Garage Waiting List:
Developments (or lack thereof) as of March '06

Board Member Eric Mandelbaum recently posted the November 2005 Garage Waiting List on the SPHC.net website. His announcement that the list was posted was accompanied by the astonishing note:

I took a while, but I finally finished re-typing the garage waiting list from the glass enclosed bulletin board by the mailboxes.

Retyping from the glass-enclosed bulletin board! Ladies and Gentlemen: There is something fundamentally flawed if a Board Member who is on the Garage Committee has no more access to the Garage Waiting List than I do! This also flies in the face of two resolutions (shown to the right) that were passed by the Board in recent Board Meetings.

I have analyzed this list, and my findings are below. But frankly, my hope that the Board will address these problems has diminished dramatically. At my meeting with the Garage Committee six months ago, Board Members pledged to address problems with the GWL. There was a lot of activity at the outset, but the Garage Committee has stopped issuing updates, stopped using a database, and has blatantly left problems unresolved. The fact that Board Member Eric Mandelbaum had to retype the list suggests that the Garage Committee is not working together in a reliable or cohesive manner. I haven't recently confirmed whether the Garage Committee finally started issuing the receipts or written notifications that were promised at our September 14 meeting, but nonetheless, it is clear and disturbing that not only is our Garage Waiting List not being managed well, but that elements on the Garage Committee seem determined to prevent fair process and transparency from entering into its operation.

In boldly retyping and publishing the list, Mr. Mandelbaum recognizes the untenable nature of this state of affairs. I hope that other Board Members and our community at-large will be vocal in demanding improved accountability in the future management of our Waiting Lists.

Analysis of GWL November 2005

The fact that the latest list was published just days after I pointed out flaws on the prior list led me to treat this as a re-issue of the November 14th list. My analysis therefore compares this list directly against the August list. Here are my findings:

• There is still no mention of how many spots were assigned between publication of this and the prior list, and there is no documentation of what became of people who were removed from the list. There is therefore no way to ascertain if people on the list are actually getting the spots that become available. Considering the discoveries I made earlier in this investigation, this is a very reasonable concern.
• There are five people who were not on the May or August lists who appear with good positions on the November list. Furthermore, I understand that a Board Member bypassed the list entirely and was granted a spot. I received no responses to my requests for explanations.
• Each record is associated with the date it was added to the list. There are four records that are out of date order. Three of these were left uncorrected from the August 2005 list, one is new.
• I know of several shareholders who have asked repeatedly to be added to waiting lists and whose names still don't appear.
• There are duplicate list entries associated with the same apartments. Five pairs of duplicates were pointed out in the August 2005 list. Three pairs are new.
• There are two Shareholders whose apartment numbers changed between the publication of the August and November lists. They may have moved or broken-through, but considering the number of errors already mentioned, I think that sloppy management of the list is equally possible.
• This isn't a data error, but a procedural one: it is obvious that a database is no longer being used.

P.S. To date, we still don't know what became of the unaccounted-for spots that were disclosed in the course of this investigation.

From SPHC Board Meeting Minutes, November 2005

Management should have a computerized database of the current garage list and administrate the process by which vacated parking spaces are assigned in accordance with this resolution.

Management procedure should be as follows:

(1) The selection will be in numerical order.

(2) The selected cooperator will be notified by mail as well as by telephone. Notification of the selected cooperator should be dated and saved. The form of the letter should contain a response section which states that cooperator is interested or not interested.

(3) The selected cooperator will be given fifteen days to respond by submission of written verification with thier signature. The document is to be filed with management.

The implementation of such a resolution will give accountabilty to the cooperators that directors and management are interested in fairness and their best interest.

From SPHC Board Meeting Minutes, December 2005

A motion was made by S. Friedland to provide E. Mandelbaum, on a trial basis, all relevant data to create an integrated automated computerized system (by E.M.) that is to include; apartment layouts, intercom directory, security listing, garage inventory and wait list, storage list and wait list, etc.