GUEST OPINION, Leonard Rubin
Now that the New Jersey Legislature has recessed, and there is no information as to when or whether, it will reconvene, it is helpful to address the article, headlined "Bill would mean big changes for condo boards," which appeared in The Lawrence Ledger on May 10 last.
I say helpful, because, at that time, the issue was being actively addressed by two organizations, i.e., The Common Interest Homeowners Coalition, and the Community Associations Institute New Jersey Chapter. Each of these groups have differing points of view on the issue of homeowners associations and their governance. However, because the article is one-sided, favoring board’s issues and seemingly ignoring home owner’s issues, to that extent it is flawed in its presentation.
Initially, it would be helpful to note the profiles of affiliations within each group, the better to reflect conflicting roadblocks to effect corrective legislation. C-IHC consists of over 600 affiliated individual taxpaying home owners, deeply concerned with home owner association governance.
According to the CAI-NJ Year 2000 Membership Directory, (a copy of which was given to me by the late Dr. Lois Pratt, a past president and stalwart defender of the C-IHC stated mission, and also, at that time, a member of CAI-NJ), that organization then consisted of about 1,280 affiliates broken down as follows: 692 associations, whose Boards of directors elected to affiliate with CAI-NJ; 51 individual tax paying home owners; 111 professional management firms and/or individuals; 177 other professionals, such as attorneys, accountants, developers, engineers, financial managers, etc.; and the balance under the heading of service/product organizations. All of these, save the 51 home owners, are paid by homeowners associations for services rendered, and consequently, are concerned with the authority of boards who employ and pay them. I suspect that the Year 2001 CAI-NJ Membership Directory would reflect a similar membership profile.
The article identifies three specific individuals, i.e., Winona Nash, president of Lawrence Square Village 1, and Al Waecker, president of Meadow Woods, both homeowners associations in Lawrenceville, and Dennis Casale, board attorney for The Lawrence Square Village 1 Board of Trustees. For the record, and to better understand his references in the article, Mr. Casale is also the current president of CAI-NJ, and a strong advocate for, what I believe to be overbalanced board powers. It is this approach with which I take exception, evidenced by the multitude of complaints of board actions in New Jersey, and registered with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. C-IHC’s goal is to serve as the independent voice for democratic governance of homeowners in New Jersey residential associations, currently numbering in the many, many thousands.
None of the proposed legislation noted in the article has as yet been heard in committee by the state Assembly, let alone voted upon. This, I believe, is due to the difficulties within CAI-NJ to recognize the needed adaptations to current legislation. These changes are needed to reign in poorly regulated and run-away boards seeking to unduly control homeowners association governance. C-IHC has suggested procedures which, it is believed, would improve such governance, and is attempting to bring these suggestions to fruition.
Rather than seeing the issues in the very narrow context that Ms. Nash and Mr. Waecker do, which I believe helps lead to discord, thinly addressed by Mr. Casale, a careful study of the background of the issue would help better understand the needed improvements that are recommended by C-IHC. I hope that The Ledger will, perhaps, take a further look into the history of the issue, which started in 1995, and, not surprisingly, is still unresolved. We are still left with existing legislation, i.e., the Condominium Act, passed in 1969, the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act, passed in 1977, and all of the defects that have been brought about by the phenomenal growth of homeowners associations. They are still badly in need of improvement, as reflected in the findings and recommendations of The Assembly Task Force Study of homeowners associations, published on Jan. 8, 1998. I wonder whether either Ms. Nash and/or Mr. Waecker are familiar with this report? I know Mr. Casale is!
My personal exposure to homeowners association governance began in 1986, when I was elected to The Woodmont Homeowners Association Board of Trustees, and with the passage of time, became acquainted with the difficulties of such involvement. Nevertheless, I found it worthy of devoting time and effort towards reaching solutions to constantly evolving problems. I recently returned to the board, and still find the work challenging. Subsequently, I served in a leadership role with Lawrence Community Associates, in reaching accommodation with Lawrence Township for reimbursing homeowners associations, or providing them with the necessary services for trash pickup, street lighting and street snow removal. This effort was recognized by Lawrence Township as a worthy forward step in relationships between homeowners associations and the township. So I too, have a history of coping with homeowners association governance, and with yet another point of view from those expressed in the May 10 article. I believe it is shared by the hundreds of home owners affiliated with C-IHC, I being one of them, and equally worth consideration in determining the future path of this much needed corrective legislation.