Central Association Management

Both sides are saying the same thing. I'm right and you're not. The issue doesn't even matter. Just watching the interactions is what makes this situation so sad. It didn't need to come to this, but each party felt the need to be right. The association Board of Directors announced that it had decided to pursue a project. An interested homeowner with some knowledge on the subject began asking questions regarding the project based on his perception. His questions were ignored because those questions placed him at odds with the direction established by the Board of Directors. This particular homeowner is smart, clearly had some knowledge, and the questions he asked were legitimate. The board would have been far better off had they been willing to seriously listen to his questions in the months leading up to the vote. However, they did not, and worse yet, treated the homeowner disrespectfully by dismissing and ignoring his legitimate concerns. In retrospect, it is clear that the board simply could not comprehend a position that differed from their own, and they made no attempt to understand. They were locked into their position. Had they listened they may have at least understood that there could be a legitimate alternate point of view. As things progressed, the homeowner missed a couple of meetings and was unaware that the issue had now come up for a vote. Partially his fault, partially due to poor communications from the Board. The homeowner, realizing that, in his opinion, a bad decision was imminent, asked those questions again, in a more forceful manner, and in a public forum with far more people in attendance. He requested that further consideration be given to the matter. The homeowner was perceived by the Board as being late in asking questions on a matter they considered a done deal. But he had been asking questions for months, so his questions should not have surprised anybody. But, the board was determined to move ahead, because they already had a plan. So again, they disrespected the homeowner by stating that discussion was closed and the vote would take place as scheduled. And the vote did take place, and the Board moved ahead with its plan because they had successfully stifled the dissent. But this homeowner was really interested in the matter, and refused to let it drop. He now went out and performed his own research, the research that should have been done by the board. And he came up with some significantly different answers than those arrived at by the board. The homeowner knew that the board would refuse to hear any further discussion on this matter from him, particularly after they have already taken a vote and approved going ahead with the project. But, as a homeowner, this was partially his money, and his future, being decided by a board that hadn't done their job. So he took what he believed it to be the only course of action open to him, which was to publicly disclose his findings. This disclosure finally forced the Board to address his written findings, and they had two effective options available to them; (1) they could recognize that his findings had value and were worthy of discussion, or (2) they could reject his findings outright and continue on the current path. The board decided to double down and take option number two, reject his findings and continue on the current path. If you’re counting, the Board has now effectively flipped this guy off three separate times. It's easy to see why the board made this decision. Had they selected option number one it would have made the board look rather foolish or incompetent for failing to have discovered or considered these findings themselves. By selecting option two, they reinforce their own thought process and position and at the same time attempt to discredit the homeowner. The problem with this approach? When other homeowners read the findings, they realized that the homeowner who had done the research had really raised some significant legitimate issues, even if they did not agree completely with his findings. So now the board not only it looks foolish, but also stupid because they doubled down on a losing hand. Human nature? Let's wait and see how this one plays out. It’s not done yet. This series of events demonstrates two things the board did wrong. The first thing was failing to recognize that one of the problems that a board can sometimes encounter is lapsing into “groupthink,” which Wikipedia defines as “Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.” That appears to pretty much describe what we saw above. The second thing the board did wrong was to aggravate the situation by its callous treatment of one of its homeowner members. Had the board simply respectfully listened to the homeowner during the investigation phase, with an open mind, the situation could have turned out differently in a more harmonious atmosphere. Instead, we now see an entire community that is aligning themselves into one of the two camps, and a future battle brewing. Being right isn't always the answer. Doing the right thing is the answer. Once the situation has deteriorated this far, it is difficult to get back on track, and may require different people (a different board) to resolve the situation. Suggestions anyone? Is there a way to salvage this situation?