Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "comment reply":
I for one am against a property owner being the manager. It leaves too much room for bias, which is probably why the rule is in place, also don't need a P/O privy to confidential information. Mr. Friend sounds like a child who can't get his way. Too many people throwing out mis-information here just for the sake of it. Try doing your homework before shooting off your mouth. By the way, we did have a mgmt. co. just prior to the last mgr. and it cost us a fortune, but if you are up on things at LA you would have known that. BOD aren't miracle workers and have state & local regulations they have to follow, not to say there isn't always room for improvement. Just tired of all the bashing going on from people who don't bother to check the facts.
anon -- members now are exposed to intimidation, harassment, retaliation coming from the sitting security and architectural committees with the indiscriminate enforcement of rules in response to complaints from misguided and in some cases outright racist members simply base upon their racial bias, ethnic bias, generational bias, gender bias --- this is going on now -- these people involved in this activity are the ones that are afraid of a strong manager who might put an end to their assault on other community members
a manager is responsible to maintain the confidentiality of assoc. records -- that is the rule any professional manager understands -- second if any records are being hidden by the bod or contain data that is harmful to the bod then the bod is in more trouble than we think and quite frankly a lot more stupid than i thought
that is an indefensible excuse and a well as the no members can have an office management position rule
this board is responsible for la and it is now and in the past have allowed numerous violations of rules and laws, both at the state and federal level---- community members must realize that this puts la at financial risk in case of an accident. fine or a lawsuit -- this will happen sooner or later
a community that has a bod that is irresponsible, incompetent, reckless, willfully violates and is in violation of state and federal statures and to top it off arrogant is a recipe for disaster!!
ps -mr. friend says get your head out of your ass and look around -
Friday, September 19, 2008
comment reply
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought this was place people could express their opinion. Both of you have expressed valid concerns however the Post Script comment and photograph were probably unnecessary. I also understand why a property owner isn't allowed to be property manager or office employee to an extent however it is common practice for select employees with a need to know to have access to that type of information in the business world. Divulging or misusing this information is grounds for dismissal and possible criminal charges. That being the case it wouldn't matter whether the employee lived inside or outside the community. In this scenario I can see why the rule is there and bias is a concern as is 12 month residency. I don't think there is any discrimination law being broken. Discrimination laws cover gender, age, race, religion, family status, national orgin, military status, sexual orientation, disability, body size/shape assuming you meet the job requirements. LAs rule falls into the job requirement category similar to companies not allowing their employees to take part in marketing contests, or requiring them to have a valid driver's license, or not have any DUI's, or must not have a criminal record, must submit to a drug test, etc. Having a property manager live on site may lead to salary problems, on site-on call 24/7 $$$. Is the PM a real exempt manager who can hire and fire or does the BOD need to approve? If a non-exempt manager (supervises but does not hire and fire) then all the labor laws come into effect. Who wants to take on the Labor Board? Then there is the living standard, the trailers and community by law are not approved for 12 month residency so the manager or office employee would have to have a larger 4 season manufactured home to live in and get a dispensation from the township to live on site for 12 months. 12' wides for recreation are not yet allowed so getting this to pass seems bleak. Who would pay for it? I'm sure there are several other things that come into play so this is just not a simple case of the BOD playing hard ball by not allowing a property owner or office employee to live on site.
ReplyDeleteSince the manager left under questionable circumstances apparently having done some serious damage was the management company better or worse than the manager? If better, how? If worse, why? Was cost the only issue in the decision to go with a property manager? Is the community in better or worse financial shape having a manager vs a management company? When you say the mgt company "cost a fortune" how much is that? 10, 20, 50% more then what we're paying now? Did the dues go up exponentially each year back then the way they have with the current management design? What was the name of the management company? How long was the company retained for and how long ago was the company contract terminated? I thought the property manager was with the community around 8 years, long enough to generate way too much hostility. Generaly you get what you pay for except when it comes to our dues. I've been a property owner only a couple of years so I'd appreciate some background on your comments.
ReplyDelete