Seward Park Board Election is This Week

Seward Park Cooperative shareholders return to the polls on Wednesday, June 15.  Please remember to vote!  If you are unable to vote in person on Wednesday, you can vote online using the codes you should have received in the mail from Election America.  If you have misplaced your codes, please contact us and we will send you a proxy form that will allow another shareholder to cast a vote on your behalf.

This year’s Seward Spark endorsements come from Kate Nammacher, who recently served on the Board as a director, president, and treasurer.

After reviewing the candidates’ biographies and hearing their presentations at Meet the Candidates,  I believe that the following three candidates stand out for their high levels of engagement, knowledge and professionalism, and their complementary skills.

#3 Wei-Li Tjong – Wei-Li previously served three terms on the Board and distinguished himself as a leader in making improvements and finding cost savings for the co-op.  As a practicing corporate attorney his professional focus is spotting potential problems and figuring out cost-effective ways to avoid them. At Meet the Candidates he said his proudest achievements from his prior Board tenure include settling major lawsuits that could have cost us millions and slashing our legal bills by changing the way we engage with our lawyers.  He is responsible for replacing our prior management company with Greenthal/ Frank Durant, resulting in enormous quality of life improvements for all shareholders.  Wei-Li grew up in the co-op and chose to return here as an adult, representing concerns of both lifelong residents and new arrivals.

#5 James Mastroianni – Jim is a relative newcomer to SPC compared to many of the other candidates, but has jumped right in to volunteer as an active member of various co-op community groups and celebrations.  Jim is a corporate tax attorney and a partner at the accounting megafirm PWC, bringing skills that are crucial in the Boardroom.  His knowledge about co-op issues was on full display at Meet the Candidates, where Jim cited financial figures from memory and explained bylaw provisions that seemed completely unfamiliar to other candidates. With skyrocketing real estate taxes, we strongly need Jim’s level of expertise.

#6 Leah Strock – Leah has lived in the co-op since 1989.   She is a nurse practitioner with extraordinary listening and problem solving skills.  A frequent and always positive participant on various online community forums, an enthusiastic volunteer for GASP (Gays at Seward Park), children’s programs, Hurricane Sandy response and more, she is a model of neighborliness and cooperation.  At Meet the Candidates she had smart and informed answers to every question that was sent her way.  She will be a force for moderation, consensus and progress in the Boardroom.

Whether or not you agree that these candidates are the best, please exercise your shareholder right to vote! We need strong representation and good voter turnout.

Your neighbor and former director, president and treasurer,
Kate Nammacher

Suing Seward: What Could Happen?

Executive summary:  A few shareholders are threatening to sue our  co-op to try to invalidate the Icon parking contract.  We think they have a very low likelihood of success, but even if they fail it will cost every shareholder something to defend the lawsuit.  And in the unlikely worst case scenario where they succeed and get the contract invalidated, there is a decent likelihood that Icon would sue for breach of contract, which could cost – our  co-op (and by extension, every shareholder) serious money.

Two websites reported last week that attorney Ezra Glaser has been hired by a small group of shareholders led by Don West to sue the co-op over the garage conversion.  It is unclear exactly what legal claims Mr. Glaser intends to bring, but he spoke quite a bit at one open meeting about Article 78 proceedings, and at the most recent meeting he said his ultimate goal is to invalidate the co-op’s contract with Icon.

Will Mr. Glaser succeed?  What exactly happens if he does?  And who pays for the consequences?

The Spark does not (and in our opinion should not) have access to the Icon contract.  Without it, and without having seen any actual legal complaint from Mr. Glaser, we are somewhat limited in our ability to provide analysis.  But based on what the Board has publicly communicated, and what Mr. Glaser has said in Don West’s open meetings, we can make some educated guesses.  Please note that although the author of this post is an attorney, this post is for general interest informational purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by any party.

What is the likelihood of success?

In short: extremely low.  As a general rule, courts give wide deference to the board of a corporation (do a Google search of “business judgment rule” for more background).  Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules allows a court to review the Board’s decision and potentially invalidate it if it was “arbitrary and capricious” or if they failed to follow their own rules and procedures.  But it very hard for us to see how a decision that has clear benefits for the co-op as a whole (reducing the waiting list, making more money, getting more shareholders access to the parking garage that they own) and very limited adverse effects (existing garage tenants lose park-and-lock convenience, but keep access to the garage for the same price as before) could possibly be viewed by an objective outsider as “arbitrary and capricious.”  And by all accounts, the Board performed due diligence and held a series of meetings where they discussed and voted multiple times to proceed with the garage conversion.  Separate votes to hire a parking consultant, issue an RFP to operators, and select Icon were all unanimous (except for those absent from the applicable meetings).  The vote to enter into the final contract was 6-5 in favor.

What are the consequences if the lawsuit succeeds?

In the unlikely event that a court declares the Icon contract invalid, it would be up to the Board to determine what to do next in terms of how the garage would be operated going forward.  There is no guarantee that everything would go back to how it was the day before the contract went into effect.  And there is also a strong likelihood that Icon would sue the co-op for breach of their 10 year contract.  Such a lawsuit could be extremely costly to the co-op.

Who pays for everything?

Mr. Glaser’s attorney fees are between him and his clients.  But assuming he brings a suit, the co-op will at minimum have to pay attorneys to defend it, even if the case is thrown out like some of Mr. West’s previous lawsuits against the co-op.  That cost will fall on all ~1700 households in our co-op.

In the worst case scenario, where a court actually invalidates the Icon contract, Icon sues, and Icon is awarded millions of dollars in damages, every shareholder will be hit with the consequences.  The irony here, of course, is that Don West and any other shareholder who signs on as a plaintiff in this lawsuit is likely to be harmed more if the lawsuit succeeds than if it fails.

2016 Candidates

This year eight candidates are vying for three open seats. The candidates are:

#1 – Arnold Sandler
#2 – Marc Albaum
#3 – Wei-Li Tjong
#4 – Eric Mandelbaum (sources tell us that Mr. Mandelbaum withdraw his candidacy on May 20)
#5 – James Mastroianni
#6 – Leah Strock
#7 – Tina Reiter
#8 – Betsy Jacobson

Marc is the sole incumbent.  The other two seats are being vacated by Dave Pass and Dia Shepardson.  Wei-Li and Eric both served on the board previously, but did not run for reelection when their most recent terms ended.

The election will be held on June 15.

Garage Communications Timeline

A contributor provided the timeline below summarizing official communications that the Board and Management sent to shareholders regarding the conversion of the parking garage.  We have included relevant excerpts from some communications and links to the full versions of others.

December 8 – Report from the Boardroom Issued by Aaron Lee Fineman, Secretary:

The Board voted to hire a parking consultant to explore the feasibility of expanding all parking options throughout the coop. No decisions regarding any changes to the garage or its operation have been made yet. As part of the evaluation of utilization options, the Board voted to approve the issuance of an RFP for potential garage operators.

January 28 – Board Memo Regarding Parking (announcing the change, expected to take effect on March 1)

Continue reading

Valet Parking is the Right Move

The Board announced last week that they are in negotiations with a parking operator to switch the parking garage from its current approximately 388 capacity self-parking configuration to a valet system that will accommodate approximately 40% more vehicles.

There has been a predictable uproar from those who currently have parking spaces in the garage.  We are sympathetic to their concerns, as most of them waited a pretty long time to get a spot in the garage, and they will almost certainly suffer a very real loss of convenience as a result of the change.  Ultimately, however, we strongly support the Board’s decision to make this change.

The garage currently can be used by less than 25% of shareholders, most of whom waited 8 years or less to obtain a parking space.  But the wait has shot up in recent years.  The last shareholder to receive a spot waited over 12 years, and there are over 200 shareholders on the waiting list who have already waited more than 8 years.  That means that every single shareholder who will be offered a parking spot as a result of this change has already waited longer than most shareholders who currently enjoy parking privileges.

And based on recent rates of turnover in the garage, a shareholder who signs up today can expect to wait something like 25 years for a parking space.  The impetus for the change isn’t that newer shareholders aren’t willing to wait their turn, as some have suggested.  Newer shareholders are just as willing to wait as those who got here earlier, but they would like to have a turn at some point during their lifetimes.

Indoor reserved self-parking is also a luxury that is virtually unheard of in Manhattan.  We are not aware of a single other market-rate co-op, condo or rental building in Manhattan that has indoor reserved self-parking, let alone at prices that are significantly discounted compared to far less convenient nearby commercial options.  It strikes us as quite unfair to ask that this luxury be preserved for the benefit of 388 shareholders who happened to sign up for parking prior to 2003 or so, when there are 662 other shareholders who want a parking space, many of whom have already waited longer than most of the 388 privileged shareholders did.

A valet system that keeps costs from rising but allows significantly more shareholders to access the amenity, and brings the expected wait for new shareholders closer to historical averages, strikes us as a very sensible and cooperatively minded move. We applaud the Board for having the courage to do it, and we thank the shareholders with existing parking spots who will be sacrificing some convenience to enable more widespread sharing of our communal resources.

 

Extrapolating Expected Garage Wait Times

Aside

We have said that (absent an expansion of garage capacity) a shareholder signing up for the garage waiting list today for the first time can expect to wait something like 25 years to get a parking spot.

That figure is based on comparing the 9/6/11 waiting list (which we have a copy of) with the latest 1/6/16 list.

#1 as of 1/6/16 was #68 as of 9/6/11.
#68 now was #142 then.
#142 now was #239 then.
#239 now was #352 then.
#352 now was #519 then.
#519 now didn’t sign up for the list until almost two years after 9/6/11.

1,583 days elapsed between the two lists.

If you assume the same rate of turnover between each of these points on the list holds true, the current #519 (who had already waited 2.5 years as of 1/6/16) will have to wait 5x 1583 days (or almost 22 more years) to reach #1, at which point that shareholder will have waited over  25 years.

The last shareholder on the 1/6/16 list was #661, and that shareholder can probably expect another 4-5 years beyond #519’s expected wait, for a total of well over 25 years.

 

A Sublet Fee Proposal

Over the last several years the co-op’s sublet policy has undergone quite a few changes. Sublet fees have been raised several times.  Shareholders now give up amenities like parking and storage while they sublet, and drop to the bottom of amenity waiting lists if they sublet for more than two years.  At one point the Board passed a rule that would have limited subletting a given apartment to only two or three out of every seven years, but that rule was quickly reversed. Continue reading

On the Annual Meeting

crack

the need for repairs is no joke

The 2015 Annual Meeting of the Shareholders was one of the most informative Board presentations in recent memory, and also one of the best attended. Current Board President Dave Pass led a quick review of the Board’s activities over the past year and then spent a great deal of time explaining the current state of our physical plant and finances. Mr. Pass, together with General Manager Frank Durant and a panel of outside experts (Greenthal’s financial and engineering experts, and the co-op’s attorney and auditor), made a compelling case for the immediate need for new roofs, continuing brickwork, and a way to pay for it. Continue reading

And the winners are…

Congratulations to Doron, Aaron, Erica and Mendy.

The final vote tallies were:
#2 Erica Cullmann 399
#3 Sandy Kershon 145
#4 Mendy Erez 388
#5 Aaron Lee Fineman 487
#7 Debbie Finston 373
#8 Hariette Skidelsky 296
#9 Doron Stember 490
#10 Laurel Hirsch 332
#11 Carlos Rosado 381
ABSTAIN 3

That means at least 826 shareholders cast votes.

Thanks also go out to Gus Medina, Kate Nammacher and Paul Sobel for their service over the past three years, and Carlos Rosado for his service going back well over a decade.