Month: September 2021

Categories
BC BoD

The Board and Property Management’s Bald-Faced Lies

We recently had a sham of an annual home owner’s meeting.

The key takeaway for this author is that the Board, and its managing agent, has no problem lying to home owners, and to shut down anyone (by muting them, kicking them out of the meeting and slandering them) who points out the clear misstatements.

Let’s fact-check a few statements:

“The Berkley Court board of directors is required to facilitate an annual home owners meeting, at any time during the year, not necessarily in January.”

-Berkley Court Board of (Unelected) Directors
Section 4.4 of the original bylaws, in place since October 1981, state when the annual home owner meeting is to be held.

“We never have had proxies before at Berkley Court.”

-Berkley Court Board of (Unelected) Directors
Both the Declaration and the original bylaws (snippet seen above) state that votes can be delivered via proxy. Once again, this is IN PLACE SINCE 1981! One home owner also testified that she has received proxies in earlier meetings.

“What is a proxy? How would you define a proxy vs. an absentee ballot?”

Efer Gavidia, Property Manager
When the property management company does not know what a proxy is, although it is referenced multiple times in TX Property Code statutes, and it has been explained to him by a home owner 2 months prior, would you consider him competent in his field?

“No home owner has asked for a proxy in this election.”

-Berkley Court Board of (Unelected) Directors
Request made by one home owner in July 2021 – after educating the property manager on what a proxy is (vs. an absentee ballot) – and told that the proxy would be issued if there were multiple candidates for an election.
A separate home owner requested a proxy 2 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING and was denied. Selective amnesia? Willful obstruction? Incompetence? Whatever the reason – the ultimate question is why this person is still in this role when he is clearly unfit or unethical.

“If any home owner is not getting what they need, please let us know. We are here for you.”

-Berkley Court Board of (Unelected) Directors
All sorts of things were escalated to the (unelected) Board officially. The initial response from the Secretary was to divert from the topic and introduce all sorts of arbitrary rules selectively, that she could not evidence as not being discriminatory.
The ultimate response is laughable – a redirection back to the property management company that was the cause of the escalation, so that it is a circular loop of no one doing anything. This is the current (unelected) board’s idea of oversight, governance, and stewardship – we can do better!

“We have had annual home owner meetings… we have minutes…”

-Berkley Court Board of (Unelected) Directors
Home owners pointed out critical gaps in fulfilling the required director and officer responsibilities, whether in holding meetings or maintaining minutes, in July 2021 – two months BEFORE this claim was made without anything being done in between. And yet another example of an escalation, this time to ALL the (unelected) directors…

“We welcome to have a conversation with any home owner to discuss their concerns.”

-Berkley Court Board of (Unelected) Directors
A mass email to all home owners stating that board members do not want to be spoken to while in Berkley Court was sent in June 2021. Emails to the (unelected) directors result in harassment or no response as they witness the property manager abusing residents in replies. Telephone numbers are unlisted or not working. Home owners who approach the clubhouse to speak with the unelected directors are turned away for arbitrary reasons or locked out. Home owner meetings have not been held in years, and the one that has been held kicks home owners out and mutes participants. Hmmm, how exactly are these board members accessible or approachable?

At the end of the meeting, the property manager shared a speech of how he thought the unelected directors were doing a fine job. What do you think – is this the first time he is telling the truth, or is this just another convenient lie to help cover up the complicity and the mismanagement to date?

Categories
BC BoD Property MISmanagement

The Secretary’s (Newly-Renovated) Apt.

In February 2021, Texas suffered from “Snovid” – i.e., a temperatures suddenly dipping below freezing, leading to lack of power and utilities such as water and electricity. Harris County, where Berkley Court is located, was most affected, and Berkley Court residents were not spared.

Photo Source: https://www.teeshirtpalace.com/products/snovid-2021-texas-strong-tough-poster?color=black&size=11×17

During this difficult time, many residents of Berkley Court were without power and asked the association for help, as folks were without water for days, which turned into weeks. Some home owners begged for assistance, as the solution to restore services required fixing pipes in the common element areas of the property.

While this state of emergency was going on, multiple home owners independently reported that they saw the supplier utilized by Rise AMG to fix plumbing issues ignore their requests for days, and instead work during that period in the current Board Secretary’s unit on non-emergency repairs (e.g., replacing sheetrock, painting walls, etc.).

So while many home owners had to fend for themselves in getting water restored, and other owners are still living with damage caused by the unlicensed personnel and waiting for critical services to be restored over 6 months later, the Board Secretary apparently used her position to get an updated apartment at a discounted price.

Don’t know about you but this sounds like one of the classic condo association corruption schemes to me…

And frankly, condos are very vulnerable to corruption… There are three main schemes: using HOA funds to repair an owner’s unit, having the vendor pad an invoice and give a kickback to the board/manager or just plain creating fake companies that do imaginary work on the property.

Source.

We have also heard rumors of kickbacks to board members for work steered toward certain vendors – please send any evidence that can substantiate this information to berkleycourtneighbor@gmail.com or let us know anything else we may have missed in the comments below.

Categories
BC BoD Property MISmanagement

The VP’s Child

Berkley Court’s current porter is the current, unelected board member and HOA Vice President’s, Ceceilia Carrizales (nee Thompson), adult child, Valencia Thompson.

There is no contract posted to cover what is in the details of this engagement, because, despite repeated request – the managing agent, Rise AMG, has only made its own, expired agreement available to home owners.

Rise AMG does not comply with TX condominium laws which provides members access to association records, including contracts with a term of one year or more that must be retained for four years after the expiration of the contract term

Based on a former occupant of the job, the primary responsibilities for the role are to:

  • Pick up the trash
  • Change out lightbulbs around the property that are burnt out
  • Dismantle heavy trash to put it in dumpster for removal

Essentially, the current, unelected board Vice President’s child is being paid $725+ a month to pick up trash.

If this looks familiar, it is because this is very similar to the invoice the current VP (i.e., this vendor’s mother) submitted for an additional waste removal service during the same period.

Some observations related to this “service” that is being provided to the Berkley Court community with this vendor:

  • Most residents and visitors remark on how dirty this community is, and how things never used to be this when the prior porter, Mr. Lee, was employed.
Google provides a snapshot of what people are saying about Berkley Court, and its trash issues.
  • This porter is hardly ever seen on the grounds of Berkley Court Condominiums. How a person can do this role without being on the ground on a regular basis is beyond us. Especially as all evidence points to the job not being done.
Trash on the ground at Berkley Court on any given day, and a representation of how the Board is throwing home owner money away, to line each member’s pockets in various ways.

As a home owner, some immediate question and concerns come to mind:

  1. Why wasn’t this vendor selected as part of an open bid? How come the board has never held discussions to evaluate whether to renew this service, what other choices are available, etc.?
  2. How competent is a property management company or board if these entities don’t specify a schedule, required amount of hours, or a definition of done for this job? Do we trust these folks to negotiate any contract if they do not require these basics in a service provider?
  3. Can the Board provide adequate oversight of this vendor? Even if the one board member recuses herself from decisions, there are only 2 other directors and any divisions in decision-making cannot be made without third member weighing in. And what other horse trades have occurred for each director to turn a blind eye to clear misconduct, so that they can each personally profit from their time on the board?
  4. Shouldn’t a managing agent, such as Rise AMG, advise against hiring a board member’s relative as a vendor, due to the conflicts of interest? Can it oversee the vendor/relative without bias, knowing that it can put its own contract and paychecks in jeopardy, if it doesn’t go along with the scheme put forward by the members of the board?
  5. Could Berkley Court have a better porter (or retained the previous one) at lower cost and superior service, saving home owners money and providing residents a safer environment?

What do you think? Is this is a clear case of:

a) Nepotism

b) Conflict of interest

c) Willful misconduct

d) All of the above

e) None of the above

Let us know your response in the comments!

Categories
BC BoD Property MISmanagement

Show [Us] the Money!

In our last post, we discussed home owners confusion as to where all the money collected from our community is being spent and some of the charges made by the (unelected) Board Secretary/Treasurer during one randomly-selected month.

While the (unelected) Secretary/Treasurer is spending money at Cajun Kitchen, the managing agent (Rise AMG) has approved the following invoice that apparently pays another unelected Board member – the Vice President, Ceceilia Carrizales.

This invoice has none of the usual details that a supplier usually provides and an auditor usually requests to confirm appropriate use.

This description of providing a dumpster pick-up is surprising, as the association already paid an established company over $1500 for the same services during the same period:

This invoice raises another question – why is RISE AMG paying vendors after the due date, costing Berkley Court home owners additional money in late fees?

The disbursement report shows a different description than the invoice – one that implies that the VP is being paid to remove trash from the dumpster.

In what world do we pay an unelected board member to remove trash from the dumpster without recognizing it as a clear conflict of interest?

There is also no mention in any of the meeting minutes made available to home owners that this is a decision that was approved by the board or home owners, that there was any sort of open bid for this work, or any controls in place to check potential abuse.

When asked by home owners as to how it validates invoices/charges to ensure it is appropriate, Rise AMG does not respond and the unelected Board does not reply, though both have a fiduciary duty to home owners.

How would you want your managing agent to act if an unelected Board member asks you to approve and pay questionable invoices where there is no contract, no strict controls, and no communication to home owners that this is happening? Would you risk your reputation as a property manager or as a legal entity by acquiescing to these requests and supporting them by not providing any further information to questions home owners raise about these charges?

Property managers owe a fiduciary duty to the communities or buildings they represent. A fiduciary duty is the highest duty owed at law, and requires the property manager to always act in the best interests of their clients. This means avoiding conflicts of interest and opportunities for self-gain that would work to the detriment of the client. This duty is owed to the community as a whole, though, not to each individual resident within the community.

-Property Management Law, as seen on https://www.hg.org/property-management.html