If nothing else, that quick survey got a good response — 198 cooperators logged their opinion in the past 48 hours. Thank you!

First things first: This was obviously a crude gauge, without any budget for suggested items or professional input (though there were resident architects at our meeting on Monday). But as a way of taking the temperature of cooperators it’s a hell of a lot better than not asking the questions at all. And the clearest response was for more deliberation — 87% of respondents agreed that the $73,000 community room renovation should be delayed so that a more complete survey of cooperators can be completed.

As for individual suggestions, there were some clear winners and losers. Let’s look at basic structural suggestions first.

Structure

The board’s current plan calls for upgrades to the community room’s kitchen and bathrooms, as well as window treatments, flooring, and lighting — all of these upgrades received high marks from respondents:

Three other suggestions received approval, though less enthusiastically, and would need to be evaluated in much fuller detail to get a good sense of their costs and benefits. In particular, adding a new entrance to the room from the main hallway, so that you don’t need to walk past the garbage in the back hallway to use the room, would need much more evaluation. While some participants on Monday thought that this was the single most important structural change needed to make the room more useful, the high cost associated with such an addition made survey respondents think twice.

Note also that the women’s club was singled out only because of its proximity to the community room; at Monday’s meeting, the men’s club was also brought into the discussion, and participants were looking for a way to make better use overall of these three large rooms.

Policy

From this survey, the board should have some direction when re-evaluating the policies around use of the community room. An overwhelming majority support more flexible and affordable rental rates, allowing for hourly rentals rather than just one rate of $325 for the whole day. Cooperators also approve of keeping the room open for use when not reserved for a specific use — a policy that every single candidate for the board of directors this past fall also supported. Even though the community room is not a big money-maker, much less support could be found for the idea of making room reservations completely free for shareholders.

(Note that the free use of the room by coop groups holding open meetings to discuss coop issues was not a part of this survey, nor should it be — on this point, the board just needs to follow the law.)

Amenities

Finally, various additional amenities were suggested. Comfortable seating got very high marks. Audio/visual equipment, WiFi, and books were supported but not as broadly. And adding a pool table was the one obvious loser of all these suggestions.

Purpose

The question of amenities really leads into the last question, which, in a properly sequenced discussion of renovation should really be the first question: What do you think the community room should be used for? Should it remain as it is now, with minimal decorations in order to maintain utility for the widest variety of uses (option A)? Or should it be a more comfortable space with amenities for cooperators to meet, relax, and participate in group activities (option B)? On this question, respondents favored a more comfortable space, but not by much — 52% to 44% (4% had no opinion).

One last point about this last question: At our meeting on Monday it seemed likely that even more people would favor a utilitarian rental space if the women’s and men’s clubs were better taken advantage of for comfort and group activities. So there remains a broader conversation to have about the use of all the coop’s ground floor spaces. Cooperatively Yours looks forward to working with the house committee and board of directors to move that conversation forward.

Monday’s annual meeting was very well attended and lively. The usual order of business was amended by a vote from the floor to move the Q&A to the front of the agenda which gave time for more questions while the auditorium was still full; the questions were interrupted to introduce the candidates for board and house committee and allow for voting at 8:40, and then resumed at 9:00. By 9:45 the president Gary Altman, the manager Harold Jacob, and the House Committee chair Jeffrey Super gave their reports. The meeting was adjourned shortly before 10:30.

(I apologize for not taking particularly good notes, but I can paint in broad strokes what was raised, and hopefully some of you can fill in the details as comments below.)

• The first question was about the federal discrimination lawsuit the coop now faces — particularly, how much have the coop’s lawsuits against dog owners and defense of the federal case cost us? Legal fees can be seen in our annual report to have skyrocketed, but how much of that can be attributed to the dogsuits? The corporation council Ezra Goodman answered that because the case was open there was very little he could say about it; Mr. Jacob answered that because some of the legal fees will be repaid if the coop wins, and some penalties may be covered by insurance if we lose, that an accurate number is not available.

• Another question pertained to upcoming capital expenses — why does the coop not provide in the annual report an estimate of future repairs and replacement? Mr. Jacob answered that there are no expected major capital expenses for the next ten years; he said the roofs are 25-year roofs with expected 35-year lifespan, the elevators do not need replacing, Local Law 11 brickwork was completed last year.

• One cooperator asked about why a problem she had with her pipes had been so badly handled by the maintenance staff. She recited a list of dates and times when the staff had been unresponsive or uncooperative. Bob Prescott, the head of maintenance, explained that the problem she had had was a time-consuming one to fix, and apologized for the bad service she received.

• Another question (from me) was about the use of and revenue from our common areas and commercial spaces. I asked if, in order to determine whether more outside revenue could be raised, management would put release a comprehensive survey of square footage, income, and usage of all the areas available for lease or common use. Mr. Altman said it would be considered.

• There was a question about the parking lots — had anyone explored the possibility of adding spots either by installing lifts or redrawing the lines in a more efficient way, or by leasing space on Delancey right under the bridge. Mr. Altman said that those various options had been explored in the past and, for various reason, had all been found lacking; therefore, there is no plan to increase parking capacity.

• One cooperator had a different maintenance issue, with the windows used to enclose her balcony. She had been told that a particular contractor was the only one authorized to do the job; that contractor had done sub-par work and was now no longer in business to make necessary repairs. Shulie Wollman from the management office explained that the policy of requiring certain contractors was no longer in effect.

You might assume from the above paragraphs that the evening was a dry and uneventful affair. In fact it was as rowdy and bawdy as burlesque. There were catcalls and curses from the audience, pantomime and storytelling from the stage, and a constant buzz of barely contained hostility. At one point Mr. Jacob, interrupted again by a cooperator, asked in frustration, “Why won’t you let me talk?”

“Because I don’t like you!” he was told.

Mr. Jacob replied, “That’s the first honest thing you’ve ever said.” Later he characterized that kind of hate as “what ISIS does.”

So you get the idea.

Every year I’m equal parts amused and disgusted by the show. Of course it’s fun to watch people you know in a food fight: it’s messy and meaningless. But our bad behavior has consequences. Straightforward questions are met with pre-emptive obfuscation, honest answers are called lies, and instead of getting together once a year to solve common challenges, too many people are just trying to land a blow. So we all walk around here for another year as though it’s us vs. them, holding it in until next year’s annual meeting when we do it all again.

Let me know below what I missed, and what you think we can do to make next year different.