Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#216
denis ()
User Offline
RCM Wants Change 2007/07/13 23:48  
It seems CAFCOR could be getting some support from RCMs for changes in favour of condo owners. In the latest (summer 2007) issue of CM Condominium Manager magazine, Babak Ardalan, RCM is quoted as follows in a mini-profile:
A pet peeve that you wish could be changed and why?
"Let's give some power of enforcement to the Condominium Act. There are no 'Condominium Police' and there are no penalties for violations of the Condominium Act. I believe the industry should work on that."
Babak is with DEL Property Management and was their Property Management Condominium Manager of the Year in 2006.
In the same issue, various ex-presidents of ACMO made some comments for ACMO's 30th anniversary:
Ron Outram, RCM, Provincial Property Management Ltd., wrote "The future challenges for ACMO will be to ensure that the education program keeps up with all future changes and by establishing a solid means of regulating the industry. Without a regulatory body ACMO will only ever be an Association without clout. ACMO needs to develop the strengths of associations like the Law Society and the Professional Engineers."
Richard Pearlstein, RCM, Northcan Property Management Inc., wrote "The opportunity I see for ACMO........ is for the association to become the licensing body to grant/monitor/administer/regulate the RCM as the provincially-legislated condominium manager license."
Ray Wilson, RCM, Wilson Blanchard Management Inc., wrote "The ACMO board will have a challenge gaining back the support of over 30 corporate members who have been dropped from corporate status due to personal and/or business reasons for not buying into and supporting the ACMO 2000 certification, as well as gaining support from the many condominium management companies that -- to date -- have been reluctant to become corporate menbers of ACMO."
Maybe ACMO is ready for change and it can't come soon enough.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#217
wotan ()
User Offline
Re:RCM Wants Change 2007/07/14 02:13  
And if RCM changes, it will be a huge step in the right direction.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#235
Jamie ()
User Offline
Re:RCM Wants Change 2007/07/15 17:59  
I know for a fact that you don't need a pmc to do what an independent property manager and a good board of directors can do for less. I don't think ACMO will ever change.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#304
Yvon ()
User Offline
Re:RCM Wants Change 2007/07/18 22:24  
Hello Jamie,

I think you are correct on both points. First of all, once you remove the "profit" portion of a management contract, it significantly reduces the cost to unit Owners. An "independent" PM who works only for the Corporation and has no interest in dividing his/her loyalties between the PMC and the Corporation is much more likely to serve the interest of unit Owners if a Board is willing to truly govern in a competent fashion.
Undoubtedly, an independent Site Administrator (SA) or PM who answers only to the Board can better serve a Corporation. SAs & PMs should answer to the Board and the Board to the unit Owners.

A novel idea now isn't it?

Second of all, well, in any event, let's concentrate on the "First of all..."
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#310
doubleu ()
Re:RCM Wants Change 2007/07/19 03:57  
Yvon, you and I have exchanged many points of view on another discussion forum and hopefully with respect and acceptance of each others opinions.

Therefore, in that spirit, I really have a hard time understanding how some 'independent' SA or PM (who cares what the label is?) will work with the 'profit motive' removed from the equation? [Is this the same kind of double-speak that the NDP (remember them...Jack Layton and a few MP's') are famous for, with all due respect?]

The only people who will work in the best interests of the corporation, without a 'profit motive', are the owners who volunteer to be directors. Everyone else, including those 'not for profit' SA's or PM's, has their hand in the owners' pockets.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#312
Yvon ()
User Offline
Re:RCM Wants Change 2007/07/19 04:34  
Doubleu, with all due respect. In a perfect world, we would have no need for hired help. However if you received the complaints which CAFCOR receives on a weekly basis from unit Owners vis-a-vis their Boards (yours excluded), you would have a more accurate understanding that not all Boards are as competent as yours. Your unit Owners are fortunate to have such competent and dedicated Directors on their Board but will such be the case next year or 5 or 10 years from now when the make-up of your BOD is completely different?

I have no objection to employees of the Corporation being reasonably remunerated for their services. However, PMCs have a significant profit margin which can be eliminated with "independent" SAs and PMs. As well, there are many SAs and PMs who are working on multiple property management contracts while sitting in one Corporation's office. If the contract calls for a 30 hour week, then that PM should be working exclusively for that Corporation during those hours, not being instructed by the PMC to deal with problems at other Corporations on the same dime.

For example, after calculating the cost to unit Owners of a property management contract worth $150,000, even with very decent remuneration to an "independent" PM and "not-for-profit" background support, these same unit Owners could receive the same but undivided service from the PM and support services for $90,000.

If you trim the fat, the steak is better. In your Corporation, you are self-managed which, for now, is most cost effective provided services to unit Owners are maintained in high standard. In large Corporations where Directors are not always able to physically do everything which is required, an "independent" manager who answers to the Board is much more cost effective and service oriented, in the interests of unit Owners, than a PM who answers to his/her PMC.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#313
wotan ()
User Offline
Re:RCM Wants Change 2007/07/19 06:17  
Here are my two cents:

I have encountered PMs on their cell phones within an hour of the start of an AGM at "Condominium A" dealing matters at "Condominium B". While I concede that "Condominium B" is also paying for this person's services, I disagree with the PM being concerned about "Condominium B" just prior to the most important meeting of the year in "Condominiun A."

Also our condominium pays over $50,000 per year to a PMC for professional management. What do we get for this? We get a bookkeeper and less than ten hours a week in actual "onsite" management. I know there are things that have to be done when the office is closed (like the manager's attendance at Board and owners' meetings, and for administrative work that cannot be completed during "office hours"), however owners are only supposed to bother the manager during "office hours" which is simply not enough. Our current PM (through our PMC) does allow for longer office hours (if he's in, owners are welcomed to drop in and visit), but more is needed. But this is better than our old PMC (they literally did the bare minimum in everything.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#457
Jony ()
Re:RCM Wants Change 2007/07/28 07:43  
We pay to the PMC over $80,000 but office hours only for 3 hours a week.its on the agreement.Now the PMC canceled the office hours,they are saying that we dont need the office hours becasue they have a good communication systems is in place.we are still fighting against the PMC on this matter.
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster