In Support of Our Maintenance Man

The names have been substituted with titles to avoid embarrassment of companies and individuals and to protect the innocent.

On August 4, 2009, two representatives of the association’s property management company consumed most of the association meeting beating up on our maintenance man. The maintenance man is a homeowner and a very good conduit between the homeowners and the Board. He is well-liked by many of the residents, because he keeps the property clean and bends an ear.

Many of his emails were written to voice concerns of the homeowners. He has been banned by the president in writing emails to the property management company. Below is an email that he wrote to the Board explaining some of the work that he does.

The maintenance man is on the property more than sixty hours each month but only charges for sixty hours. The property management company management says that he is paid too much. He is paid less than half of what the property management company is paid but is on the property 30 times the length of visits of the property management company.

I have been on the Board off and on for ten years. All of the previous property management companies have visited the property for inspections at least four times each month while this company inspects the property only twice each month. The Board pays this company more that two to three times what the other companies were paid.

I think the current property management company’s real complaint is that the maintenance man points out their lack of responsibility.

Below is the email by the maintenance man.

“Board

“At the meeting on Aug 4; (the owner of the property management company) informed me that (the landscape company) representatives went to her office and complained about me; apparently implying that I'm responsible for the irrigation problems. It's difficult to respond when I don't know what was discussed; so I'll just give a brief work description.

“As my contract makes reference to, I sometimes work on "sprinklers and related equipment". One way I do this is to operate selected sprinklers in manual mode. There is a reference card provided by the manufacturer and included with the automatic controllers that gives instructions on how to do this; and I follow those instructions as written. Manual mode temporarily overrides the programmed start and stop times and allows me to operate the sprinklers and check if any are broken or not functioning. When the manual override time expires, the controller defaults back to the original program, and the original start and stop times are not affected.

“There have been at least two occasions in the last month when I shut off controllers at some buildings to allow the painters to work without getting soaked. When the painters were done, I turned the controllers back on. There is a switch in each controller for this purpose; but once again the program times are not altered when the controller is turned back on.

“Since I don't attempt to actually program the days and times that the sprinklers operate, or alter the programming; I can't think of a reason that (the landscape company) would blame me. They need to look elsewhere.

“As I've mentioned to Board members recently, one vendor who was on our property to get information for an irrigation bid pointed out to me that a controller at (a specific address) was not even wired properly. He connected it so that it was receiving power, and then discovered there were no times programmed.

“A possible reason that timers may not function properly is power outages. If you've ever had to reset the clock on your microwave oven after a power outage, you can imagine that a surge could also upset the programming on the irrigation timers. The controllers have a battery for backup; but if the batteries are dead; or the contacts are corroded; then the program will need to be reset. These are some reasons why the controllers should be checked regularly; and in fact (the landscape company)'s contract stipulates they be checked twice a month.

“I thought I had a good working relationship with (the landscape company); but if I'm being accused behind my back, then I would be very disappointed.

“There is a final issue I'd like to address. Apparently some members feel that I should not have purchased irrigation valves and sprinkler bodies; and that the components I did purchase using funds from petty may not be good quality. The best response I can offer is that I purchased the components at (the landscape company irrigation specialist)’s request; and that past (president) was present when the request was made during a walk thru. As to the quality; they are the exact same parts that (the landscape company) uses, and were purchased from the same supplier.”

(Maintenance Man)

Response by homeowner: "(Maintenance Man) is a good resource."