From Dan Tepfer, CT Post:
One day after a federal judge lifted the stay on the bankruptcy proceeding by the management of Success Village the lawyers for the co-op, the city, the town of Stratford and two utilities were back before a state judge.
Superior Court Judge Dale Radcliffe ordered the trial before him, cut short by the bankruptcy filing, will resume on Monday morning.
Dennis Bradley, the lawyer for the Success Village management, was pulled out of a wedding at the judge’s order to attend the hearing Friday afternoon.
Full story here
1+
The story goes on. Who is ‘in control’ at any given moment? From ‘self-governance’ documents in the hands of resident members who have clamored for reinstatement of authorized meetings, election, reports on financial matters, and expenditure of Success Village funds, the affairs have failed to address universal issues like available hot water and heat to the more than 900 units in Bridgeport and Stratford.
The story will continue, and additional historical facts and dollar amounts may be added to what is currently known. But the quiet research by Federal, State, and municipal parties to this moment have not provided any charges with which the court systems can handle. The interested community cannot understand that absence of input. Is eveything that has been done by folks, or been allowed to do by other folks legal? When will the system of enforcement join the story in public fashion? In the meantime, what do the two municipalities, or the State of CT need to address to provide an ‘early warning system’ for ‘failing self-governance systems’ in the future? Time will tell.
In the fairly near future, computer-filed accounting reports, mandatorily submitted by all sorts of financial entities (condo associations, etc.) will be able to be continually reviewed by the state through AI programs that will be able to flag the state (et al.) that things might be amiss. Similarly, BOD meeting reports might also be able to AI analyzed by programs capable of sniffing out governance red-flags for various types of state-regulated entities. How much scrutiny/regulation of private organizations, including condo-associations, is currently permitted? How much is desirable? How much is legal by current law? Clearly, the money aspect of condo-organizations is regulated by state laws governing fiduciary responsibility of taxpaying financial entities that use collective funds on behalf of shareholders. Unauthorized use of monies by responsible parties would also seem to, of course, be regulated by laws prohibiting larceny… So it would seem that mandatory reporting of BOD financial and governance activity wouldn’t be much of a stretch per extended state oversite of entities involved in essential functions on behalf of communities…. In the future — maybe even now — AI could facilitate continual, mandated monitoring and effectively prevent the type of community abuse we are now observing at Success Village….
Jeff asks a very good question, about which I have been seeking an answer. “How much scrutiny/regulation of private organizations, including condo-organizations, is currently permitted. ”
In Bridgeport there are apparently no requirements of any kind, and state-wide, there are Statutes that have been discussed and become law, but apparantly neither registration requirements that would provide evidence of active self-governance nor ready enforcement powers, that can be directed at the source of autocratic behavior that does not serve the community at large.
Currently, there are seven representatives presenting themselves for election to the State of Connecticut representative body. What is their knowledge of the Condo/co-op regulation area? Do they have any word from constituents residing in their districts as to the health of self-governance activity in their residential co-op or condo communities? Perhaps it is time to ask questions of them so as to prepare for the next problem, issue, or concern of such an “ownership” residential group, where the City becomes the “:financial supporter of last resort” when buildings are called “unhealthy or unlivable” and the municipality is left with the situation of solving? Time will tell.