As the time of the meeting approached, my friend informed me that there was an issue within the community that was likely to cause some discussion during the annual meeting, but it would not affect the election at all.
I arrived at the annual meeting to find a crowd of nearly 300 people in attendance. The situation was beyond standing room only; the organizers couldn't even fit all the attendees within the clubhouse meeting room. I hadn't bothered to ask my friend what the issue was that he had mentioned, but seeing such a huge turnout immediately told me that it was a controversial issue. Non-controversial issues do not draw crowds of nearly half the Association. Since my friend, the manager of the Association, was busy with his board as they addressed logistical issues related to the unexpectedly large attendance, I did not have an opportunity to speak with him before the meeting commenced, and I was myself consumed by my duties as inspector of elections. I simply had to watch events unfold.
To understand what eventually transpired, you have to place the situation into the proper context. This Association was built over a several-year period in the mid-1970s, and is located in a very arid location. At the time the Association was constructed, water was plentiful and therefore not an issue. The developer decided to install a lush tropical landscape scheme in this desert area to entice buyers with something different. Fast forward to the time of this particular meeting and water had become very costly; in fact, it was now the third largest cost within the Association's budget. This was also a relatively upscale community, with many homes occupied only on a seasonal basis. Some of the members placed a much higher value on quality of life than on something as mundane as dollars.
Given this background on a now thirty-plus-year-old community feeling the normal effects of aging, and faced with having inadequate reserves and needing money for roof replacement and other projects, the Board was looking for places to trim their operating budget. In their attempt to act responsibly with Association funds, the Board looked very closely at the annual operating budget and realized that three quarters of the budget was made up of only four line items; (1) security costs, which were outsourced to a professional security company; (2) landscape maintenance, which had been outsourced years earlier to reduce staff costs; (3) water, 99% of which was used for landscape irrigation; and (4) on-site staff.
As the Board evaluated alternatives in reducing costs within the operating budget, they faced difficult choices. Reducing security costs meant changing one gate to an unmanned, card-reader-only entrance. They already knew the members’ feelings on this issue. Landscape maintenance costs could not be reduced further because of the existing landscape scheme, and water costs were directly related to the lush tropical landscape scheme. Cutting down on staff was also not an option, as after both landscape and major repair project costs had been outsourced, only a minimal office and maintenance staff had been left. No further cuts could be achieved without a significant impact on member service.
The Board realized that the only way realistic cost reductions could be achieved was to reduce landscape and irrigation costs, but would require a complete change in landscape style away from the lush tropical theme that had been enjoyed for more than 30 years and to a desert xeriscape style that would include more drought-tolerant plants and consume much less water.
There was nothing wrong with that goal; it was the way in which the Association had addressed this issue that caused nearly half of the members to show up in protest at the annual meeting. The Board had formed a landscape committee and assigned one board member as chair of that committee, along with several other volunteer members who were to evaluate different plant alternatives and recommend a new landscape scheme to the Board of Directors. The committee diligently carried out their duties, consulting with their landscape company and a landscape architect to ensure that the Association received the maximum benefit and would have a high-quality finished product.
They just forgot one thing - they forgot to ask the members.
The committee selected a desert xeriscape-themed landscape plan and made its recommendation to the Board, which granted approval to create a test landscape plot. This plot was located just inside a main gate that would encompass a five-unit condominium building that was highly visible to all who entered the Association. It was, in fact, a very nice-looking landscape plot and consistent with other Associations located nearby.
However, the members hated it. They hated it so badly that they would do anything to not have the entire Association converted from a lush tropical landscape to a desert xeriscape format. As the annual meeting eventually made its way around to discussing this issue, members were allowed to have their three minutes each to express their opinions on the new landscape theme. The passion of the crowd was unmistakable, and there was not a single voice that spoke in favor of approving the xeriscape landscape plot. Apparently the only people in the Association who liked the test landscape plot were the landscape committee and the Board of Directors. It was notable that all discussion from the members focused only on the visual appearance of the landscaping. All the responses from the Board and landscape committee focused only the projected cost savings that would be achieved by converting to a xeriscape-style landscape theme. These two groups were not even speaking the same language or communicating in any meaningful fashion.
The Board's natural position was to defend the decisions that they had made, continually restating that they were doing this for the benefit of the members. The Board and landscape committee clearly weren't getting it until one member clearly and concisely stated the position of the majority of the members by saying, “We don't care about the cost; we can afford it. What we do care about is the lifestyle that we bought into, which was the unique tropical look of this Association. We're not willing to give it up.”
The discussions also disclosed that the Board and landscape committee had invested nearly $80,000 in removing a portion of the tropical landscaping and replacing it with the xeriscape plantings. That amount was just wasted because no one had bothered to ask the members what they wanted. The total estimated cost of landscape conversion within the community ran into the millions of dollars, and the annual savings on landscape maintenance and water bills was projected to run several hundred thousand dollars annually, providing a payback within a relatively few years.
I have long been in favor of consulting the members regarding major issues like this that can have an emotional impact upon the membership. It can be done informally through just asking the members as you chat with them while you tour the common areas, or can be in the form of a questionnaire published in the Association newsletter and requesting a response from members. These members never had the opportunity to offer an opinion, because they were never asked. The Board could have saved themselves not only $80,000, but also the loss of confidence that they suffered in the eyes of the membership as a result of their actions.
