|
Dear Dear Members of our Board of Directors:
First of all, thank you for the time and effort you
invest in our community. Your service is truly appreciated,
and it is obvious that our community very much needs
and very much benefits from your ongoing and often
thankless work.
But second of all, there is a big 'however' - however,
I urgently call on you to pause the Lobby-Grounds
Project until proper Shareholder input is sought.
I know that a great many Shareholders have reached
out to you to object to many aspects of the project's
process, quality, and finance, and I won't reiterate
all their points, but I will stress a few, raise some
new ones, and explore some nuance below.
Shareholder Involvement, Process & Timing
My biggest objection stems from the process by which
this project has been planned. Below I extensively
quote Director Pietro F
from when he first ran for the Board in 2007 [Pietro,
it seems you need a reminder, and Shareholders need
your help]:
- Pietro said: Over
the years, I have volunteered as a shareholder for
5 different committees. The success of the recent
hallway committee required my building high-functioning
relationships with my fellow volunteers and our
most effective board members. This showed
me what is possible when the board reaches out and
works with motivated shareholders, of which there
are many.
- Pietro said: [...]
recent history shows that when the board
reaches out to shareholders, the response is very
positive. On the hallway committee, I received
a great response when reaching out to graphic designers.
So I hope to really encourage shareholder
participation and to utilize more of our coop’s
extensive pool of knowledge and talent.
- Pietro said: [...]
shareholders need to know what is going
on and what challenges we face. Then we should issue
a series of communiqués to all shareholders
outlining specific issues and offering shareholders
the opportunity to become involved and donate their
professional services. [...]
- [In the context of opening of the until-then
derelict Hester Street lot, Pietro called for community
participation, and even proposed a way of approaching
such a complex project.] Pietro
said: I believe our community possesses more than
enough collective skill and energy to come up with
ideas for this property and to see them through.
The Board Could:
1. Hold an ideas competition open to everyone who
lives here.
2. Post all entries online and in one of our common
areas.
3. Let shareholders vote and award a modest prize
to the winner.
4. Put out a coop-wide request for people
interested in being on a task force, people with
specific skills or people who just care and have
time to contribute.
5. Have the task force develop a scheme, OR find
an outside architect/landscaper to develop a scheme.
None of these statements by Pietro
is radical or shocking. Indeed, in the scope
of a $32 million project, involving the community
is nothing short of common sense! I am dismayed
that our Board doesn't see fit to engage Shareholders
in a meaningful manner. The Zoom meetings, while appreciated,
are no substitute for a live forum where people can
ask questions and follow-up without having their concerns
quelled by talking points... I know that serving on
the Board is a thankless job, and that communications
are messy, but your pretending that such forums constitute
dialogue is disingenuous at best.
The Quality of the Plan
I am grateful that Director
Chris M took the time to walk through the property
with me and note my design ideas. He appreciated my
perspective, took notes and pictures, and said that
some of the ideas I mentioned were insightful, good,
and hadn't been considered in the light in which I
presented them, and that they might yet be considered.
Thank you, Chris! And
various members of our community have noted that their
design input was being seriously considered as well.
So thank yo.... Wait a second!
No! I will not thank you for allowing a just
a few insistent Shareholders to have their voices
heard. If this was a perfect plan, that would
be great. But the fact that a few forceful
voices can point out important flaws or oversights
in your plan demonstrates that your plan was not good
enough in the first place. It is not up to
just a few forceful voices to shape our community!
We have demonstrated that there are valid
ideas that were not properly considered, and you must
consider them before spending $32 million on a flawed
plan. Our Board MUST invite ALL Shareholders to contribute
in a meaningful way.
Finance & Priorities
The huge expense of this project comes on top of
very large year-to-year maintenance increases. If
such maintenance increases are actually required,
then how can we be in a position to take on a $32
million project! Furthermore, I have had extensive
water problems in my apartment resulting in serious
damage. I understand there are serious water problems
in my tower, and suppose there are similar problems
campus-wide. And I suppose it's only a matter of time
before Building 3 will require the kind of extensive
and expensive gas-related work that other buildings
have already gone through... Our buildings are old!
Repairs are expensive! I am concerned that you are
not properly forecasting the increased expenses that
will be associated with our aging infrastructure going
forward.
In Closing
I know serving on the Board is time-consuming and
thankless, that seeking input from 3000 constituents
would be messy, and that input from our community
would be largely inane or contrarian. But at the same
time, much of the input you receive would be valid,
insightful, valuable, important, and constructive.
It is OUR community, and engaging with constituents
is part of your responsibility! I suppose I will get
a professional and courteous response to this message,
but note that this is not enough. There are enough
red flags in the process, plan, finance, and communication
regarding this project to warrant its being paused.
Respectfully,
Dan S
|
