Attention spans have systematically shrunk across time.
This is reflected in changes in how we consume media. In 1986, song intros for Billboard’s Top 100 averaged at 23 seconds before vocals began. By 2015, the average intro had shrunk to an average of five seconds. This is a reduction of more than 78 percent. Similarly, TV show intros also got shorter, reflecting viewers’ decreased attention spans. As an example, the show Bewitched, highly rated in the late 1960s, had an intro of 45 seconds. In contrast, Young Sheldon, the highest-watched comedy in 2020, has a show intro of 20 seconds—less than half the length.
Researchers have studied this huge change in attention span at work. In 2004, the average time spent on any screen before task-switching was 2.5 minutes. By 2012, it was only 75 seconds. Since 2020, it’s about 47 seconds. It makes you wonder how we get anything done at work.
Enter the Age of AI
A recent study found that 74 percent of Gen Zs (those born between 1995 and 2006) and 77 percent of millennials (those born between 1983 and 1994) “believe Generative AI will impact the way they work within the next year.” Importantly, these groups are generally optimistic about that impact. More than three-quarters report that AI “has improved the quality of their work (78 percent of Gen Zers and 82 percent of millennials), and that it has helped to free up their time and improved their work/life balance (77 percent of Gen Zers and 73 percent of millennials)” (Deloitte, 2025).
Many say artificial intelligence has helped with simplifying routine tasks to improve efficiency and productivity, which allows them more time to focus on strategic work, and report that it has enhanced creativity and innovation.
So how can we harness the powers of AI to help offset our shrinking attention spans at work?
Redesign Workflows for Depth
AI is great at handling shallow work and can help to free up time for work that requires more critical thinking or creative abilities. For instance, lean into using AI to help create agendas, summarize key takeaways from meetings, or create first drafts of routine reports. While AI should always be double-checked and not relied on for a final draft, it’s a great time-saver for rote tasks. This allows you to block your time for longer chunks of deep work that requires creative problem-solving or strategic thinking.
Use AI to Protect Focus Time
Attention spans easily die a death of a thousand pings. Constant interruptions make it impossible to do any deep work. How many of us have ended the day feeling like we were constantly busy and “doing things” only to realize that none of the things that really mattered were accomplished? This is the difference between what’s urgent (e.g., constant pings, emails, and interruptions) versus what’s important (often larger projects or tasks that require sustained attention).
AI can help with that. If you’re having trouble distinguishing urgent tasks from important ones, feed your to-do list into AI and have it help create a schedule. Then, use AI to block deep work time across calendars so you aren’t being constantly interrupted from email, Slack, or other workplace communications. Constant task-switching lowers productivity and erodes attention. With fewer interruptions, you’re able to focus on more high-value work.
Retrain Attention as a Workplace Skill
Source: Chitokan/Pexels
Focus isn’t a fixed trait—it’s a skill you can build. Treat focus like your fitness goals: Consistency matters more than intensity. Set a timer for 30 minutes and stick to one deep work task at that time. When the timer goes off, you can reward yourself with a little break or reset it for another 30 minutes if you’re in a flow state. Not only will the timer help to give you a manageable goal, but it also gives you permission to task-switch when it goes off (checking email, grabbing a coffee, etc.).
Over time, you can work to increase the timer to 40 minutes, 50 minutes, an hour, or more. With practice, you will train yourself to dive straight into the task at hand rather than being pulled in many directions.
AI can help you accomplish this. AI tools can act as smart focus timers, gently nudging you when it’s time to start, break, or reset. They can also reduce cognitive friction before you begin by summarizing what you worked on last, outlining next steps, or helping you decide which task deserves your attention during your focus block. By lowering the mental effort required to get started, AI makes it easier to build and sustain attention across time.
Measure Results, Not Responsiveness
In many workplaces, busyness can be mistaken for productivity. The smart boss will shift attention toward outcomes (i.e., what got accomplished) rather than how quickly someone responds to an email or a ping. AI can help to track progress, summarize milestones, or highlight achievements so you can focus on results instead of constant activity. This reduces the pressure to always be “on” for employees and allows for deeper, distraction-free work.
Use AI to Spark Creativity, Not Replace It
AI is great for helping to generate new ideas or offer fresh perspectives. Just don’t fall into the trap of letting it do the thinking for you. People fatigue faster in the “blank page” stage of work. Use AI for brainstorming multiple perspectives or solutions, which the team can discuss and refine. Have it offer brainstorming prompts, reducing cognitive load while expanding options. Instead of feeling that attention is thinly spread, you can channel it into deeper, more creative outputs.
AI can be polarizing, but it doesn’t have to be the enemy. While tasks may shift, organizations will always need humans. When used thoughtfully and intentionally, AI can help people work more efficiently and create space for the work that benefits most from human judgment, creativity, and connection. With the right approach, AI can be part of the solution to shrinking attention spans at work.
Q: A shareholder in a Queens co-op recently found a buyer willing to pay cash for her apartment. Documents were provided showing that the buyer could afford the apartment, the fees and the renovations. But the co-op board rejected the application. The shareholder emailed the board to ask for clarification on what it’s looking for in a buyer. She never got a response. How can a shareholder find out what the co-op board is looking for in potential buyers?
A: In New York City, a co-op board does not have to tell you why it rejected your buyer. It has the power to reject a purchase application “for any reason or no reason” — and isn’t obligated to spell out the reason. The members probably won’t tell you what they’re looking for, either.
“I’m always loath to give any particular criteria, because it locks the board into something,” says Steven Sladkus, a co-op board president and partner at the law firm Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas.
The financial health of applicants is important, such as how much money they will have after closing, their debt-to-income ratio, a good credit profile and stable employment, Sladkus says. Other factors include whether applicants have a history of filing lawsuits, particularly against landlords.
A seller’s best move is probably to hire a broker who is familiar with the building and has experience guiding sellers through the process there. “If you have a broker,” Sladkus says, “they’re hopefully vetting purchasers for you so you don’t waste your time.”
Though vast, a co-op board’s powers are not limitless. A board cannot reject buyers for illegal reasons under federal, state and city fair housing laws. This would include basing a decision on their status in a protected class such as race, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity, says Julie Schechter, a partner at the law firm Fox Rothschild. If the board does not disclose the reason for the rejection, and there is no other evidence, discrimination cases can be difficult to prove in court.
There have been repeated efforts to make the application process more transparent in New York City. Most recently public advocate Jumaane Williams sponsored a bill that would require co-op boards to provide their reason for denying a sale to a potential buyer within five days of making their decision. Such bills have met with stiff resistance from co-op advocates, and so far none has advanced in the City Council.Westchester County, however, does have a law that requires a board to disclose to an applicant its reason for rejection.
By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column
Many HOAs inquire about installing security monitoring cameras. Such cameras may or may not be required by the specific history of a given property, under the rulings in California Supreme Court decision in Frances T. v. Village Green (1986), California Supreme Court case of Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993), and Pamela W. v. Millsom (1994). That subject should be discussed with the association’s legal counsel. Whether or not the HOA must install cameras depends upon the specific circumstances.
If a board chooses to install monitoring cameras, what considerations might be considered?
As with most decisions, the Business Judgment Rule requires boards to seek competent expert advice on the decision, and such expert advice most likely will come from a security consultant or company. Good managers should be able to refer the HOA to someone who fits that bill.
There are three basic variations on the security camera theme that I am often asked about – live monitored security cameras, recorded monitoring cameras, and dummy cameras. Perhaps your HOA security vendor may suggest a fourth alternative. Of course, the decision will depend upon cost, the severity of the problem, and the impact of monitoring upon the residents. Associations with staffed security gates or security offices may have live monitoring of all cameras, but the most common variety of security monitoring I encounter is recorded monitoring, in which cameras are recording events in their field of view, with recordings saved for a given length of time (often 30-60 days).
Camera locations: Care should be taken as to the locations of cameras, to ensure that they do not inadvertently intrude into areas in which privacy is expected, such as private patios, balconies, yards, or residence windows or doorways.
Signage: Signage may be necessary at the locations of monitoring cameras or at the property entrances. First, signs should warn of recorded video surveillance, to alert residents that running toward a camera may not immediately bring help. Second, if sound recordings are also made by the cameras, California law may require notification that audio recordings are made at the location along with video recordings. Third, such signs hopefully discourage bad actors from the area.
Recording access: To protect the privacy of residents and avoid misuse of security recordings, the HOA may wish to adopt a policy strictly limiting access to the recordings to only the manager, law enforcement, the HOA’s security vendor, and legal counsel. Such a policy would reassure residents that policies are in place to protect against misuse of the recordings by a volunteer who uses the monitoring as a personal hobby.
Rules: To help assure residents that the HOA is appropriately balancing resident privacy and resident security, a set of written policies regarding monitoring cameras and recordings should be considered. In those policies, residents can be reminded that the cameras are not continuously monitored (if that is the case) and assured that no neighbors have access to the recordings. The policies could also be adopted as HOA operating rules, using the 2-step 28-day process prescribed by Civil Code 4360. This approach provides additional transparency and protection for members by requiring proposed rule changes to be announced in advance. The rules could also include requirements regarding individual security cameras.
Security and privacy can co-exist- with some careful planning.
“I wish he’d read his emails before he sends them. The tone. It’s off-putting.”
We all have too much going on and too much to do, and that overwhelm and need for constant action seems to be causing an epidemic of hot-blooded responses that are getting in the way.
We need to pause and think through how we want to respond. We need to reflect on the bigger picture – what might matter to the other person, what their perspectives might be, what stories about them (and the situation) we might be making up, what is our ultimate goal and what is the best way to get there. Taking a moment, or a few days, to consider a different way to view the issue at hand can help us respond more calmly and productively.
We need to pause and take a deep breath, to let ourselves calm down if we’ve been triggered. I’ve very rarely seen a knee-jerk reaction that has helped a situation or remedied a problem. When our buttons have been pushed – when we’ve shot into anger or fear or any other negative emotion – we need time to compose ourselves.
Jill Bolte Taylor, in her book My Stroke of Insight, writes about the ninety-second rule – that when we are provoked, our adrenaline rush kicks in and we have no control over our actions and reactions…for ninety seconds. Only ninety seconds. After that, we can take a breath and choose what we want to do and how we want to respond. We therefore need to pause for at least ninety seconds to get past a habit of knee-jerk reactions.
So how do we build this pause into our life and work? How have my clients successfully learned to do this? The method is simple, but potentially challenging:
Become aware that you, at least at times, react too quickly
Decide that you’re going to learn to pause – for ninety seconds, five minutes, a day, a week
Build a support network to lean on and remind you to practice this new behavior
Practice this new behavior, especially when you’re most emotional or triggered (except in the rare cases of true crises)
Practice this new behavior some more
Notice and reward your successes (and your attempts, even if they don’t succeed)
Keep at it
I’ve learned to (often) do this myself – to step away when I’ve most wanted to step in, to breathe when I’ve most wanted to shout or scream. I’ve witnessed others build those muscles – not responding to an inappropriate email but instead taking time to calm down, and then calling the other party instead of responding via email and successfully talking things through. I’ve heard the feedback of changed behavior – the “wow, now when I approach him with something, I can see an initial reaction, a pause and then a well-thought out response that has helped us solve the issue.”
Many of us need to pause more often before we react too harshly, and all of us can learn to do it. One breath at a time.
Q: It’s not just Donald Trump who’s obsessed with ID cards. A co-op board in Brooklyn is requiring all shareholders to obtain an in-house identification card after showing a valid driver’s license or state identification, a copy of the shareholder’s stock certificate, and a utility bill in his or her name. Shareholders are required to carry the ID at all times while using the co-op facilities, such as the laundry room. Is this legal?
A: Requiring shareholders to carry a building identification card might seem like an invasion of privacy, not to mention annoying, but it’s not illegal, replies the Ask Real Estate column in The New York Times.
Co-op boards are responsible for protecting the building and its residents. The governing documents of most co-ops allow board members to determine how best to do that, including regulating safety and security measures. And the courts give them expansive powers to do so.
While the ID card requirement might seem draconian, it’s possible that the board is pursuing this policy as a way to keep shareholders safe by ensuring there are no illegal subtenants or uninvited visitors in the building. Identification cards would allow staff to confirm that everyone who is there is supposed to be there.
“Even if those rules are strict, they are still likely enforceable, provided that the board acts in good faith and in the interest of the co-op corporation, and the enforcement of those rules does not violate any laws,” says David Fitzhenry, a partner at the law firm Moritt Hock & Hamroff.
If the board wants to institute this policy, it must be consistently applied without illegally targeting or harassing individual residents. It must also accommodate everyone who has a right to be on the premises, including family members and lawful roommates who are not shareholders.
If the identification checks are being enforced in a way that is discriminatory or does not comply with the co-op’s bylaws or rules, you can let the board know your concerns verbally or in writing, says Laura Mehl Sugarman, a partner at the law firm Benesch.
Be respectful in your letter — these board members are likely your neighbors — and stick to the facts. Seek out any neighbors who share your concerns, and have them sign the letter as well. But be advised: given the vast powers and legal protections enjoyed by co-op boards, you’ll be fighting an uphill battle.
Each and every multifamily community is different, with unique needs, expectations, and challenges. If you’re a regular reader of this publication, you’ve heard that refrain many times, across a broad range of contexts—including board governance. Some boards are tight-knit, proactive, and highly involved in the day-to-day operation of their properties, while others are more reactive, delegating the operational tasks to management and serving primarily as the final word on big expenditures, capital projects, and unit transfers.
Both approaches are valid, and can be equally effective, depending—again—on the unique character and needs of the building or association being governed. Striking the right balance is difficult to achieve. And that balance may change over time.
One Size Does Not Fit All
A board’s governing style depends on a variety of factors, among them the size of the community, the presence and contractual obligations of management, what the community’s governing documents require, the condition and complexity of the physical property, and the personalities of the board members themselves.
As David Goldoff, president of Camelot Realty Group in New York City, says, “There is no such thing as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ board. Every building has its own personality, history, and pressure points, and that heavily influences how a board governs.” And when there’s a mismatch between a board’s administrative approach and what residents want and expect, friction is bound to follow. Too far one way, and the board may be seen as meddling; too far the other way, and residents feel unheard—and eventually resentful.
The Players
An association or co-op corporation is governed by an elected board whose responsibility it is to protect the welfare of the community in accordance with the applicable governing documents. That protection extends to the physical plant, the association or corporation’s financial viability, and the value of the common areas and individual units. To better understand how a residential governing style can develop, it’s important to understand the components of board authority.
In most cases, the board works in conjunction with a managing agent, legal counsel, and an accounting consultant. As boards are typically made up of elected volunteers who may or may not have experience in those fields, they often depend on their contracted professionals to help them make effective decisions and then execute them. In the simplest terms, boards make policy, and management then executes those policies. What varies from community to community is how much collaboration there is between board and management in the policy-making process, how much input and direct involvement the board demands, and how much discretionary decision-making power the board gives management in execution.
Constitutional Monarchy vs. Létat C’est Moi
“Community association boards operate with a wide spectrum of governing styles,” says Bruno Bartoli, director of management services with Evergreen Management Group in Bedford, New Hampshire. “Each is influenced by factors like the community’s size, the backgrounds of individual board members, and the maturity of the association itself. Some boards prefer a more strategic, policy-oriented approach, focusing on the high-level decisions and delegating more operational tasks to management, while others are more hands-on, involved in everything from vendor coordination to direct interaction with residents.”
Matthew Gaines, a partner with Braintree, Massachusetts based law firm Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, adds that “some boards are very deeply involved with direct daily management. Others are not, whether or not there is a managing agent; most fall somewhere in the middle. Both approaches have their pros and cons. One positive aspect of having a very hands-on board is that they really know what’s going on in the community, and can react quickly when issues come up.
Gaines continues, “Knowing everything isn’t always a good thing, however, because there’s no option for deniability. When you run into an owner, they know you’re very involved, and may pepper you with questions. There’s no break. Being that hands-on can make board service a full-time job for board members who already have full-time jobs. You don’t need to get that far into the weeds. Truthfully, that’s what management is for.”
And in buildings with outside management, board governing style also depends a great deal on how the property manager handles individual situations. “It’s so important to know your audience and connect with each individual board member,” says Thomas Chilenski, president and senior property director with Cedarcrest Property Management in Fairfield, New Jersey. “Every board member, every board, every association is unique and must be treated that way. Getting to know what they prefer, what makes them tick, is essential. You’re managing the personalities and figuring it out. Communication is the key.”
The approach a board takes to governance often depends on the level of relevant expertise found among the board members—which of course can vary widely. As Andy Marks, executive vice president with Maxwell-Kates, a management firm based in New York, notes, “There’s no training for board membership. When I was elected to my board, I wasn’t in the real estate industry. All I had was the experience of living in the building and observing the decisions and style with which the previous board communicated to the community.”
A community may be fortunate enough to have someone with a career in law or finance on the board who can apply their experience, but that’s not always the case. As in Marks’ case, most board members’ relevant experience and qualifications come from simply living in the community and wanting to do their part to keep it running smoothly. It’s not unreasonable to expect a Park Avenue co-op board made up of CEOs and corporate attorneys to function differently than the board of a small limited-equity building downtown that’s made up of teachers, civil servants, and retirees.
The Pros & Cons
To be very clear: ‘differently’ doesn’t mean better or worse in this context; it just means that boards can—and indeed, should—reflect and represent the residents they serve. Part of that is tailoring governing style to resident needs and expectations, as well as realities of scale. A building with 300 units that’s home to more than 1,000 people likely requires a more by-the-book approach to governance than a self-managed 8-unit condo where half the unit owners are on the board and can message each other on Slack. There are benefits and drawbacks to all styles of board governance.
“Those pros and cons,” says attorney Jonharold Cicero, a partner at NYC-based DL Partners Law, “all relate to effectiveness. To be effective, a more relaxed, hands-off approach depends on the communication and attentiveness of the manager and board’s counsel working together—otherwise it doesn’t end well. The hands-on approach where the board is heavily involved can many times also not end well, because it can become autocratic. The reality is a board should act like a CEO of a company; the ‘C-level’ board. They have a property manager and attorney to take care of details and hold them accountable to make sure what needs to be done gets done and that the board’s fiduciary responsibility is protected and executed.”
Chris Tarnok, also a partner at DL Partners Law, adds that no matter what their general character or style, “Boards should not be asleep at the wheel. That has a negative correlation to the building’s overall financial health. Things are happening, and board members must be aware of what’s going on. Doing nothing can lead to special assessments, and other problems.
“But at the same time,” Tarnok continues, “the board shouldn’t pretend to be an engineer, lawyer, accountant, etc. It’s good to have those kinds of people on the board, but you need the right outside professionals to handle matters as they come up.”
Goldoff points out that “a more hands-off board can work extremely well when the building is financially stable, the infrastructure is in good shape, and the board has confidence in its management team. The upside is efficiency—decisions get made faster, professionals are empowered to do their jobs, and there’s less emotional interference in day-to-day operations. The downside is that if the board disengages too much, small issues can snowball before anyone notices.
“On the other end,” Goldoff continues, “hands-on boards often come from a good place—they care deeply about their building and its residents. The benefit of that involvement is strong oversight and accountability. The risk is micromanagement, blurred roles, and decision-making by committee, which can slow projects down, frustrate staff, and even expose the building to liability if board members step into operational roles they shouldn’t be in.”
Scott Piekarsky, a partner with Hackensack, New Jersey-based law firm Offit Kurman, concurs. “Managers want participatory—not overbearing—board members,” he says. “Success means an engaged board that doesn’t micro-manage. The board sets policy; management carries it out. However, sometimes you do need a very active, and perhaps somewhat micro-managing board—if you don’t have a strong management company, for example. If you do have a very good management team, there’s less you need to do. What I’ve learned over 30 years is that a lot depends on your management company, and to an even greater degree on your individual manager.”
“There is no one-size-fits-all model” for boards to follow, says Bartoli. “What’s most important is clarity of roles, consistency in governance, and alignment with the association’s long-term goals. Boards that operate with transparency, structure, and mutual respect—regardless of style—tend to be most effective.”
Reading the Room
According to the pros, managing agents and companies don’t just manage their client properties—to a greater or lesser degree, they have to ‘manage’ their client boards as well. That’s another place where the personalities involved and their collective governing style make a big difference.
“If you have a difficult, demanding, controlling board, it’s tough,” says Marks. “You have to determine if it’s the whole board, or just one or two individuals. You have to talk to the whole board—not just one or two individuals [who] may make board decisions based on self-interest—and ensure that everyone is on board with your recommendations.”
“An active board that is involved with the association and management is a huge positive,” says Chilenski. The board and manager working together as a team is always the best approach, and management must instill trust with the board to accomplish this. Management needs input and opinions from the entire board in order to collaborate and make the best decision for the association’s long term interests.”
An experienced manager adapts their leadership style based on the board’s dynamic while maintaining professional boundaries and ensuring legal and procedural compliance. “With more passive boards,” says Bartoli, “managers often take on a stronger advisory and organizational role, driving agendas, overseeing vendor relations, and presenting options for decision-making. With more active boards, the manager shifts toward a facilitative role—ensuring projects are completed, legal and financial frameworks are upheld, and board actions are properly documented. Regardless of the board’s style, the manager must remain objective, provide consistent education, and ensure that the association operates within the scope of its governing documents and applicable statutes.”
Communication is Key
Along with ‘every building is different’, ‘communication is key’ is another truism CooperatorNews readers will be very familiar with—and one the pros cite again and again when it comes to how boards do their job. Consistent, effective communication between board, management, and residents is crucial for good governance, regardless of board management style. So whether your board meets once a month or once a year, or whether your building is home to 100 or 1,000, the traits that make a great board are universal.
A.J. Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for CooperatorNews, and a published novelist. He may be reached at alan@yrinc.com.
By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column
In 2029, a new law will ban watering of “nonfunctional turf” with potable water. What is “nonfunctional turf,” and must your HOA prepare to remove it?
In 2023 the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1572 and created Water Code Section 10608.14, applicable to properties including common interest developments. This new statute requires various property owners, including HOAs, to either remove “nonfunctional turf” or begin irrigating it with reclaimed water. HOAs must comply before 2029. Since most HOAs do not have reclaimed water readily available to them without great expense, many HOAs are erroneously assuming they must remove grass areas not regularly used by residents.
However, a careful review of the statutes and connected regulations reveals that probably very few if any California common interest developments will be affected by this law.
What is “Turf”? Under the regulations, “Turf” means a “ground cover surface of mowed grass.” (Title 23 California Code of Regulations Section 491(zzz)). Therefore, grass which is not mowed is not “turf.” So, which mowed grass areas would be considered “nonfunctional turf” under the statute?
What is “Nonfunctional Turf”? “Nonfunctional turf” is defined by Water Code Section 10608.12(u) as “turf that is not functional turf.” OK, that doesn’t seem terribly helpful, but let’s next look at what is “functional turf.”
What is “Functional Turf”? “Functional turf” is defined by Water Code Section 10608.12(m) as “a ground cover surface of turf located in a recreational use area or community space. Turf enclosed by fencing or other barriers to permanently preclude human access for recreation or assembly is not functional turf.” This means that the triggering issue which causes an area of turf to be classified as “nonfunctional turf” is that the mowed grass area is inaccessible to resident walking, sitting, or otherwise enjoying the location.
HOAs must achieve compliance with this new law and cease use of potable water on nonfunctional turf by January 1, 2029. (Water Code Section 10608.14(a)(4)). However, under the aforementioned definitions, only mowed grass areas which are enclosed and inaccessible to residents appear to be “nonfunctional turf.” Therefore, most HOAs probably will not be affected, since they have little or no “nonfunctional turf”. Any HOAs which have purely decorative mowed grass common areas inaccessible to residents should plan on either supplying those areas with reclaimed water or removing mowed turf from such inaccessible locations before 2029.
One problematic issue of this new law is Water Code Section 10608(e)(2), which requires HOAs with over 5,000 square feet (.11 acre) of irrigated common area (not only turf) to certify compliance to the State Water Board every three years. Thousands of HOAs have that much irrigated common area and will have to certify compliance, which seems silly since nonfunctional turf is not likely to reappear in HOAs. The first certification is due on June 30, 2031, but the Water Resources Control Board has not yet provided a method to provide this self-certification. If your HOA has more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated common area landscaping, the reporting deadline of June 30, 2031 should be calendared to avoid late filing. By then hopefully someone will realize the futility of requiring this repeated certification and the requirement will be eliminated.
Each and every multifamily community is different, with unique needs, expectations, and challenges. If you’re a regular reader of this publication, you’ve heard that refrain many times, across a broad range of contexts—including board governance. Some boards are tight-knit, proactive, and highly involved in the day-to-day operation of their properties, while others are more reactive, delegating the operational tasks to management and serving primarily as the final word on big expenditures, capital projects, and unit transfers.
Both approaches are valid, and can be equally effective, depending—again—on the unique character and needs of the building or association being governed. Striking the right balance is difficult to achieve. And that balance may change over time.
One Size Does Not Fit All
A board’s governing style depends on a variety of factors, among them the size of the community, the presence and contractual obligations of management, what the community’s governing documents require, the condition and complexity of the physical property, and the personalities of the board members themselves.
As David Goldoff, president of Camelot Realty Group in New York City, says, “There is no such thing as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ board. Every building has its own personality, history, and pressure points, and that heavily influences how a board governs.” And when there’s a mismatch between a board’s administrative approach and what residents want and expect, friction is bound to follow. Too far one way, and the board may be seen as meddling; too far the other way, and residents feel unheard—and eventually resentful.
The Players
An association or co-op corporation is governed by an elected board whose responsibility it is to protect the welfare of the community in accordance with the applicable governing documents. That protection extends to the physical plant, the association or corporation’s financial viability, and the value of the common areas and individual units. To better understand how a residential governing style can develop, it’s important to understand the components of board authority.
In most cases, the board works in conjunction with a managing agent, legal counsel, and an accounting consultant. As boards are typically made up of elected volunteers who may or may not have experience in those fields, they often depend on their contracted professionals to help them make effective decisions and then execute them. In the simplest terms, boards make policy, and management then executes those policies. What varies from community to community is how much collaboration there is between board and management in the policy-making process, how much input and direct involvement the board demands, and how much discretionary decision-making power the board gives management in execution.
Constitutional Monarchy vs. Létat C’est Moi
“Community association boards operate with a wide spectrum of governing styles,” says Bruno Bartoli, director of management services with Evergreen Management Group in Bedford, New Hampshire. “Each is influenced by factors like the community’s size, the backgrounds of individual board members, and the maturity of the association itself. Some boards prefer a more strategic, policy-oriented approach, focusing on the high-level decisions and delegating more operational tasks to management, while others are more hands-on, involved in everything from vendor coordination to direct interaction with residents.”
Matthew Gaines, a partner with Braintree, Massachusetts based law firm Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, adds that “some boards are very deeply involved with direct daily management. Others are not, whether or not there is a managing agent; most fall somewhere in the middle. Both approaches have their pros and cons. One positive aspect of having a very hands-on board is that they really know what’s going on in the community, and can react quickly when issues come up.
Gaines continues, “Knowing everything isn’t always a good thing, however, because there’s no option for deniability. When you run into an owner, they know you’re very involved, and may pepper you with questions. There’s no break. Being that hands-on can make board service a full-time job for board members who already have full-time jobs. You don’t need to get that far into the weeds. Truthfully, that’s what management is for.”
And in buildings with outside management, board governing style also depends a great deal on how the property manager handles individual situations. “It’s so important to know your audience and connect with each individual board member,” says Thomas Chilenski, president and senior property director with Cedarcrest Property Management in Fairfield, New Jersey. “Every board member, every board, every association is unique and must be treated that way. Getting to know what they prefer, what makes them tick, is essential. You’re managing the personalities and figuring it out. Communication is the key.”
The approach a board takes to governance often depends on the level of relevant expertise found among the board members—which of course can vary widely. As Andy Marks, executive vice president with Maxwell-Kates, a management firm based in New York, notes, “There’s no training for board membership. When I was elected to my board, I wasn’t in the real estate industry. All I had was the experience of living in the building and observing the decisions and style with which the previous board communicated to the community.”
A community may be fortunate enough to have someone with a career in law or finance on the board who can apply their experience, but that’s not always the case. As in Marks’ case, most board members’ relevant experience and qualifications come from simply living in the community and wanting to do their part to keep it running smoothly. It’s not unreasonable to expect a Park Avenue co-op board made up of CEOs and corporate attorneys to function differently than the board of a small limited-equity building downtown that’s made up of teachers, civil servants, and retirees.
The Pros & Cons
To be very clear: ‘differently’ doesn’t mean better or worse in this context; it just means that boards can—and indeed, should—reflect and represent the residents they serve. Part of that is tailoring governing style to resident needs and expectations, as well as realities of scale. A building with 300 units that’s home to more than 1,000 people likely requires a more by-the-book approach to governance than a self-managed 8-unit condo where half the unit owners are on the board and can message each other on Slack. There are benefits and drawbacks to all styles of board governance.
“Those pros and cons,” says attorney Jonharold Cicero, a partner at NYC-based DL Partners Law, “all relate to effectiveness. To be effective, a more relaxed, hands-off approach depends on the communication and attentiveness of the manager and board’s counsel working together—otherwise it doesn’t end well. The hands-on approach where the board is heavily involved can many times also not end well, because it can become autocratic. The reality is a board should act like a CEO of a company; the ‘C-level’ board. They have a property manager and attorney to take care of details and hold them accountable to make sure what needs to be done gets done and that the board’s fiduciary responsibility is protected and executed.”
Chris Tarnok, also a partner at DL Partners Law, adds that no matter what their general character or style, “Boards should not be asleep at the wheel. That has a negative correlation to the building’s overall financial health. Things are happening, and board members must be aware of what’s going on. Doing nothing can lead to special assessments, and other problems.
“But at the same time,” Tarnok continues, “the board shouldn’t pretend to be an engineer, lawyer, accountant, etc. It’s good to have those kinds of people on the board, but you need the right outside professionals to handle matters as they come up.”
Goldoff points out that “a more hands-off board can work extremely well when the building is financially stable, the infrastructure is in good shape, and the board has confidence in its management team. The upside is efficiency—decisions get made faster, professionals are empowered to do their jobs, and there’s less emotional interference in day-to-day operations. The downside is that if the board disengages too much, small issues can snowball before anyone notices.
“On the other end,” Goldoff continues, “hands-on boards often come from a good place—they care deeply about their building and its residents. The benefit of that involvement is strong oversight and accountability. The risk is micromanagement, blurred roles, and decision-making by committee, which can slow projects down, frustrate staff, and even expose the building to liability if board members step into operational roles they shouldn’t be in.”
Scott Piekarsky, a partner with Hackensack, New Jersey-based law firm Offit Kurman, concurs. “Managers want participatory—not overbearing—board members,” he says. “Success means an engaged board that doesn’t micro-manage. The board sets policy; management carries it out. However, sometimes you do need a very active, and perhaps somewhat micro-managing board—if you don’t have a strong management company, for example. If you do have a very good management team, there’s less you need to do. What I’ve learned over 30 years is that a lot depends on your management company, and to an even greater degree on your individual manager.”
“There is no one-size-fits-all model” for boards to follow, says Bartoli. “What’s most important is clarity of roles, consistency in governance, and alignment with the association’s long-term goals. Boards that operate with transparency, structure, and mutual respect—regardless of style—tend to be most effective.”
Reading the Room
According to the pros, managing agents and companies don’t just manage their client properties—to a greater or lesser degree, they have to ‘manage’ their client boards as well. That’s another place where the personalities involved and their collective governing style make a big difference.
“If you have a difficult, demanding, controlling board, it’s tough,” says Marks. “You have to determine if it’s the whole board, or just one or two individuals. You have to talk to the whole board—not just one or two individuals [who] may make board decisions based on self-interest—and ensure that everyone is on board with your recommendations.”
“An active board that is involved with the association and management is a huge positive,” says Chilenski. The board and manager working together as a team is always the best approach, and management must instill trust with the board to accomplish this. Management needs input and opinions from the entire board in order to collaborate and make the best decision for the association’s long term interests.”
An experienced manager adapts their leadership style based on the board’s dynamic while maintaining professional boundaries and ensuring legal and procedural compliance. “With more passive boards,” says Bartoli, “managers often take on a stronger advisory and organizational role, driving agendas, overseeing vendor relations, and presenting options for decision-making. With more active boards, the manager shifts toward a facilitative role—ensuring projects are completed, legal and financial frameworks are upheld, and board actions are properly documented. Regardless of the board’s style, the manager must remain objective, provide consistent education, and ensure that the association operates within the scope of its governing documents and applicable statutes.”
Communication is Key
Along with ‘every building is different’, ‘communication is key’ is another truism CooperatorNews readers will be very familiar with—and one the pros cite again and again when it comes to how boards do their job. Consistent, effective communication between board, management, and residents is crucial for good governance, regardless of board management style. So whether your board meets once a month or once a year, or whether your building is home to 100 or 1,000, the traits that make a great board are universal.
A.J. Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for CooperatorNews, and a published novelist. He may be reached at alan@yrinc.com.
Former Mayor Eric Adams dreamed of bringing about a “trash revolution” in New York City — getting mountains of black garbage bags off the streets, putting garbage in sealable bins, and launching an ambitious citywide curbside organics recycling program.
To enforce this last initiative, in April 2025 Adams ordered inspectors to issue a blizzard of tickets — more than 200 a day — to landlords and co-op and condo boards who mixed regular garbage with organics or failed to set up the mandatory brown organics bins.
Organics recylcling tripled — until a few weeks later, when then-Deputy First Mayor Randy Mastro ordered an end to the ticketing blitz. After Mastro’s order, compost collection fell 43% through the end of 2025, according to a new study by the city’s Independent Budget Office, Gothamist reports. Just 2.4% of residential waste that could be turned into compost was actually being diverted from landfills in 2025. Meanwhile, the city is wasting money on labor and special composting trucks to run routes that make relatively few pickups.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani reinstated those fines when he took office in January, but the level of enforcement hasn’t matched the ferocity of Adams’ initial blitz. Inspectors have issued just 610 tickets for failure to compost since the beginning of the year.
What’s the answer? Education, education, education.
“Obviously, our first priority is to educate folks on how to do it,” says Sanitation Commissioner Gregory Anderson. “The campaign that we’re running right now is really focused on people who live in apartment buildings. Enforcement is always a part of these programs.”
The sanitation department is relaunching a public awareness campaign launched under Adams, which features Scrappy, an anthropomorphized brown compost bin. The ads from the campaign can be seen on city buses, outside bodegas and on the city’s ferries.
The recycling program is designed to reduce the amount of organic waste going into landfills — fruit and vegetable scraps, coffee grounds, egg shells, tea bags and fresh garden clippings — because landfills generate methane, an ozone-depleting gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. The collected organic matter is sent to composting facilities or turned into biogas. The compost is returned to the city to nourish parks, gardens and tree pits.
In New York City, which emits one million pounds of greenhouse gas annually from its municipal landfills, roughly one-third of the residential waste collected is actually compostable.
By Kelly G. Richardson, Esq. CCAL, HOA Homefront Column
Mr. Richardson: I really enjoy your HOA Homefront column. Here’s a question: Is it appropriate for board members to use homeowner time to make speeches? We have a board member who likes to do that — often disparaging owners who have different opinions from hers. Thank you, A.M., San Diego
Dear A.M.: Open forum is not the time for the board members to talk, but is their time to LISTEN. They should be noting any questions or action items that need to be answered or directed to management or a committee. The Open Meeting Act prohibits directors from discussing (or orating) on matters not disclosed on the agenda, per Civil Code Section 4930(a). However, subparts (b) and (c) of Section 4930 allow directors to answer questions or request matters be referred to management, staff, or a committee, which should happen AFTER open forum ends. Board members who abuse open forum by interrupting members cannot fairly insist that homeowners in the audience not interrupt board deliberations. Finally, it’s bad form to use one’s board seat as a platform to bully or criticize other members. Sounds like someone should gently rein this person in a bit. Best, Kelly
Dear Kelly: In an attempt to make board meetings brief, they have taken to voting the “consent calendar” as one agenda item, without any prior members’ knowledge, discussion or even speaking the items on it. This month these include: approve the minutes; acknowledgement that board members have reviewed the financials; treasurer’s report; and manager’s report. These reports are provided to the board by the treasurer and manager prior to the meeting. They are then adopted by the Board at the meeting always without discussion or disclosure of the contents. The reports are then attached as separate PDFs to the minutes of the meeting which are provided to the members a few days after the meeting. Should not these reports be seen by the members before the Board votes on them? How can this square with the open meeting rules or intent? R.S., Solana Beach
Dear R.S.: Consent calendars are a powerful tool to dispose of items not expected to require any discussion – such as the items you list- in one quick vote without deliberation. The consent calendar items still must be listed on the posted agenda, and any director can without explanation ask for an item to be removed and handled as a separate motion. Since consent calendar items are not discussed, it is another reason to conduct open forum at the beginning of the meeting. However, reports the board receives in their “board packets” are not normally shared with the rest of the HOA unless those reports are accepted and added to the minutes. Sometimes the board packet has confidential information such as multiple bid proposals, or incident reports, or delinquency lists, which should not be shared with the community at large.
Consent calendars are valuable because they preserve time and energy for the items which might be controversial and need board focus. Even the smallest HOAs would benefit from their use. One caution – don’t overuse consent calendars as a technique to avoid discussing matters which are not truly routine or non-controversial, because that can quickly destroy a board’s credibility. Nothing is more important than the HOA’s trust in their board.
