes that board micromanage- ment is sometimes a reaction to previous experiences with poor management. But just as often, “boards are simply over-engaged thanks to members’ control issues, or as a re- sult of politics within the board creating fear and anxiety.” Hughes goes on to say that an appropri- ately engaged board is the best balance for the community and for management. “The board should be engaged beyond the month- ly meetings,” he says, “but not so engaged that they burn out and can’t review things objectively. Perhaps some managers prefer the board not be involved, but we find it’s best when there is a true partnership.” In terms of how board style affects his ability to effectively manage a client property, Wollman says, “When a board is busy with minutia, it’s hard to manage. If we’re discuss- ing what kind of flowers to put in the lobby for an hour, we can’t get things done. We don’t need to discuss flowers for an hour—it’s not productive. The board should make that de- cision without me.” Micromanaging from the board also short-circuits a building’s or association’s chain of command, Wollman adds. “Board members really shouldn’t involve themselves in managing the staff,” he says. “They should leave that to us. Say for instance that a door- man is inappropriately dressed. It’s the super’s job to speak to him. If a board member starts directly disciplining staff, they undermine management’s authority, which just makes it harder to run the building.” Sometimes a building staff member with a complaint will find a sympathetic board member who will listen—which on its face might not seem problematic, but in reality “often creates conflict and mucks up the sys- tem,” says Wollman. “The board’s responsibil- ity is to make policy and procedure; it’s the manager’s responsibility to carry it out. We institute it.” Pros & Cons from Both Perspectives As with a marriage, managers can’t go into a relationship with an elected board intend- ing to change it; they have to be prepared and willing to meet the board where they are, and work with whatever dynamic presents itself. According to Hughes, “Part of the role of the manager and management is to adapt. But by ‘adapt,’ I don’t mean that the manage- ment company or manager should change who they are—but rather that they recognize what attributes they will need to utilize most for this particular board and property. Some of this is skillset, and some of this is person- ality. In the end, management also needs to have the strength to recog- nize if it just isn’t a good fit. Some- times manage- ment can just ride out an antagonis- tic board, but in an industry with an ever- shrinking pool of qualified managers, some of the toxicity levied by boards should cause management to consider whether a particu- lar association relationship is doing more harm than good.” “The truth,” adds Wollman, “is that with an autocratic board, I’m usually dealing with the president only. Lots of times, just deal- ing with one person makes it easier for me to manage the building in certain respects. From the perspective of the board, though, it can lead to second-guessing from others in the building if things don’t go well. People don’t care what’s happening and how it hap- pens—when it works well. When things go awry, that changes. In truth, this type of board approach is poor governance, even if it generally works well on a practical level.” Wollman suggests that a bigger problem is when people get on the board to pursue a personal agenda. That’s definitely not helpful, and can lead to problems in decision mak- ing and conflict with other board members and residents. Overall, he says, collabora- tive boards take longer to make decisions— which is not to suggest that it takes forever, but that issues are vetted more thoroughly, which is a good thing. “There are a lot of BOARD STYLE... continued from page 1 “The board should be engaged beyond the monthly meetings.” —Bryan Hughes