Life in the City

Crime in the City

Life in the Community

Hopperesque

Life in the City

"The Journal" ― ©Past, Present...Future?

Herein is described Life in the City experienced by high-rise dwellers who acquired ownership interests of up to $500,000 in an upscale condominium community―and then saw those interests internally and externally downscaled to as low as $100,000.

This, as the result of 1) a developer's erratic pricing and marketing 2) a board's unilateral, ill-advised and lengthy litigation against the developer 3) a still ongoing and devastating downturn in pricing, lending, buying and selling―as well as 4) ongoing, unwise and risk laden administration by an entrenched board. The latter, while advised by poorly managed, waste prone and self-protective contractors―as well as by self-protective risk management attorneys and poorly selected, self-protective risk management companies. The latter are often staffed with individuals who have little if any formal education at the university level, and even less professional education.

While 1&2 are essentially ills of the past, their toxic effects linger in the present―thereby compounding the ongoing adverse impact of the ills associated with 3&4. If not viewed through the commonsense prism of fresh board administration―these ills are simply going to preside over depressed prices well into the future.

During the early years of the housing downturn, a 5% board (without a vote of the remaining 95% of the association) brought litigation against a developer for "defects" that apparently turned out to be at best, debatable, and at worst, questionable―i.e., ranging from minor and easily curable deferred maintenance to costly and unnecessary new work that altered the building's original design. On the other hand, an obvious but cost prohibitive defect apparently did not surface during the course of the inspection leading to the litigation.

Simultaneous with the preceding, mortgage lenders essentially brought buying and selling of homes to a halt by withholding mortgage loan funds form potential purchasers―the litigation being their major excuse for doing so. In the end, the litigation netted a mere fraction of the proceeds of the private out-of-court settlement (after legal and other litigation related expenses). To this day, the actual terms of the private settlement have never been made available to the remaining 95% of the association.

Under normal circumstances, the term "market value" is a relative one. The circumstances of the massive U.S. economic downturn are far from normal, however. As a matter of fact conditions are so far from normal, that "market value" can be said to have little if any meaning at all these days. Those who have unsuccessfully attempted to sell heir homes over the past four years can attest to the preceding. After all, if a home cannot be sold, it can very well be said to have little if any "market value" at all―and certainly no real value beyond the utility that it provides to its resident owner occupant or the income that it provides to its absentee landlord. And "assessed value" has no real basis in fact. Unfortunately, however, the old adage about "death and taxes" remains as valid today as it ever did, i.e., both are "certain".

Any recovery of the housing market will no doubt take many years―and then, only when the market bottoms out. It is anyone's guess when that will happen―considering the hundreds of thousands of homes presently in the foreclosure pipeline. In the meantime, lenders who once made 110% loans now refuse to lend at all to the vast majority of loan applicants. Without the once steady flow of residential financing, the typical home buyer cannot buy. This means, of course, that the typical home seller cannot sell.

One bright spot perhaps, is that over the next 18 years or so, South Downtown is planned to add some 30 million square feet of new floor space in the Brewery District, Dome District and along the Foss Waterway and at the University of Washington. This planned development is part of what is expected to support a future increase of 60,000 new jobs and 70,000 new residents over the next two decades.

Hopperesque

Crime in the City

"The Journal" ― ©Diary of a Condominium Stalking

Herein is described Crime in the City experienced by high-rise dwellers who acquired ownership interests of up to $500,000 in an upscale condominium community―and then saw those interests internally and externally downscaled to as low as $100,000.

This, while also being subjected to the insidious crime of stalking, and then deciding to publicize that experience―thereby constructively exposing the subtly intrusive and perverse nature of criminal stalking to public scrutiny.

In general, the crime of stalking provides its (usually male) perpetrator with a perverse exhilaration and self-stimulation at the expense of his targets, i.e., at the expense of individuals and family members such as you and yours.

Like the crime of rape, stalking is about the power that the perpetrator thinks (perceives) he exercises over you and your family members. Unlike rape, however, the crime of stalking does not involve battery (offensive touching). Therein lies a perpetrator's attraction to stalking―who by definition then, is a personal coward, i.e., disgracefully fearful and timid.

That is, stalking requires no personal courage on the part of its perpetrator. As a matter of fact, stalking is in and of itself a form of cowardly behavior.

In the mind of the stalker, the aforesaid power emanates from his catching you off guard, i.e., criminally invading your privacy (i.e., unlawfully getting into your personal space)―when he thinks that you least expect it.

In RCW 9A.46.010 (Legislative Finding), Washington's state legislature pretty well sums up the criminality of the aforementioned unlawful invasions of your personal space―while at the same time "...making unlawful the repeated invasions of a person's privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate or humiliate..." you.

Further, the legislature finds that stalking (i.e., repeated invasions of a person's privacy) is not "constitutionally protected speech or activity."

Rather, stalking is criminal "harassment".

Be aware that a stalker plans his criminal behavior and chooses his targets in advance. That is, stalking is a premeditated criminal act―not simply one that is compulsive or off the cuff.

It is critically important that you become conversant with Washington's state law as to criminal stalking, i.e., RCW 9A.46.110, by clicking the button, below, and scrolling down to the bottom of page 8 (of 12).

A Neighborhood Stalker

A seasoned neighborhood stalker new to a community usually spends some period of time working his way into a position of trust (establishing his cover)―before continuing the criminal behavior that he surreptitiously brings with him from another neighborhood. He assumes that said position of trust will protect him from exposure if he is ever "recognized" for what he really is.

In other words, the longtime stalker seeks to be a "respected" member of a community―even a "trusted" member of a condominium community's staff or administration, for example. All the while, he is choosing his targets―more often than not, someone who has already "recognized" him for what he really is.

Above all else, the stalker fears public exposure to an otherwise unsuspecting community. Worse, he fears that his criminal acts will become a matter of record for the local police and courts―a violation of a civil protective order, for instance, leading to a felony conviction and jail time.

In a condominium stalker's world, the aforementioned power―and thus the intensity of his perverse exhilaration and self-stimulation―is heightened by the fact that he thinks that he is cleverly disguising his criminal invasion of your privacy (i.e., unlawfully entering your personal space) in plain sight, i.e., behind what might ordinarily be perceived as coincidental or chance encounters in a condominium's common areas.

Each unit owner is a fractional part owner of that condominium's common areas, e.g., hallways; elevators; stairways; elevator and stairway vestibules or lobbies; parking garages or lots; sidewalks and so forth. When a stalker is a unit owner, he thinks that he has a cover for his illegal activities―this, because he has a legal right to be present in a condominium's common areas.

When a stalker is both an owner and a member of the staff or administration, he thinks that he has even more of a cover.

When a stalker's activities are known and condoned by members of the staff or administration, then he begins to feel invulnerable to exposure―and they become complicit, i.e., they find themselves in the unenviable position of "rendering criminal assistance", to wit:

Imprisonment and fines for each criminal count of gross misdemeanor stalking, rendering criminal assistance and other crimes defined in Title 9A RCW can be as much as 1 year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine (or both), to wit:

A seasoned criminal stalker of many years becomes arrogant, especially one who routinely pushes the envelope associated with his criminal behavior. Thus, the stalker falls into a state of false security. That is, he believes that the odds are in his favor that he will not be exposed by his targets, i.e., by initially unsuspecting neighbors. A stalker simply assumes that his targets will not make it a point to document each stalking episode. Likewise, a stalker presumes that his targets will be reluctant to report the criminal intimidation and harassment to the authorities.

As a matter of fact, documenting each occasion of stalking is the first step toward exposing a stalker.

Also be aware that a spouse of a longtime stalker can't help but be aware of what is going on. For whatever reason though, said spouse comes to accept the criminal perversion―and does not report the years of criminal behavior to the police. Naturally, this is an issue that those with an expertise in criminal and spousal psychology are better able to analyze and explain.

If you suspect that you are being stalked, document each instance thereof in a chronological stalking journal, i.e., dates, times, locations, identity and circumstances.

When you make your report to the authorities, request that they maintain a police report on file (either formal or informal).

Most high-rise condominium buildings have in place a comprehensive and sophisticated surveillance system (cameras, monitors, etc.) designed to protect you against criminals seeking to gain access to the building.

However, that same building surveillance system is a convenient tool for a condominium stalker―particularly if he is a member of the staff and/or administration and has unregulated and otherwise easy  access to the room containing the central console and/or computer/monitor bank. Additionally, other building residents may have access to certain surveillance cameras, simply because they choose to have their individual television sets connected to the surveillance system.

In other words, the stalker uses the surveillance system to facilitate his ability to clandestinely track your movements and whereabouts anytime that you are outside of your apartment. The more camera locations there are, the easier it is for the stalker to find you whenever he wants to find you.

Said another way―you can't see him, but he can see you.

Remember the following MO's!

Sudden Appearance ("Intercept") MO (other than your home): If you find that you are being repeatedly "intercepted" by the same person (if only briefly and seemingly "coincidentally"), then you are in fact being stalked―while 1) walking in a hallway 2) riding up or down an elevator―in the latter instance, the stalker entering an elevator after you or being present on an elevator ahead of you, in either case after he has already clandestinely tracked your movements and whereabouts on the building surveillance system as a means of facilitating his "interception" 3) ascending or descending a stairway 4) transiting an elevator and stairway vestibule or lobby 5) walking to or from your car in a parking garage or lot and/or 6) walking outside on a sidewalk near the building.

Note that the stalker is likely to alter his MO―especially 1) after you immediately exit and walk away from an elevator when the door opens and you suddenly find him there waiting for you and about to enter the elevator that you are already riding on or 2) after you immediately turn around and walk away from an elevator when the door opens and you suddenly find him waiting for you and already on the elevator that you are about to ride on.

Sudden Appearance MO (your home): You may even notice that the same person (who actually lives elsewhere in the building) is repeatedly on your floor and appearing in front of your home and bedroom window (if only briefly and seemingly "coincidentally")―while observing your residence as he walks up and down the hallway in front of it. This is a common form of criminal stalking that you may want to record a video of with a security device.

Note that the stalker is likely to alter his MO once he realizes that you are recording his "up and down the hallway" appearances. That is, he is likely to then appear in front of your home and bedroom window while observing your residence as he walks by in one direction―only to appear again in perhaps 30 minutes or less, this time walking by in the opposite direction.

 In other words―under such circumstances as just described, if you suspect that you are being stalked―then the odds are that you are correct in your suspicion.

Think back for a moment at this point―and (if not already) you will realize just exactly how those sudden appearances and repeated "interceptions" by the same person came about (if only briefly and seemingly "coincidentally").

If you need more information on the crime of stalking, simply "Google" it.

If you are being stalked, you are not alone, i.e., there is an online support network ready to provide the information that you need to expose the stalker.

Also remember this. Let's suppose that you report stalking to a condominium community's administration. Or let's suppose that the duly authorized members of the board of directors/trustees are already aware of the stalking activity―and perhaps even turning a blind eye to it, perhaps because the stalker is one of them. In either case, if the community's administration does not take immediate steps to stop the criminal activity―then civil and/or criminal action can be brought against each member of the board of directors/trustees for gross negligence, as well as for rendering criminal assistance. In some state and federal jurisdictions, the latter can be referred to as accessory after the fact.

On any given day or night, one or more episodes of RCW 9A.46.110 stalking by the same person are documented at our home―the vast majority of these repetitive appearances being instantly documented by a high resolution surveillance device. Said device not only documents the stalker's presence, but also the identity and activity of the stalker. Said activity in most cases is the stalker walking back and forth within feet of our home and bedroom windows. This, while the stalker often looks into our doorway and windows as he makes his first pass, or when he makes his second pass a minute or two later. The high resolution device documents the facial expression of the stalker and the direction in which he is looking, e.g., left, right or straight ahead.

Said RCW 9A.46.110 stalking episodes have been ongoing for fifteen months running―this web site having been updated for two months now. Beginning in the sixth month, the stalking took a more ominous turn than usual―this, beginning with  an odd sort of  theft. Odd, in that the theft occurred inside a more or less secure building. Coupled with this oddity, the building's wide ranging and sophisticated surveillance system did not register an outside intruder on the day (or night) of the theft.

It was only by the ninth month after 1) two additional ominous thefts 2) a threatening act of vehicle tampering 3) unjustifiable and riskily extortionate letters from the board through (oddly enough) the board's risk management company and 4) a menacing act of vandalism―that to any reasonable person, a pattern of RCW 9A.46.110 stalking (intimidation and harassment) had become apparent.

It also became evident that these ominous, threatening and menacing acts required the perpetrator to crawl on his hands and knees in the shadows in order to avoid being caught in the act by a casual passerby.

Here is another of Washington's state laws that you should become conversant with, i.e., RCW 9A.48. Simply click the button, below.

It was in this ninth month, that the RCW 9A.46.110 stalking episodes became a matter of record for the authorities, the condominium board and the board's risk management company. Naturally and for obvious reasons, the only person not notified was the stalker himself.

To date, the board has not to our knowledge taken action. As a matter of fact, the board's inaction is prima facie evidence that at least a majority of its members are somehow content with committing gross negligence.

Simple negligence is committed when a board fails to take action due to a lack of awareness. On the other hand, gross negligence is committed when a board is fully aware, and fails to take action.

It is obvious to any reasonable person that at least a majority of the board's members can't help but be fully aware of not only 1) the issue at hand, but also fully aware of 2) the very first action that they should have taken months ago―but instead failed to take, thereby committing gross negligence in the process. Being "in denial" (and hoping that an issue will simply go away) is not an excuse for committing gross negligence.

Because the building's comprehensive and sophisticated surveillance system did not register an outside intruder during the stalker's execution of the aforementioned criminal acts―it likewise became apparent that a resident rather than an outside intruder was the perpetrator, i.e., the proverbial "inside job".

After all, an outside intruder would certainly not risk having his identity exposed in order to stalk his target―this, particularly after hours when he would be recorded by the building's comprehensive and sophisticates surveillance system as he entered and departed the premises. That is, it would be much less risky for a nonresident perpetrator to stalk his target outside a secure building―not inside.  

On the other hand, the movements of someone who resides in the building are routinely recorded by the building's surveillance system―and are therefore not generally suspect. Said another way, the criminal stalking was most likely being committed by a building resident―but by whom?

On the morning of the menacing act of vandalism (stalking), we made inquiries of building staff and residents. These sources quickly revealed the identity of the stalker, and also shed light on his modus operandi, i.e., his "MO". In other words, the perpetrator was apparently stalking "all over the building" [quoting one particularly knowledgeable and well informed resident source, who expressed being powerless to "control" the stalker's activities―although quite obviously not being powerless to 1) at the very least warn the stalker's targets and 2) report the stalker's criminal activities to the authorities].  This informed source seemed stunned to discover that the usually very careful perpetrator actually made the error of being electronically caught in the act of stalking three days earlier (see the first of several excerpts of scores of stalking episodes, below).

Even though the identity of the stalker was known, it was not until after months of documenting scores of stalking episodes that we finally had corroboration of what the aforementioned informed sources revealed. Over those months, we carefully compiled a detailed chronological written and video journal of RCW 9A.46.110 stalking episodes―in particular, those episodes that occurred within a few feet of our home and outside our bedroom windows.

What follow are excerpts from over 100 stalking episodes by the same person.

Based on the sheer number of episodes, it is supposed that the perpetrator is bent on stalking more than one person or family―particularly if he is stalking "all over the building" (as one particularly knowledgeable and well informed resident source characterized it).

As a matter of fact, if the perpetrator has in fact stalked residents on multiple floors, then the number of stalking episodes could conceivably number in the hundreds.

●07-10-11 Sun 01:10-13 PM―Appears outside the person's home and bedroom window and follows person from one location to another

1. In the first video still (1:10PM), the target walks down the hallway (typically in the center) toward the closed door of the north elevator vestibule of his home―unaware of being followed by the stalker.

2. In the second video still sequence (1:11PM), the stalker is documented following close behind the target. Note that the stalker is "hugging" the hallway wall to his right. Presumably, this is so that he can duck into any one of six recessed doorways on the right side of the hallway, should the target become aware that he is being followed―or should the target decide to reverse course for some reason.

3. Then―apparently apprehensive (and perhaps even fearful) that the target will in fact turn around and reverse course, the stalker is documented in the third video still sequence (1:13PM) hurriedly retreating in the opposite direction toward the south elevator. Note once again that the stalker is "hugging" the hallway wall (now on his left) where the six recessed doorways are located. By the expression shown on the stalker's face in the original video, it is presumed that he has become aware that he is under electronic surveillance―but it's too late, of course. 

These particular episodes of RCW 9A.46.110 stalking are documented in 3 consecutive videos occurring within a 3-minute timeframe. These stalking episodes transpired just three days before the already mentioned menacing act of vandalism (stalking)―said vandalism and related thefts not long afterward becoming a matter of record for 1) the authorities 2) the condominium board and 3) the board's risk management company.

Although there was (oddly enough) no response from the risk management company, a senior board member did in fact respond. We also had a long discussion with a police detective.

 ©Diary of a Condominium Stalking is to be continued―as we decide when we will publish the complete and unabridged 13-month chronological written & video journal.

2011-12 ― 28 Statutory Occasions (27 Criminal Counts) of Stalking

August 2011

● 08-19-11 Tue 05:30 PM―Intercepts target in parking lot and is presumably recorded by surveillance system (physical proximity) (varied MO)

● 08-22-11 Tue 06:20 PM―Suddenly intercepts target on elevator and is presumably recorded by surveillance system (physical proximity) (standard MO)

November 2011

● 11-02-11 Tue 06:55 PM―Suddenly intercepts target on elevator and is presumably recorded by surveillance system (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-04-11 Tue 05:50 PM―Intercepts target in parking garage and is presumably recorded by surveillance system (physical proximity) (varied MO)

● 11-06-11 Sun 11:41 AM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-06-11 Sun 07:35 PM―Later returns & appears with hat outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (altered MO)

● 11-11-11 Fri 09:34 AM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-16-11 Wed 12:41 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-21-11 Mon 02:12 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-21-11 Mon 02:14 PM―Immediately returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-22-11 Tue 06:52 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-22-11 Tue 06:53 PM―Immediately returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-23-11 Wed 10:42 AM―Suddenly appears with hat outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (altered MO)

● 11-23-11 Wed 10:43 AM―Immediately returns & appears with hat outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (altered MO)

● 11-29-11 Tue 10:35 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 11-29-11 Tue 10:36 PM―Immediately returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

December 2011

● 12-03-11 Sat 11:44 AM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-03-11 Sat 11:45 AM―Immediately returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-05-11 Mon 01:17 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-05-11 Mon 01:18 PM―Immediately returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-10-11 Sat 07:06 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-10-11 Sat 07:23 PM―Later returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (altered MO)

● 12-19-11 Mon 05:28 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-19-11 Mon 05:29 PM―Immediately returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-21-11 Mon 12:28 PM―Suddenly appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 12-21-11 Mon 12:30 PM―Almost immediately returns & appears outside home and bedroom windows (physical proximity) (slightly altered MO)

January 2012

● 01-03-12 Tue 04:37 PM―Suddenly intercepts target on elevator and is presumably recorded by surveillance system (physical proximity) (standard MO)

● 01-21-12 Sat 03:55 PM―Suddenly intercepts target on elevator and is presumably recorded by surveillance system (physical proximity) (altered MO).

Hopperesque

Life in the Community

"The Journal" ― ©Board v. Condominium

Herein is described Life in the Community experienced by high-rise dwellers who acquired ownership interests of up to $500,000 in an upscale condominium community―and then saw those interests internally and externally downscaled to as low as $100,000.

The tallest condominium in the city―together with its well chosen hilltop site―dominates the skyline of the southern end of the downtown. Most of this condominium community's homes enjoy a spectacular view of some combination of 1) the city's downtown skyline along Pacific Avenue (including the Brewery District, Foss Waterway & University of Washington) 2) the port on Puget Sound's Commencement Bay 3) the entertainment center south of the port (Dome District) and 4) the Olympic and Cascade Mountains―to include Mount Rainier.

Commuters benefit from a live traffic picture of the local north-south I-5 interstate freeway interchange in the gorge below. Automobile access to said interchange is about 2 minutes away.

The condominium is a 14-story, reinforced-concrete building situated within 2-5 minutes driving time of 1) intra-city Link 2) intercity/inter-county Sounder and 3) interstate Amtrak passenger railway stations and services.

The building represents but a single window on a myriad of inadvisable 110% loans the lending industry simply gave away to unqualified borrowers, i.e., those who couldn't make the usual down payment of 5%, 10% or 20%―or even defray the cost of their home loan's settlement costs (the latter almost always being folded into the loan). What followed these high risk and more or less potentially worthless loans were lenders' built-in escalations in interest rates. From the latter point on, there ensued the long slow slide of borrowers' inevitable and unavoidable 1) failure to make payments 2) 110% refinances 3) "underwater" loans 4) foreclosures 5) distress sales (including "short" sales). Then, "enter stage right" the 6) absentee landlord investors 7) the latter's downscale tenants and finally 8) downscale resident ownership―6, 7 and 8 all looking for deals as low as a mere $100,000 coming out of the misfortune of the original borrowers and purchasers of $300,000-$400,000 homes.

Foreclosed borrowers often lost their jobs. But to a large degree, foreclosures were inevitable simply because 110% borrowers did not have their own money at risk, i.e., 0% down payments and $0 settlement costs. It is a given that when only the lender's money is at risk, a borrower's temptation to simply walk away from a loan is just too great―"strategic foreclosure" being what the current generation likes to call it.

The borrower is relieved of the debt, but ends up with a low credit rating and an inability to acquire a home loan for 7 years or more afterward.

But 5% of the total owners, the members of the board of directors each has a fractional ownership interest in the condominium community. Condominium associations traditionally limit an individual to only one term on the board―while allowing that individual to rotate through the offices of vice president and then president for a single term before "retiring". This encourages a variety of owners with a range of viewpoints to serve on the board.

However, when the same individuals remain on the board for more than a single 3-year term, disinterest on the part of other owners generally results. Likewise, when the same individuals continue to be chosen by one another to remain in the same officer positions for more than a single 1-year term―a lack of transparency inevitably results.

When a board hires a risk management company and a risk management attorney at the expense of the other 95% of owners, it does so in order to provide its 5% of owners with guidance on avoiding personal liability, i.e., legal protection against the risk of malfeasance in office. Said another way, the board is looking after its own interest at the expense of the general membership. The risk management company and risk management attorney always serve the interests of the board first―the membership at large coming in a distance second, even though they are paying 95% of the risk management costs on behalf of the 5% board.

One of the typical byproducts of having a risk management company and a risk management attorney on the payroll of a board is a gross excess of administrative rules, most of which are redundant to the already existing provisions of the Association Management Documents―or have little or no basis in the controlling Association Management Documents (the latter erroneously referred to as "governing" documents).

By state law (RCW 64.34), the controlling Association Management Documents are first 1) the Declaration and secondly 2) the Bylaws (the Bylaws being required to have as their sole basis the Declaration). Also be aware that the Declaration cannot conflict with state law.

In other words, when in doubt―first go to RCW 64.34―and then refer to the Declaration. After that, refer to the Bylaws.

If you find that any administrative rule conflicts with or does not conform to RCW 64.34 and/or the Declaration―then said conflicting and/or nonconforming administrative rule is not enforceable.

You should become conversant with the Declaration, as well as with the state law, i.e., RCW 64.34.

Remember this! Unlike the lawfully recorded and therefore legally effective Declaration and Bylaws, administrative rules do not require a vote of the association membership―but rather only a vote of the majority of the 5% board. Neither do administrative rules require lawful recordation in order to be effective.

When there is such a gross excess of rules, they (the rules) in turn spawn a gross excess of time consuming rules enforcement. The latter then results in a gross excess of monetary fines. In the end, the gross overuse of risk management company letters and accompanying fines cause 95% of the membership to be resentful of the 5% board―as well as disinterested in attending (or participating in) board meetings and annual association membership meetings.

Of course, when the 5% of the membership sitting on the board becomes―like most entrenched "governing" bodies―detached from the remaining 95% of owners, the board simply becomes increasingly insulated from reality as time goes along. This leads to abuse of authority (and a lack of transparency)―authority which should always be exercised on behalf of "the 95%" and not solely for the benefit of "the 5%".

In summary, a board's overconfidence as the result of an overdependence on a risk management company and a risk management attorney―plus a board's overdependence on a gross excess of administrative rules and associated fines―inevitably leads to abuse of authority and a lack of transparency (as well as gross negligence).

In the end, the paradox of said overconfidence and overdependence is that when push comes to shove―the risk management company and risk management attorney avoid their own risks by simply disassociating themselves from the board.

Like all those who seek to gain self-protective traction by engaging risk management companies and risk management attorneys―a condominium board one day discovers that its members have been disengaged to the point of spinning their wheels. What are the indicators of such disengagement? The best answer is this: "when those whom the board has engaged stop answering the phone, stop returning phone calls and otherwise stop responding." That's when the board should have the common sense to be acutely aware that it has been "engaged" in gross negligence.