address and a slightly blurry copy of a roofing license. In fact, not much is on the proposal other than the address of the association (complete with typos), an offer to replace the roof, vague wording regarding materials to be used and warranty offered, and a shockingly low price, compared to that of the proposals secured by the management company. Veep’s crowd of followers are whipped into a frenzy by Veep’s accusations and they demand the board review and accept this proposal.
Weary points out that he has never heard of Fly-By-Night Roofers and that the internet search he has just performed on his smartphone yielded no information on this vendor, either. He states that all vendors he has presented have been in business for years, have well-established reputations and have done quality work at a reasonable price. But the unit owners don’t want to hear anything Weary or the board members say. They see Veep as some kind of modern- day messiah and they will not be moved. In an effort to placate the zealous audience, Prudent suggests they put the decision to a vote between the top vendor Weary recommended and Fly-By-Night. The board is split down the middle with Naïveté as the tiebreaker. She casts a swing vote for Fly-By-Night. The rest of the meeting is tense and not much is accomplished as the defeated board members are afraid of making any other decisions in the presence of Veep and his brainwashed followers. Weary feels that the board should not have given in to Veep and that they were not acting in the best interest of the association, but he agrees to cooperate with Veep’s roofer since he works for the board.
Time passes and the management company encounters one problem after another working with Dee Seedful and Fly-By- Night Roofers: permit issues, unreturned communications, attempts to substitute the type of shingles, changes in the amount of the deposit, and on and on. Fly-By-Night arrives and replaces the roof… two weeks after the promised start date. Work finishes slowly and surprise additional costs begin to appear, accompanied by the explanation that there were unknown issues with the roof. Weary mentions to the Prudent that the other vendors who had bid on the project all visited the association and performed thorough inspections of the roof, and that he suspected Fly-By-Night did no such inspection.
The work finally concludes, very late in the season and at a price higher than originally quoted (though still coincidentally “just below” the lowest price on the bids obtained by management). Relieved to have the project finally behind them, Prudent and the other board members move on to other association matters.
Eight months later, Weary is receiving multiple calls from Treading Water Condominium Association owners that shingles have blown off the roof. Two unit owners on the top floor complain that the new skylights in their units that were replaced along with the roof are leaking; one of these owners was out of town for a week and returned home
28 | COMMON INTEREST®
to discover sodden carpet and a damaged television as a result of the skylight leak and water damage occurring while no one was around to notice and address the leak.
Weary looks up the phone number of Fly-By-Night and gives them a call. He learns that the number has been disconnected. He emails Dee Seeful and sends letters to the P.O. Box address provided by the vendor, but the emails go answered and the letters are returned by the post office, indicating no such entity exists on their records and the P.O. Box address is invalid. After involving the association’s attorney, Weary learns that Fly-By-Night Roofers went out of business. When Veep is questioned about the vendor by both Weary and the board, Veep dismisses them, saying his army buddy retired and moved out of the country.
Weary and the board were left having to find another roofing company to come in and repair the leaks and replace the shingles. That was when they discovered that the shingles used by Fly-By-Night were not of the quality specified in the contract. The Association ended up having to spend almost twice as much money on the roof and the board had to pass a special assessment to pay for the second roofer’s work. Unit owners became angry and voiced regular complaints to Prudent and other board members. They accused the board of not performing their fiduciary duty and not acting in the association’s best interest. Prudent herself received scathing comments from her neighbors, many of whom were the ones who supported Veep’s choice in vendors the previous year.
eep s choice in vendors the
Prudent eventually resigned from the board, no longer seeing the association in a positive light, and having learned a valuable lesson. She wondered to herself who was the bigger fool, the board for engaging the wrong vendor, or her for joining the board in the first place.
om the board, no longer ositive light, and having ondered to herself who was aging the wrong vendor rst place.
The story you have just read is based on actual events. The names and some of the details have been changed to protect those involved. It is presented here to give an example of what can happen when associations rush to make a decision and engage the wrong vendor. We can all learn from Prudent’s unfortunate tale. The moral of the story? If you or your association is in a situation where the “angels” are fearing to tread, follow their example and don fool rushing in!
d on
ns the
Prudent tory? If you or ere the “angels” mple and don’t be a
A Publication of CAI-Illinois Chapter
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
