Category: Previous Posts

(This Post was Assisted by Claude)

A few practical approaches, roughly in order of escalation:

Document everything first. Before any conversation, gather dates, photos, and the specific rules or regulations being violated. This matters regardless of which path you take next.

Talk to the neighbor directly, once, non-confrontationally. Frame it as informing rather than accusing — “I wanted to flag this in case you hadn’t seen the rule” rather than “you’re breaking the rules.” People who’ve built a narrative in which the rules don’t apply to them often respond more poorly to direct confrontation, since it triggers defensiveness rather than reflection. Keep it short and factual; don’t argue their interpretation of reality — just state the rule and move on.

If that doesn’t work, go through the association, not around it. Submit a written complaint or violation report rather than escalating yourself verbally. This does two things: it takes you out of the role of adversary (the association enforces, not you), and it creates a paper trail. Ask the board/management about their enforcement process (warnings, fines, liens, etc.), so you know what to expect.

Don’t try to convince them they’re wrong. If someone has a fixed narrative that the rules don’t apply to them, personal argument rarely changes that — it just gives them someone to fight. Let the governing documents and the association’s authority do that work instead of you.

Protect yourself from bad-faith escalation. Keep interactions brief, factual, and (ideally) in writing or witnessed. If the neighbor is hostile or unstable rather than just rule-resistant, prioritize your own safety over “winning” the dispute — that’s a different problem than a rules disagreement.

Know when to loop in an attorney. If this affects property value, safety, or becomes a pattern, a letter from association counsel often gets compliance that neighbor-to-neighbor or even board letters don’t.

There are times when I ask, how can I ease the discomfort of choosing the harder right thing to do in managing a community association decision, rather than the easier wrong route of keeping the peace with my neighbors?

A few things that tend to help, suggested by Claude:

Separate the discomfort from the decision. The unease you feel is about disappointing people you see regularly, not evidence you’re doing the wrong thing. Boards exist precisely because someone must enforce rules, budgets, or standards that aren’t always popular. If you’ve checked that the decision is fair, consistent with policy, and within your role, the discomfort is just the cost of the job — not a signal to reverse course.

Name the actual tradeoff. “Keeping the peace” usually just defers the conflict and shifts the cost onto someone else — the association’s finances, the rule-follower who gets punished for someone else’s exception, or your own credibility next time. Writing out concretely what “peace” costs (precedent set, money lost, fairness violated) makes it easier to see that the harder route is the lower-conflict one in the long term.

Lean on process, not personal authority. Decisions land better, and feel less personal to deliver, when they’re clearly grounded in the governing documents, a vote, or a precedent: “the bylaws require X” or “the board voted 4-1” — rather than “I decided.” That also makes it easier for you to hold the line without it feeling like a referendum on your relationship with a neighbor.

Give people a way to be heard without changing the outcome. A lot of the sting in these situations comes from feeling steamrolled, not from the outcome itself. A short explanation of why the decision was made and an acknowledgment that you understand it’s unwelcome often does more to preserve the relationship than caving in would.

Expect a cooldown, not permanent rupture. Neighbors are often frustrated in the moment and over it in a few weeks, especially if you are fair and transparent. The anticipatory dread is usually worse than the actual social fallout.

Two years ago, my neighbor died.  He loved living in our building and had an extensive social network that kept him happy and involved on many fronts.  Then COVID came along, and he thought he had contracted COVID and went to see his doctor.  It wasn’t COVID; it was lung cancer.  He kept a positive outlook, followed the treatment protocol, and was happily cured.  Then unexpectedly, he developed heart issues and, within a short time, died in the condominium he so dearly loved.

His adult daughters held a celebration of life for him and heard many heartwarming stories about the wonderful times and people he had touched on his journey through a long career that took him to many states and cities and added many names to his Rolodex.

His unit was left empty, and an eviction process was started.  Today, the Sheriff’s Department posted the 24-hour eviction notice, and normally all his personal possessions would be left at the curb for 24 hours before being taken away for trash pickup.  I worked with the representative of the lending institution, the Sheriff’s Department, and the locksmith to meet legal guidelines while also showing a measure of respect for the person who so strongly brought joy and peace to so many people. Soon, a new family will move in, bringing joy and new memories as life goes on.

(This Post was Assisted by Claude)

As the president of our board of directors, I interface with the representative from the management company the previous board had retained to help manage our community.  I have no information on the points previously discussed regarding expectations and benchmarks for determining effective performance. I do have a copy of the signed contract, but the individual assigned to our neighborhood is a portfolio manager, rather than fully on-site; so having a clear benchmark is often a moving target as additional communities are added to his portfolio and our needs become more complex.

And my dilemma extends to the independent contractors who supply services to the community. When do I step in and when do I turn my attention to a more pressing issue?

Here are a few suggestions from Claude.

Assessing competency and handling underperformance well are two distinct skills. Here’s how to think about both:

Assessing Competency

The most reliable signals are observed outputs and behavior, not credentials or confidence:

• Can they do the work? Give real tasks and evaluate the quality. Resumes and interviews are poor predictors; actual work samples are much better.
• Do they understand the “why”? Competent people can explain their reasoning, not just execute steps. Ask them to walk you through decisions they make.
• How do they handle the unknown? Strong performers say, “I don’t know, but here’s how I’d find out.” Weak ones either bluff or freeze.
• Do they improve with feedback? Learning rate matters as much as starting point.
• Peer and stakeholder signals. The people working closest to someone usually know within weeks whether they’re pulling their weight in doing the job correctly.

A useful framework: separate skill (can they do it?) from will (are they trying?). These require different responses.

Handling Incompetence Compassionately

The compassionate approach is also the effective one — be direct early rather than letting problems fester.

Be honest and specific. Vague feedback (“you need to step it up”) is useless and unfair. Name the specific gap: “The last three reports had calculation errors that required rework. That’s the pattern I’m concerned about.”

Distinguish the cause. Is it a skill gap (they don’t know how), a fit issue (wrong role), a resource problem (no training, bad tools), or something personal (health, burnout)? The cause determines the remedy.

Give a genuine opportunity to improve. A clear improvement plan with defined expectations, support, and a timeline is both fair to the person and protects you legally and ethically. Some people genuinely turn it around when they understand what’s expected.

Separate the person from the performance. “This work isn’t meeting the bar” is very different from “you’re not good enough.” The first is a solvable problem; the second is an identity attack.

Act when improvement doesn’t come. Compassion doesn’t mean indefinite tolerance. Keeping someone in a role where they’re failing — and everyone knows it — is bad for them, the team, and the work. Ending the arrangement clearly and respectfully, with honest feedback and whatever support you can offer (references, transition time), is kinder than prolonged misery.

The hardest part is that most managers either avoid the conversation entirely (unkind in the long run) or deliver it harshly (unnecessary). The goal is to be honest, specific, and human — treating the person as capable of handling the truth.

(This post was assisted by Claude)

Here are practical suggestions for working effectively with condo property management companies in Florida:

Although this post focuses on condominiums located in the State of Florida, check your local State Statutes for the latest rules and regulations for your state.

Know the governing documents
Florida condo law (Chapter 718, Florida Statutes) gives owners specific rights. Read your Declaration, Bylaws, and Rules & Regulations — management companies must operate within these. If they don’t, you have grounds to push back.

Communicating in writing
Email or certified mail creates a paper trail. Florida law requires management to respond to written owner inquiries within a reasonable timeframe. Verbal agreements are hard to enforce.

Understand what the management company can and can’t do
They work for the Board, not directly for owners. If you have a dispute, address the Board first — the management company typically can’t override Board decisions independently.

Request records you’re entitled to
Florida law gives unit owners the right to inspect association records (financials, meeting minutes, contracts). Make written requests. Management companies are required to provide access within 10 business days.

Attend Board meetings
Owners have the right to attend and speak during open forum. This is your most direct point of influence, and it holds management publicly accountable.

Document maintenance requests
Submit all requests in writing and keep copies. If work isn’t completed, follow up in writing referencing your original request and the date.

Understand reserve funding rules
Florida has specific requirements around reserve funds (tightened significantly after the Surfside collapse in 2021). Know what your association is required to fund and ask questions if reserves seem underfunded.

Be reasonable but persistent
Management companies juggle many properties. Clear, professional, written communication with specific deadlines tends to get faster results than vague or hostile requests.

Know when to escalate
If a management company is unresponsive or acting improperly, your options include escalating to the Board, filing a complaint with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), or consulting a condo association attorney.

Consider collective action
Issues affecting multiple owners are resolved faster. Coordinating with neighbors on shared concerns carries more weight with both management and the Board.

The DBPR regulates licensed community association managers (CAMs) in Florida — that’s a useful lever if you’re dealing with misconduct.

(This post was assisted by Claude)

In the dynamic environment of community living, deciding on a course of action often requires a mindset that allows for open expression of opinions while also reaching a collective agreement on the best way forward. 

Here are a few techniques to consider the next time you face a challenging decision-making task.

Structured processes

Nominal Group Technique — everyone independently generates ideas first, then the group discusses and ranks them. This prevents dominant voices from hijacking the process early.

Delphi method — anonymous rounds of input and feedback until the group converges. This works well when people might self-censor around higher-status participants.

• Consent-based decision-making — rather than seeking full agreement, ask “can you live with this?” A decision passes if no one has a paramount objection, even if it’s not everyone’s first choice.

Managing divergence constructively

• Separate the divergent phase (generating options, surfacing concerns) from the convergent phase (deciding). Mixing them prematurely kills good ideas.
• Assign someone to steelman minority positions — if a view is losing out, have an advocate articulate its strongest form before moving on.
• Make the decision criteria explicit before evaluating options. Groups often fight over options when they’re really disagreeing about underlying values.

Reducing bias and power dynamics

• Anonymous polling (even low-tech, like written slips) before open discussion to surface the real distribution of opinion.
• Round-robin input — everyone speaks before anyone responds — so quieter members aren’t crowded out.
• “Pre-mortem” before finalizing, ask the group to imagine the decision failed and explain why. This helps to surface dissent that people hold back out of loyalty to the emerging consensus.

After the decision

• Document not just what was decided, but why and what was rejected and why. This respects minority views and allows decisions to be revisited if circumstances change.
• Build in a review trigger — a future date or condition when the decision gets re-examined. This makes it easier for dissenters to accept a decision they disagree with.

The single most common failure is compressing all of this into one meeting, where a few vocal people dominate early and everyone else anchors to their framing. Community living is an ever-evolving environment with give-and-take in relationships that nurture respectful communication and quality decisions.  It’s worthwhile to work through conflicts of interest and to respect others’ views when coming together as a group for the benefit of your neighbors.

Having been a board member, I tend to get on and off the board with the intent of allowing all residents to serve as officers, so they can develop a better understanding of the responsibilities involved in managing the community’s physical, financial, and collective goodwill.  Some choose to step into the role, while others choose to stand back and criticize rather than create.

However, there is an implied contract between the board of directors and the residents. This isn’t always clearly defined, with everyone agreeing that residents are good neighbors and that the board is creating a healthy, safe, and fiscally sound environment.

The governing documents provide guidelines to clarify the provisions that residents and the board of directors are expected to comply with.  Often, the rules and regulations are glossed over until a crisis forces a deep dive into who is right, who is responsible, and how to address the questions that arise.

Residents and the board of directors can fulfill their roles in the implied contract by engaging in open discussion, acknowledging divergent points of view, and working toward common solutions before issues become major crises that require significant time, expense, and personal anguish to resolve.

Community living continues to evolve as laws and regulations change, residents’ cultural backgrounds intermingle, and personal preferences and safety requirements converge, resulting in an association in constant flux, managed by a board of directors.

Diversity helps make communities vibrant and ever-changing.  But diversity also brings challenges in navigating divergent points of view.  The board of directors faces an ongoing challenge in respecting, representing, and including all members of their community when making decisions for the greater good.

Open discussion during board meetings helps facilitate clear communication and better group decision-making. Robert’s Rules of Order is an established method for expressing one’s opinions and respecting others. Having served as a past president of Toastmasters International, I appreciate the structure that Robert’s Rules of Order gives board members a workable tool for hearing one another without undue stress or disruption.

It isn’t necessary to understand all the intricacies of Robert’s Rules of Order, but board members should take the time to understand the basic process for allowing one to speak uninterrupted and how to move toward a cohesive decision.

(This post was assisted by Claude)

Resolving opinion conflicts while keeping your sense of self intact comes down to a few core principles:

Separate identity from position. Your opinions are things you hold, not things you are. When someone challenges your view, they’re engaging with an idea — not attacking your worth. This mental shift makes it easier to update your position without feeling diminished.

Distinguish between types of disagreement. Some conflicts are factual (resolvable with evidence), some are values-based (often irresolvable, and that’s okay), and some are just preferences (doesn’t matter who’s “right”). Knowing which you’re in stops you from fighting the wrong battle.

Stay curious instead of defensive. Ask “what would have to be true for their view to make sense?” genuinely. You often find the disagreement is narrower than it seemed, or that you’re both right about different parts.

Name the dynamic, not the person. “We seem to be talking past each other” lands better than “you’re not listening.” It makes the conflict a shared problem rather than a blame match.

Know what you need from the exchange. Sometimes you want to be understood, not to be agreed with. Sometimes you want to understand them. Clarifying this to yourself — and even to the other person — removes a lot of friction.

On keeping your sense of value: your worth doesn’t live in being right. Being willing to hold uncertainty, update when warranted, and stay respectful under pressure are signs of strength, not weakness. People who conflate “losing an argument” with “being less valuable” tend to become rigid, which ironically makes them worse at thinking.

The most grounded people in disagreements tend to hold their views firmly enough to defend them, but loosely enough to change them. That balance is worth practicing.

In today’s environment, many communities are facing significant financial obligations. A combination of funding reserves, rising insurance premiums, higher maintenance and repair costs, and aging common areas puts stress on the association’s budget and residents’ personal finances.

These stressors can create an environment of internal divisions and infighting within the community. Conflicting opinions about the best way to address aging structures, deferred maintenance, and underfunded reserves lead to stalled critical repairs, creating potentially hazardous situations.

So, residents can choose to go into debt, sell under duress, or just walk away from their property and its obligations. Working through these issues will require honest conversations and recognition that these are homes where families build memories and solidify their personal history. There needs to be a balance between the building’s structural needs and the residents’ human needs.