Condo Media - October 2011 - 55

by William Gillmeister

ou’re the president of the Everyday Condominium Association, and a group of members has banded together and plan to offer an amendment at the annual meeting to prohibit smoking in the association. The group complains about the dangers of second-hand smoke, the odor that infiltrates their condominiums and lowers their units’ value. They call themselves the Clean Air Campaign. An opposing group has formed, calling themselves the Condo Owners’ Rights group, or COR. They claim that they have a right to do as they wish in their own condominiums as long they are not hurting anyone else. They also believe that neither smoking nor second hand smoke is harmful.

Meeting Chaos
The annual meeting arrives and the partisans pack the meeting room. You see a friend who happens to be a member of the COR group, and you spend time talking with him before you begin. The time comes for the meeting to begin, and you call the meeting to order. Eventually, you come to the smoking question. The leader of the Clean Air Campaign stands up, and says, “Mr. President, I move that the association bylaws be amended to prohibit smoking from all areas in the association by adding Section 10 to Article XIV as follows: “Section 10. Smoking shall be prohibited in all areas of the association.” Another member calls out, “Second!” You state that a motion has been made and seconded to amend Section 10 of Article XIV of the bylaws to prohibit smoking in all areas of the association. “Is there any discussion?” The leader of the Clean Air Campaign rises again, but the leader of the COR Group also rises and claims that he rose first. They begin arguing with one another as to who rose first,

and you decide that the Clean Air Campaign made the motion, why not let the COR Group go first. (Proper procedure is, however, to allow the individual making the motion to speak first.) So you pound your gavel to get their attention to tell them that the leader of COR has the floor. He begins by talking about his right to do as he pleases in his condo as long as he doesn’t hurt anybody, and that smoking doesn’t hurt anyone. He also declares that the Clean Air Campaign can’t do this because it’s a violation of the bylaws and the Constitution of the United States. He then launches into a personal attack on the leader of the Clean Air Campaign as being a woman who has a personal score to settle with him as he’s her neighbor. He continues that she just has a vendetta against men and that all she wants to do is rule over men. The leader of the Clean Air Campaign can’t stand it any longer and jumps up and begins telling how awful the “smoke stack downstairs” is, and that he’s killing her and her children with his constant smoking. She says the value of her condo has gone down by at least half because of the lazy, good-for-nothing couch potato. She also accuses you of being on the COR group side because she saw you speaking with the leader of COR for quite some time before the meeting began. Others take the lead of these two and on their own begin to get up and argue and shout, sometimes after someone has finished and sometimes interrupting. On occasion someone gets up and suggests a modification that seems reasonable to members, but goes nowhere without knowing how to make it formal. In short, the meeting turns into a knock-down, drag-out, free-for-all.

Conduct Orderly and Productive Meetings
Many in condominium associations, and other organizations, have witnessed or

been a part of such meetings. If you’ve participated in one of these, they leave you frustrated, angry, sometimes ashamed and often not interested in ever participating in one again. Almost everyone gets passionate about things they care about, but that does not necessarily have to lead to a free-for-all as previously described. Here are some steps that can help reduce the tensions, foster meaningful dialogue with all opinions expressed, and ultimately arriving at a decision with which everyone can live. To start, provide a vetting process for controversial proposals prior to a meeting. A vetting process allows those with opposing views to express their views in a forum that seeks to resolve differences. This can be done through a formal standing committee that reviews proposals and conducts hearings with interested parties or through ad hoc, temporary committees with opposing parties sitting at the same table. If a compromise resolution or amendment can be reached prior to an annual meeting, this will take the tension out of the meeting. Association governing documents should be reviewed and amended to provide for such methods. In the scenario above, such a compromise could have been that smoking is allowed in certain areas but not others. If opposing parties agreed, then the whole scene could have been avoided. Another step is to make sure everyone knows the rules. Governing documents should identify a manual of parliamentary authority such as Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised. A manual of parliamentary authority helps to establish the rules by which debate and decisions are made. Most people can agree with a set of objective rules to the game and are generally pretty good at abiding by them. Such rules include decorum in debate and the proper use of motions. Decorum in debate includes rules, such as: not speaking until the president recognizes you (gives you permission to speak);

CONDO MEDIA • OCTOBER 2011

Condo Media - October 2011

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Condo Media - October 2011