In the past three years our board has changed management several times. The property management companies do not appear to have a system of quality control in place to supervise their on-site managers. We had several rules violations that are not being enforced and tenants/renters are not being properly screened. The landscape company is not supervised by the manager, and landscape schedules are not being followed. We see a downfall in the appearance of our community. What can be done to upgrade the quality of management?
You are correct that the limited number of hours required for a manager trainee may not properly train a person to be a proficient CAM. To stay current the state requires additional hours of study each year. Also, experience will make a CAM a better manager.
When you address management companies, you must take into consideration their business operations and management. A private company has its own business plans, which are not necessarily regulated by the state.
The answer to your final question: The quality of management is the responsibility of the board.
I am at the point where I feel that I need a legal solution. When I expressed this to the president, he and the roofing contractor said they are engaging an attorney as well. I need advice as to what type of attorney is necessary for me to engage.
C.A., Fort Lauderdale
You can also contact your local Community Association Institute Chapter for recommendations. Most association attorneys are members of this professional association. On the website www.flcaj.com, a list of Florida Association attorneys is available. This magazine will also list local chapters as well as other professional associations dealing with condominiums and homeowner associations.
On the same subject, say you have a board of five directors and they all resigned at the same time. The last director cannot resign but must meet to appoint four new directors; then he can resign. In this case the quorum to appoint would be one.
I also read into your question the possibility that members of the community do not volunteer to be on the board. In this case there are two possibilities to continue. One is called receivership and the other is to continue with three directors. Both are bad choices for the members. Capital receivership is when the courts become involved and that means higher fees to pay for legal and receivership costs.
To answer your question about the quorum, it would depend on the situations I described. The two members could have appointed new directors. If they did not, they should reschedule the meeting immediately to appoint new directors.