|
|
| I received several requests to substantiate my conclusion that spots were assigned to people who were not on the waiting list. There were eleven shareholders whose names were removed between the publication of the May 2005 and August 2005 waiting list. These people occupied list positions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 22. As of my meeting with the Garage Committee, only only three of the shareholders who had been removed (those occupying positions 8, 12 and 14) had received spots. CONSIDERING THAT 6 OR 7 SPOTS WERE ALLOCATED DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, THIS MEANS THAT 3 OR 4 SPOTS WERE ALLOCATED TO PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ON THE WAITING LIST. I was very impressed by my meeting with the Garage Committee. Many Board Members were assembled, all concerned, all sincere, all intent on demonstrating their hard work and the sincerity of their efforts. Still, our very first exchange (paraphrased below) left me with a feeling of dismay: Q: How many spots became available
between the publication of the May and August lists? These answers made it clear that the information I came in for — the facts and figures needed to document the irregularities I noted in the August list — would not be available. There would be no list of spots that were assigned, no list of shareholders who took those spots, no record of which Board Member contacted which Shareholder on which day to allocate which spot. Instead of a getting a quick printout from a disinterested clerk, I had six Board Members heartfully demonstrating their hard work and good intentions. I would have preferred the printout. The management of the Garage and Garage Waiting List is based on the sincerity, dedication and honesty of members of our Garage Committee. During our meeting, Stanley Friedland accurately stated: "we're elected to the Board to do the jobs that we do." I understand this view more profoundly now than ever — but I am frankly dismayed that their self-created job descriptions don't recognize the lack of formal controls as a problem. I am not accusing any Board Member of wrongdoing, but the ambiguities and unaccountabilities that exist leave us wide open to all sorts of accidental and intentional errors. I appreciate that many Board Members don't have backgrounds in technology, but the fact remains that basic systems that have been in use for decades would seamlessly automate the process of adding people to the waiting list, alerting people on the waiting lists when their numbers were up, billing shareholders who were allocated spots, and maintaining the list without errors, duplicates, or any of the sort of "human errror" that Committee Members acknowledged arise from the manual management of the list. Not only would a database have provided the information needed to investigate the irregularities, but it would have had the controls built in so that most irregularities would not have occured in the first place. Perhaps more importantly, automation of this sort would enable our Board Members to spend their many hours of dedicated service doing things more noble than trying to emulate a database! A lot of this was understood, and Board Member Eric Mandelbaum repeatedly referred to his database and asserted "we can already do that". This is at odds with Carlos Rosado's assertion [in a later email] that a database has yet to be delivered. Database or not, our Board did commit to two things — providing receipts to shareholders that would serve as a "paper trail" for people to track their position on the waiting list and written notification to shareholders when their numbers are up (letters which can serve as an audit trail if people claim to have been wrongly removed from the list). The meeting was wrapping up, and Stanley Freidland suggested that rather than publishing articles, I should have approached him directly. Full of good will, he exaggeratedly said he'd be glad to meet with all 1700 shareholders as he met with me to resolve any problems. I think this remark captures my concerns precisely — it would be untenable to meet with 1700 neighbors individually! Such neighborly, good will-based management is not appropriate for a corporation of this size. It is obvious to me that we need robust management processes — processes that include two way communications, receipts, automation, controls, audits and reports — and that we need to base the Job Descriptions of our Board Members on more than just their interpersonal character. As a Shareholder I am very vocal in expressing my views on how my intersests should be represented here. But I want to make sure I am separating the issues from the personalities. I am personally grateful to all the Board Members who attended the meeting. I learned a lot from them and appreciate the abilities and the many hours they invest to maintain and improve our homes. |
The Inquiry & Pertinent CorrespondenceMarch 11, Board Member Eric Mandelbaum announces that the second GWL from November 2005 is on-line. I analyzed that report here. January 9, A flyer was published claiming that a Board Member received a parking spot without having been on the list. My inquiries into this have not received substantive responses. November 18, Board Member responds to my report. November 17, The new garage list was posted on November 14. Here's my report. November 4, None of the promises
has been kept and I've heard no answers to my questions. I
sent this message to follow up. September 30, Clarification of what I investigated. September 28, The new GWL that Garage Committee Chairman Mr. Friedland said (on September 2) would be published "in a few days" has yet to materialize. September 27, Garage Committee Member Terry MacAvery responds: "Good work, Dan. I agree with your conclusions and also believe that the units with spots should be published along with the waiting list." September 23, "As Long As We Have Your Attention" — Garage Committee Member Carlos Rosado invites me to share these Garage Notes with you. September 22, Published the report shown on the left. September 14. Meeting with the Garage Committee. September 9. I've received many requests to publish responses I've received from Board Members. I am declining to do so. My aim is to address the issues with the Garage Waiting List. Publishing correspondence might embarrass or anger some Board Members and make them less likely to communicate or cede my requests for information. Besides, Board Member objections may be based on misunderstandings that are best resolved off-line. September 5. I was invited to meet with the Garage Committee for "verbal responses" to my questions. September 2. I received a message from Stanley Friedland assuring me that errors are being corrected and that a revised list will be published "within the next few days". September 2-5. I received messages from many Board Members — some considerate, some supportive, some angry. |
SEE WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING AND ADD YOUR VIEWS!