[ConcernedOwners] "Direct Hire" Meeting Tonight, Incident on Berkshire Court

[Concerned Owners]

-----------------------------------------------
Incident on Berkshire Court

As many of you are probably aware from the police and EMS activity, there was a tragic incident on Berkshire Court over the weekend.
A resident suffered a gunshot wound to the head, possibly self-inflicted, around 1:00 pm Saturday. He survived and was taken to the
hospital, however today I hear he has died. There was a brief article in the Home News over the weekend:

http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080405/NEWS/80405013

The victim was known to have been struggling with a substance abuse problem for quite some time, and recently appeared to have been
making good progress towards managing the problem. The impact this had on his actions Saturday, if any, is unknown, and in no way
undermines, and in fact would only deepen, the tragic nature of his death. I'm sure the community shares in the sadness and extends
its sympathies to the family and friends of the victim.


-----------------------------------------------
"Direct Hire" Meeting Reminder

The meeting for tonight is still on for 7:00 pm. I plan on finally going through my "Maintenance and Snow Removal Cost Analysis"
talk, followed by discussion. I see some comments have already been circulating over the last few days, and I will address some of
the points here:

1-Hiring employees is NOT a "change to the government of Society Hill". Hiring maintenance personnel, rather than hiring a
maintenance contractor, in no way, shape, or form, changes the structure or function of the Board of Trustees or the Association's
by-laws. The by-laws in their current form DO allow the Association to hire employees (see section 5.11G), so no changes whatsoever
are necessary.

2-At the February Board meeting, the association's insurance agent presented the board with some cost estimates for workers
compensation and liability insurance, should the association hire employees. Mr. Weiner also read from an e-mail he had received
from the insurance company's underwriter, pointing out the additional exposure to the association and the potential impact on our
loss ratio. Personally, I did NOT in any way get the impression that Mr. Weiner was speaking negatively on the concept of hiring
employees. He was merely making sure the board understood the additional responsibility it may be taking on in terms of developing
the necessary policies and procedures to limit its exposure to possible losses.

3-Even under a "contractor only" model, realize the association is still not totally immune to risk! Case in point - in the winter
of 1996 or thereabouts, a Lancaster Court resident fell on the ice and injured her wrist. She sued and ended up settling for
$495,000! The association, the snow contractor, and the management company were all named in the suit. The association ended up
paying $50,000 of the settlement, despite the fact that it was a contractor that was performing the work. The management company
paid the bulk of the settlement (around $300,000 I think?), and the snow contractor the rest. The reason the association got hit was
because the board or board members were somehow involved in the snow removal decisions. Thus, regardless of the service delivery
model, proper policies and procedures are required to limit risk, and using contractors does NOT totally eliminate that risk.

4-The continued suggestion that I (Mr. Wine) or Mr. Machyowsky "just want to get paid", and implying that we are doing or trying to
do something of a criminal nature, is really pushing the envelope in terms of libelous (and legally actionable) statements. The
proposal in the talk for this evening envisions hiring high-quality employees that do not require constant supervision and guidance,
thus eliminating any need for any maintenance supervisory position. Mr. Machyowsky has never put forward any proposals in which he
was seeking compensation for himself, and any such statements to that effect are totally fabricated, and likely with "intentional
malice and reckless disregard for the truth".

5-There have been some suggestions on putting the "direct hire" concept to a vote of the entire association. Realize, however, the
by-laws already authorize such a concept, so the Board is already fully authorized and empowered to make such a decision.
Furthermore, in my mind, the issue has already been put to a vote of the residents - the 2007 election. I hope everyone hasn't
already forgotten the extent to which some of the candidates made an issue of an even more controversial "direct hire" idea - that
of hiring me - and I assume I don't have to remind everyone again that those candidates lost the election. I think this already
tells us quite a bit about the overall homeowner feelings on the topic.

6-Home improvement contractor licensing issues do not apply to employees. We can hire anyone we want to do maintenance work,
licensed or not. The only exception to this is possibly for electrical and plumbing work, which apparently requires a licensed
electrician or plumber in a multi-family dwelling scenario. However, I have yet to see the actual text of this law, and I have very
direct evidence there is more to the story. In any case, there is very little electrical work in the common element anyway, so
that's not an issue, and we have been using a licensed electrician. More likely there is some plumbing work, but again not that much
and we have been using a licensed plumber for any such work.


As a final reminder, I am more than happy to involve the community as a whole in such decisions and possible changes, but again, it
is with the understanding that all parties contribute in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner. Should that continue to prove impossible or
impractical, I will be far less inclined to publicize these issues, hold community meetings, prepare detailed presentations and
analysis, write about it here, etc., etc.

Kevin