COMMENTARY ON THE PIANO CONTROVERSY: The following is my opinion. I was not in favor of buying a piano, given the money we need to spend on fixing our infrastructure. However, because the piano is now here in our beautifully refurbished West lobby and people, including me, are enjoying it both as a handsome item of furniture and as a high-quality musical instrument, I feel it is absolutely mandatory that if the Board is seriously considering selling the piano that it must send a questionnaire to every unit owner asking them to vote on whether to keep or sell this valuable item. However, I would like to point out that after spending $300,000 on furnishings, we have sofas that cost $$8,000 and $12,000, chairs that cost over $3,000 a piece, barstools that cost just under $1,000 a piece, and etc. We also have a first floor adorned with artwork that cost a total of $35,000. Does that mean we should also consider selling these items, and that the Association should vote item by item on what to keep and what to sell? I say it is time to move on.
The piano was no secret. It had always been part of the design plan and that design plan was presented in public forum to owners and residents by The Hartman Design Group. It is inconceivable that any Board member could have been unaware of the intention to purchase a piano. Furthermore, there had never been any Board decision to discuss, much less debate, whether to purchase a piano. What is unfortunate is that the Board failed to solicit comments from Association members starting at the very beginning of the refurbishment project. This is basic psychology in how leaders need to deal with a large group of people who share common space. Getting agreement and buy in on the basic goals guiding the refurbishment process would have probably headed off many of the problems we are hearing people complain about.
COMMUNICATING WITH THE BOARD: Recently I learned that the most effective way of delivering praise or complaints to the Board is to submit these letters to the management office. Why? Because these letters will then be made part of the monthly management report and then become part of the official Association record.
COMMENTARY ON THE ECA BOARD & UPCOMING ELECTION: One other comment that I feel must be made is that very idea of punishing a Board member for following the direction of the President of the Board is petty and completely unacceptable. All too often, those of us who attend monthly Board meetings see Board members act unprofessionally. Furthermore, Board members act like they are adversaries instead of teammates looking out for the good of the entire Association.
We are approaching our annual meeting where three Board members, if they choose to run, will be up for re-election. It’s time to think hard about who you want to represent you. I want Board members who communicate well; have no axes to grind; can work together respectfully while making hard choices; are honest, impartial, dependable, competent; have a track record of sound financial responsibility; promote community; and enforce the rules equitably.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Summary of Feb 23, 2011 Elizabeth Condo Board Meeting
Present at the meeting: Alexandra Kielty, Judi Barth, Charles Bressler, Molly Frantz, Monique Fridell, Seth Levine, Al Muller, Jason Fisher, Scott Murdoch, Jim Santos, and recorder of meeting minutes.
JANUARY MINUTES: Approval of the January minutes was tabled until next month because the ECA Secretary was unable to perform this job in a timely manner. This is not the first time this has happened under his assignment as the ECA Secretary. The approved meeting minutes are important for setting the record straight and if they are not delivered in a timely fashion, we Association members are at a terrible disadvantage, especially when problems occur and we need to refer to what decisions have been made by our Board of Directors.
LEGAL DETERMINATION: The ECA condo lawyer Jason Fisher was present for this particular meeting. He was invited to comment on two large projects: the replacement of (1) windows/balcony doors and (2) the McQuay heating/cooling units. What he said was the responsibility for replacing windows/balcony doors falls to the Elizabeth Condominium Association. However, the responsibility for replacing the McQuay heating/cooling units that reside in individual units must be paid for by the owners. None of these projects are simple.
REPLACEMENT OF WINDOW & BALCONY DOORS: Replacement of windows/balcony doors will require the ECA to borrow money. According to our treasurer Monique Fridell, we are positioned to borrow, though more data and decisions are needed before the Board moves on this. According to our house manager, if the Board decided to move ahead and procured the necessary loan now, then it would be possible to start the project as early as July 1, 2011.
REPLACEMENT OF HEATING/COOLING UNITS: Replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units is much more complicated. The Association would have to replace and fix the infrastructure that supports the individual McQuay heating/cooling units before any individual McQuay units could be replaced. Replacement would logically proceed tier by tier and not floor by floor. The average estimated cost per unit (don’t forget some units are much larger than others and have more than two units) is somewhere between $6,000 to $12,000.
BYLAW ISSUE: As it stands right now, it would be up to the unit owner to voluntarily cooperate with the project. According to our house manager, if every unit owner cooperated, the project would take two to three years to complete with the minimal amount of disruption for all involved. If a majority of unit owners failed to cooperate, the project could take 10 or more years to complete with untold hours of disruption of water, heat and cooling services for many residents. Therefore, our lawyer suggested an amendment to the ECA Bylaws that would allow the ECA Board to have more control over projects that are for the good of the entire Association. Any changes to the Bylaws will require agreement of 66 and 2/3 percent of the Association to amend the Bylaws. This means unit owners need to be made aware of the critical nature of fixing the heating and cooling system, which is so overdue for replacement that it’s a train wreck waiting to happen.
HALLWAY REFURBISHMENT: To further complicate this discussion, there are actually three large projects on the ECA table. The third project is renovation of the hallways. At this time, design work is being done by The Hartman Group on the hallway renovation. All discussion about design costs at the February Board meeting pertained to this new phase of work for the hallway renovation. The lobby renovation work was completed and, according to the Board, it was completed under the projected and approved budget cost of $1.5 million.
SEQUENCING OF BIG PROJECTS: At a working meeting of the Board that took place a number of weeks ago (they discussed budget planning, including the 5-year plan), our house manager made it clear that these three projects cannot be accomplished simultaneously. He suggested that the priority be: (1) replacement of windows/balcony doors, (2) replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units, and (3) renovation of the hallways. The importance of this order is to realize immediate energy savings, avoid costly interim repairs on failing equipment, and avoid damaging newly refurbished areas (hallways).
FOUR-PIPE SYTEM REFUBISHMENT & WINTERIZATION OF THE COOLING TOWER: Also feeding into the discussion of fixing the heating and cooling infrastructure, the house manager requested a decision on making immediate repair to something called the four-pipe system and winterizing the cooling tower. The four-pipe system, which was installed when the building was built, allows for the spring-fall situation when some units in the building require heat while other require air-conditioning. The house manager said we have always been set up to accommodate these opposing needs but the system has been in disrepair for quite some time. The Mendoza Engineering Study recommended fixing these infrastructure systems. Therefore the Board decided to move ahead with both repairs. The four-pipe system involves pipes exposed to weather that sit on our roof and need replacement which will cost $13,000 and the other, the enclosed cooling tower refurbishment, costs $32,000. $50,000 had been budgeted for this project so this expenditure appears to be well within that limit. There are some energy implications that also need to be managed.
COMMITTEE & COMMUNITY UPDATES:
The Landscape Committee reported on the status of its activities, including a public event for owners and residents on March 3 to update Association members on project work to date and to solicit ideas, comments, and questions. To get advance information on the project, visit the official Elizabeth website.
An elections committee was named and announced.
On Saturday March 26 in the West Lobby from 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm, the family of long time resident Helen Soderberg will commemorate her life. Those wishing to attend need to RSVP. Consult the flyer hanging on the bulletin board in our mail corridor for more information, including how to notify her family that you would like to attend.
PIANO CONTROVERSY: A contentious discussion about the piano that was procured as part of the refurbishment budget took up a big chunk of time during this meeting. Refurbishment Committee members (an ECA Board-led group) asked Al Muller, who had been a concert pianist, to research a piano to meet the requirements set by the Hartman Design Group as well as find a piano that would be an asset for generations to come who live in the Elizabeth. Dr. Muller consulted with Alexandra Kielty on the piano, which met all the requirements, and asked for permission to purchase the piano which was a year-old instrument being sold by the Kennedy Center. She said yes and he purchased the piano using his credit card since the nature of the sale required immediate action.
At this February meeting, the treasurer Monique Fridell stated she was unwilling to sign a check for something over $19,000 to reimburse Dr. Muller for the piano. Ms. Fridell felt this was not an approved expense and tied it to comments from the ECA auditors. Charles Bressler tried unsuccessfully to state a motion to deny reimbursement to Dr. Muller. Jason Fisher clarified and stated that first a motion must be brought to the Board requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. What was not entirely clear was that if the purchase of the piano was not approved then Dr. Muller could not be reimbursed for the cost of the piano. Ms. Fridell proposed the motion for requesting retroactive Board approval for the purchase of the piano. Fridell, Bressler, Molly Frantz, and Seth Levine voted against this motion with the balance of the Board, Kielty, Muller and Judi Barth voting for. Seth Levine then proposed a motion to reimburse Dr. Muller at which point the ECA lawyer intervened saying this was not possible if the purchase had not been approved. Dr. Muller stating Robert’s Rules of Order suggested that someone who voted against the motion could then call for a new vote on the same topic. After some discussion, Levine, realizing this situation opened up the prospect of a lawsuit against the ECA, reversed his first vote and then orchestrated a new vote requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. In the second vote, Fridell and Bressler voted against approval and Kielty, Barth, Franz, Levine, and Muller voted for. This cleared the way to reimburse Dr. Muller.
JANUARY MINUTES: Approval of the January minutes was tabled until next month because the ECA Secretary was unable to perform this job in a timely manner. This is not the first time this has happened under his assignment as the ECA Secretary. The approved meeting minutes are important for setting the record straight and if they are not delivered in a timely fashion, we Association members are at a terrible disadvantage, especially when problems occur and we need to refer to what decisions have been made by our Board of Directors.
LEGAL DETERMINATION: The ECA condo lawyer Jason Fisher was present for this particular meeting. He was invited to comment on two large projects: the replacement of (1) windows/balcony doors and (2) the McQuay heating/cooling units. What he said was the responsibility for replacing windows/balcony doors falls to the Elizabeth Condominium Association. However, the responsibility for replacing the McQuay heating/cooling units that reside in individual units must be paid for by the owners. None of these projects are simple.
REPLACEMENT OF WINDOW & BALCONY DOORS: Replacement of windows/balcony doors will require the ECA to borrow money. According to our treasurer Monique Fridell, we are positioned to borrow, though more data and decisions are needed before the Board moves on this. According to our house manager, if the Board decided to move ahead and procured the necessary loan now, then it would be possible to start the project as early as July 1, 2011.
REPLACEMENT OF HEATING/COOLING UNITS: Replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units is much more complicated. The Association would have to replace and fix the infrastructure that supports the individual McQuay heating/cooling units before any individual McQuay units could be replaced. Replacement would logically proceed tier by tier and not floor by floor. The average estimated cost per unit (don’t forget some units are much larger than others and have more than two units) is somewhere between $6,000 to $12,000.
BYLAW ISSUE: As it stands right now, it would be up to the unit owner to voluntarily cooperate with the project. According to our house manager, if every unit owner cooperated, the project would take two to three years to complete with the minimal amount of disruption for all involved. If a majority of unit owners failed to cooperate, the project could take 10 or more years to complete with untold hours of disruption of water, heat and cooling services for many residents. Therefore, our lawyer suggested an amendment to the ECA Bylaws that would allow the ECA Board to have more control over projects that are for the good of the entire Association. Any changes to the Bylaws will require agreement of 66 and 2/3 percent of the Association to amend the Bylaws. This means unit owners need to be made aware of the critical nature of fixing the heating and cooling system, which is so overdue for replacement that it’s a train wreck waiting to happen.
HALLWAY REFURBISHMENT: To further complicate this discussion, there are actually three large projects on the ECA table. The third project is renovation of the hallways. At this time, design work is being done by The Hartman Group on the hallway renovation. All discussion about design costs at the February Board meeting pertained to this new phase of work for the hallway renovation. The lobby renovation work was completed and, according to the Board, it was completed under the projected and approved budget cost of $1.5 million.
SEQUENCING OF BIG PROJECTS: At a working meeting of the Board that took place a number of weeks ago (they discussed budget planning, including the 5-year plan), our house manager made it clear that these three projects cannot be accomplished simultaneously. He suggested that the priority be: (1) replacement of windows/balcony doors, (2) replacement of the McQuay heating/cooling units, and (3) renovation of the hallways. The importance of this order is to realize immediate energy savings, avoid costly interim repairs on failing equipment, and avoid damaging newly refurbished areas (hallways).
FOUR-PIPE SYTEM REFUBISHMENT & WINTERIZATION OF THE COOLING TOWER: Also feeding into the discussion of fixing the heating and cooling infrastructure, the house manager requested a decision on making immediate repair to something called the four-pipe system and winterizing the cooling tower. The four-pipe system, which was installed when the building was built, allows for the spring-fall situation when some units in the building require heat while other require air-conditioning. The house manager said we have always been set up to accommodate these opposing needs but the system has been in disrepair for quite some time. The Mendoza Engineering Study recommended fixing these infrastructure systems. Therefore the Board decided to move ahead with both repairs. The four-pipe system involves pipes exposed to weather that sit on our roof and need replacement which will cost $13,000 and the other, the enclosed cooling tower refurbishment, costs $32,000. $50,000 had been budgeted for this project so this expenditure appears to be well within that limit. There are some energy implications that also need to be managed.
COMMITTEE & COMMUNITY UPDATES:
The Landscape Committee reported on the status of its activities, including a public event for owners and residents on March 3 to update Association members on project work to date and to solicit ideas, comments, and questions. To get advance information on the project, visit the official Elizabeth website.
An elections committee was named and announced.
On Saturday March 26 in the West Lobby from 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm, the family of long time resident Helen Soderberg will commemorate her life. Those wishing to attend need to RSVP. Consult the flyer hanging on the bulletin board in our mail corridor for more information, including how to notify her family that you would like to attend.
PIANO CONTROVERSY: A contentious discussion about the piano that was procured as part of the refurbishment budget took up a big chunk of time during this meeting. Refurbishment Committee members (an ECA Board-led group) asked Al Muller, who had been a concert pianist, to research a piano to meet the requirements set by the Hartman Design Group as well as find a piano that would be an asset for generations to come who live in the Elizabeth. Dr. Muller consulted with Alexandra Kielty on the piano, which met all the requirements, and asked for permission to purchase the piano which was a year-old instrument being sold by the Kennedy Center. She said yes and he purchased the piano using his credit card since the nature of the sale required immediate action.
At this February meeting, the treasurer Monique Fridell stated she was unwilling to sign a check for something over $19,000 to reimburse Dr. Muller for the piano. Ms. Fridell felt this was not an approved expense and tied it to comments from the ECA auditors. Charles Bressler tried unsuccessfully to state a motion to deny reimbursement to Dr. Muller. Jason Fisher clarified and stated that first a motion must be brought to the Board requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. What was not entirely clear was that if the purchase of the piano was not approved then Dr. Muller could not be reimbursed for the cost of the piano. Ms. Fridell proposed the motion for requesting retroactive Board approval for the purchase of the piano. Fridell, Bressler, Molly Frantz, and Seth Levine voted against this motion with the balance of the Board, Kielty, Muller and Judi Barth voting for. Seth Levine then proposed a motion to reimburse Dr. Muller at which point the ECA lawyer intervened saying this was not possible if the purchase had not been approved. Dr. Muller stating Robert’s Rules of Order suggested that someone who voted against the motion could then call for a new vote on the same topic. After some discussion, Levine, realizing this situation opened up the prospect of a lawsuit against the ECA, reversed his first vote and then orchestrated a new vote requesting retroactive approval of the purchase of the piano. In the second vote, Fridell and Bressler voted against approval and Kielty, Barth, Franz, Levine, and Muller voted for. This cleared the way to reimburse Dr. Muller.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Board Meeting, Feb 23rd
The letter below was sent to the Board on February 24. It was my original intention to speak at the board meeting last night when the floor was opened to discussion. However, I became so incensed at the proceedings that I feared my “talk” would dissolve into a screaming diatribe directed at the Board. As much as this would have been deserved, reality is it would have accomplished nothing.
Last night I attended the monthly Board meeting. Quite frankly I was appalled. I was both appalled at the behavior and the actions of the Board. The Board President spent some time decrying the rudeness and general lack of civilized behavior on the part of the ownership. She was quite correct, civility and good manners have all but disappeared. That was clearly evident last night. However, I believe the blame for this sad state of affairs can be placed directly at the feet of the Board.
The Board members are elected to represent the interests of the owners and oversee the management of the Condominium Association. I understand completely that being on the Board is voluntary. There is no compensation; it takes time from the member’s lives and its hard work. People take on this responsibility for various reasons. To some it’s prestige, to others it’s an altruistic desire to better the common good and some look at it as simply a way of protecting the investment in their home.
Regardless of what your particular motivation for serving might be, Board membership comes with certain obligations both legal and moral. One of these obligations is to act in a fiscally responsible manner when dealing with the finances of the Association. Here in lies the problem. A significant percentage of the ownership believes the Board has not done this with regard to the renovation project, myself included.
The people are angry and the majority of the Board has simply chosen to ignore their concerns. Several Board members appear to have their own agenda and the ownership be damned. You were given a budget and you exceeded it. The purchase of the piano is a poster child for what I and many other owners consider uncontrolled spending.
Last night we heard the absurd justification for its purchase; “it’s in the budget”. I’m sorry but it wasn’t in the budget. A piano can certainly be considered furnishings, but it is not furniture. There is a very important distinction here. Sofas, chairs, tables and chests are furniture. A piano is an accessory.
The budget was spent. It might not have been spent as originally planned but the fact remains the money allotted for the renovation was spent. At least an hour was spent at last night’s meeting discussing the cost overruns for the design company. There were unforeseen expenses such as the Lobby windows. This happens and no one is at fault. Sound fiscal management would dictate that if one segment of your project had cost overruns then nonessential items should be dropped from the project. I hardly consider the expenditure of almost $20,000 on a piano a necessity.
I live in the West Tower on the 18th floor. The hallways have a drop ceiling. That ceiling is broken and sagging in several places. It’s filthy and water stained. In a number of places the wallpaper is starting to peel away from the wall. The hall more closely resembles public housing than a Chevy Chase condominium. It’s an embarrassment but we have a shiny new piano in the lobby! I would like each and every member of the Board who voted for the purchase of that piano to come up to the 18th floor and then try and justify the expenditure of $20,000 on a piano.
No one is asking Al to take a financial hit on the purchase of the piano. I believe he, like several other members on the Board, had their personal agendas but I believe he was acting in good faith and should not be punished for his actions. However, the piano needs to be either sold or returned and the funds put back in the reserves.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Lobby Renovations
The letter below was sent to the Board of Directors on February 5. A number of board members subsequently responded. I found it rather strange that several board members were unaware of the piano purchase:
I would like to comment on the Lobby renovations. It’s quite obvious that this has been an extremely contentious issue among the owners of the building. In my mind I don’t think there was any question that the renovations were necessary. Should we have allocated as much funding as we did; I really can’t say, I do not have a clear concept of what a renovation should or shouldn’t cost. At this juncture it’s a moot point.
For the most part I’m happy with the results. I think the overall design was well executed and is practical. The designers took a cavernous space and reduced it to three usable areas. I would like to commend whoever was responsible for choosing the artwork. With the exception of a couple of pieces that appear to have been pilfered from the local Holiday Inn, I find it outstanding. Someone got a little carried away with the tchotchkes and the upholstery is not a style I would have chosen; however that is a matter of personal taste and I don’t find it offensive.
This week however, I was offended. I was offended when I saw the piano rolled in. I don’t know exactly what was paid for that piano but a piano of that size and style typically costs $18,000 to $25,000. In addition it requires yearly maintenance. I have to ask, what were you people thinking? You have paid approximately $20,000 for what is essentially a space eating sculpture that will receive little or no use. I’m sorry but that is patently absurd.
Given the current climate of anger and animosity present among the residents did you not consider perhaps this was not a good idea? This was not a custom piece that could not be cancelled! The most ridiculous argument I heard justifying its purchase was “it was in the budget”. Just because something is in the budget does not mean it has to be purchased.
If you insist on spending the money why not look elsewhere? As an example we have a fitness center that is filled with dilapidated and out dated equipment, some of it in excess of 20 years old. The fitness center is used by numerous residents on a daily basis. It’s not an exaggeration to say the fitness center gets more use in a day than the piano will in a year. $20,000 would have gone a long way toward modernizing the fitness center; a facility used by a significant number of residents regularly. I would like made public exactly who is responsible for authorizing the purchase of the piano. I believe the owners have right to know.