Others Present: ECA General Manager Terry Lee, Legum & Norman Regional
Manager James Santos, Ken Kosteva of Wiss, Janney, Elstner
President’s Report
Steven Schattman urged ECA members to attend the annual
meeting May 6 or to turn in their proxies.
At the May 26 Board meeting (the next monthly Board
meeting), the draft budget that was recently sent to Association members will
be voted on.
Report on Building
Façade Work, Balcony Renovation, and Window/Balcony Door Installation
—This project is scheduled for completion the end June.
—To date there has been one balcony door installation
failure.
—The pool will be
closed for a week starting next week to attend to the window installation,
which had been started but not completed.
—Arcade windows will not be replaced during this project.
—Windows in the West Lobby were replaced during the Lobby
Renovation Project and will only require minor attention during this project.
Highlights of the
Meeting
The management office and business center will get new
copiers.
The pool facility requires tile work that Management is actively
pursuing.
Water aerobics teacher requested free access to the party
room for an exercise class. Issues included free access for a commercial
offering and interference for regularly scheduled construction and committee
meetings. A compromise may be offered for access at an earlier time with a
small fee.
Tutorial on the Cost
Difference of In-house versus L&N Engineer Position
Pat Batey offered a detailed explanation about erroneous
information used in a passed board meeting to decide whether our Chief Engineer
should be on ECA staff rolls or on Legum & Norman’s rolls. The initial
calculation done by L&N was based on our past Chief Engineer’s salary and
payouts to the total of $40,000 versus $9900. The calculation should have been
based on market salary levels for an engineer. This erroneous cost savings was
outlined at the August 2014 Board meeting and used to approve the Chief
Engineer position as an L&N staff member. Then, as in this meeting, Batey,
Bobb, and Jones had advocated for the Chief Engineer position being on ECA
staff in order to preserve institutional memory. This information may prove
useful in future decision-making.
Committee Reports
Participation Committee continues to work on the campaign to update the ECA Bylaws
starting with the initiative to lower the number of votes required to change
ECA bylaws. So far votes by proxy count 66% of the Association in favor of the
change. To pass, the vote must tally 75%. ECA legal counsel said the Board
would be allowed to vote for property owned by the Association that includes
two apartments and numerous parking spaces. The Board voted to support the
Bylaw change amendment.
Making a Difference
Committee—The next big drive will occur in the fall of 2015 and support
projects outlined by The Wider Circle.
Comments from Floor
The annual meeting package went to ECA members with two
errors: Peg Downey’s name was left off her statement of candidacy and the
introduction erroneously stated that members should vote for “four (3) members
to the Board of Directors.” Peg Downey requested that the error be corrected in
advance of the annual meeting.
1 comment:
The following report is from the ECA minutes of the August 2014 Board meeting:
A discussion of the pros and cons of hiring the chief engineer as an employee of Legum & Norman: “keep the employee under the ECA” or “leave under ECA but transfer some benefits through Legum & Norman”, or “hire the lead engineer as an L&N employee”.
Mr. Schattman expressed that the least-expensive option is to move the position to the Legum & Norman rolls. He explained that if the engineer is a Legum & Norman employee, then ECA loses the employee if it fires Legum & Norman. However, he noted that the ECA is a valuable client of Legum & Norman and will do everything it can to keep ECA. Mr. Schattman asked each Board member to express their opinion on the issue:
-Mr. Vuko: Is in favor of the motion. The cost savings are worthwhile and it maintains a consistent chain of command.
-Ms. Bobb: Expressed concern that Legum & Norman would own the employee and could transfer him to another property. She expressed that the chief engineer is the most important employee because of his institutional knowledge. Ms. Bobb estimates that overall it would cost $9900 to the Association to protect itself from losing a valuable employee and that it would be worth the cost.
-Mr. McNerney: Expressed that the Association has been very fortunate to have an engineer like Jimmy Keating for many decades, but is in favor of the motion.
-Ms. Batey: Agreed that the Chief Engineer is a vital position and should remain on ECA staff. She also stated that this issue is worthy of discussion among the owners. She is against the motion.
-Mr. Jones: Stated that this decision should not be based on figures. By keeping the employee in the ECA protects the ECA. He is against the motion.
-Dr. Muller: Stated that the decision should not be based solely on finances. He added that the General Manager is a more important position than the Chief Engineer. All Board members were invited to interviews, and the person tentatively selected by the Board and Management has stellar credentials. Dr. Muller supposed that this person may only stay for a few years anyway. He is in favor of the motion.
Mr. Santos added that the relationship between ECA and Legum & Norman is a partnership and Legum & Norman would not want to jeopardize that relationship in any way. It would not remove a member of the staff because it would be detrimental to that relationship. The engineer reports to the General Manger, and transferring the position to Legum & Norman would ensure a smooth operating team with a large building with many improvements underway.
Owners were also invited to comment, and were split on the issue. Some felt it was better to keep the engineer in house, particularly if he could live in the building (Mr. Santos clarified that the candidates want to live off-site.) Others saw the benefit to Management being able to run smoothly. A resident also commented that it would be a mistake to hire someone who may leave in a few years; talent is of little consequence, it is better to have someone at ECA long-term.
MOTION Mr. Schattman moved, Dr. Muller seconded to approve Legum & Norman to hire the chief stationary engineer as a staff member and employee of Legum & Norman. The motion passed with Ms. Bobb, Mr. Jones and Ms. Batey opposed (4-3-0).
Post a Comment