Author Archives: Contributor

Board Service Is About Trust

Posted on by
Reply

By Craig Lehner, Candidate #2

Serving on the Seward Park Board should not be about winning an argument, joining a faction, or becoming the loudest voice in the room. It should be about earning trust.

For me, the job starts with a simple question: what is in the best long-term interest of Seward Park as a whole?

That sounds straightforward, but in practice it requires discipline. It means listening to people who may see an issue differently. It means taking shareholder concerns seriously, especially when those concerns involve major projects, rising costs, reserves, maintenance, and the future affordability of our homes. It also means being willing to ask hard questions before decisions are made: What will this cost? What are the alternatives? How will it be funded? What are the long-term maintenance implications? Have shareholders had a real opportunity to understand the tradeoffs?

I am running for the Board because I believe Seward Park would benefit from a fresh, responsible, independent voice in that process.

I am not running against the community we have. I am running because I care about protecting it. I have lived here for nearly a decade, and like every other shareholder, I will live with the same decisions, costs, and consequences. I want Seward Park to remain financially sound, well maintained, welcoming, and affordable for the long term.

My professional background is in investment, law, and fiduciary decision-making. I have spent my career evaluating complex financial commitments, negotiating major transactions, and making decisions on behalf of people who depend on sound judgment. If elected, I would bring that same mindset to the Board: independent analysis, careful listening, and a commitment to the long-term interests of the co-op.

But experience alone is not enough. Temperament matters too.

A good director should be willing to listen before deciding. A good director should be able to work with people who disagree. A good director should not approach every issue as a battle to be won, but as a responsibility to be handled carefully.

That is the voice I hope to add: steady, independent, financially disciplined, and focused on what is best for all of Seward Park.

I would be grateful for your consideration and for one of your four votes on June 9.

Craig Lehner

Candidate #2 for the Seward Park Board

Resident Engagement and the Ground Floor Renovation: What to Expect at Seward Park

Posted on by
3

By Sam Zimmerman

We’ve all recently learned that a decision has been made to seek resident input on Seward Park’s proposed lobby and ground floor renovation project. This initiative comes in response to a dedicated campaign by a small group of shareholders who argued that such a significant project should not proceed without broader, more formal community consultation. The Board has agreed, and a shareholder engagement process will kick off soon.

On its face, this seems like a positive development. Giving residents a voice in decisions that affect their homes and daily lives is a cornerstone of democratic governance. The residents who pushed for this process almost certainly have good intentions — a genuine belief that community input leads to better outcomes and greater buy-in. In theory, engagement builds consensus, surfaces concerns early, and helps ensure that final decisions reflect the community’s values rather than just those of a few decision-makers.

But research on public participation processes suggests the reality is considerably more complicated. Although the ideals behind resident engagement are laudable, the mechanisms through which that engagement actually operates can produce outcomes that are neither representative nor equitable.

Who Actually Participates?

One of the most well-documented findings in the research literature is that participants in public meetings and community engagement processes are systematically unrepresentative of the broader population. A 2018 study of 97 municipalities in Massachusetts found that official public meetings were often dominated by a narrow group of residents whose views did not reflect the community as a whole. These participants were significantly more likely to be older and wealthier — and they were overwhelmingly opposed to the projects, even in communities where broader public sentiment supported them.

The problem is structural. Public meetings and engagement processes impose significant demands on time and energy that many residents simply cannot meet. As the Institute for Local Government notes, local officials often find that “only a relatively small number of community members actually take part in public conversations and forums.” The people who show up are the ones who can afford to — those without young children requiring evening care, those with jobs that permit flexible schedules, those without the exhaustion that comes from working multiple jobs or long hours.

Research on barriers to community engagement consistently identifies these practical obstacles: lack of childcare, inaccessible meeting times and locations, transportation difficulties, and the simple reality that many people have more pressing issues in their lives. While these barriers affect everyone to some degree, they fall most heavily on working families, younger residents, and those with fewer resources — effectively disenfranchising large portions of any diverse community like Seward’s from participating in decisions that affect them.

The Vocal Minority Problem

Even setting aside practical barriers, there is a deeper structural issue: people with strongly held views are far more likely to participate than those with moderate opinions or no strong preference. This creates what researchers call a “vocal minority” effect — a small but outspoken group that exerts disproportionate influence, even when their views do not reflect those of the broader population.

Political scientist Morris Fiorina has documented this phenomenon, describing how “the kinds of demands on time and energy required to participate politically are sufficiently severe that those willing to pay the costs come disproportionately from the ranks of those with intensely held extreme views.” In one case study, he found that proceedings over a modest school expansion were “dominated by a small group of citizens implacably opposed” to the project — a group representing perhaps 0.5 to 1 percent of the community’s voters — who imposed years of delays and hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs.

Research from Wellesley College examining participation patterns found that content generated by highly active participants differs fundamentally from that of occasional participants. The most active participants construct their contributions strategically, aiming to maximize reach and influence, whereas the silent majority contributes sporadically, often only after key decisions have already been shaped. Research also consistently finds that those who participate in public engagement processes tend disproportionately to be opponents of the project at issue.

This dynamic creates a troubling paradox: the more participatory a process appears, the more it may actually empower those with the time and motivation to dominate it in an effort to stop the project altogether — while the residents who lack those resources remain effectively voiceless.

What This Means for Seward Park

None of this is to say that resident engagement is inherently bad, or that the residents who advocated for this process were wrong to do so. But it does mean we should approach the coming engagement process with clear eyes about its limitations and collateral consequences.

First, we need to recognize that the community engagement process is making the ground floor renovation project more costly. Not only the costs of the consultants, but the cost of time. Research shows that delays in construction projects inevitably result in those projects becoming more expensive.

As for what to expect from the engagement process, if participation is limited to evening meetings or lengthy comment periods, we should expect that working residents, parents with young children, and those juggling multiple obligations will be underrepresented. If the process rewards persistence and repeated engagement, we should expect that a small number of highly motivated residents will have outsized influence on the outcome. And if we measure success simply by the volume of participation, we risk mistaking the intensity of a few voices for the consensus of the many.

The research suggests that engagement processes can produce inequitable outcomes when meeting participants are not representative of the communities most affected by the decisions being made. For a coop as large and diverse as Seward Park, this is a risk worth taking seriously.

There are ways to design more inclusive engagement — meeting people where they are, offering multiple channels for input, actively reaching out to underrepresented groups, and being transparent about who is participating and who is not. Whether such measures will be part of this process remains to be seen.

In the meantime, residents should participate if they can and if they feel moved to do so. But all of us — those who participate and those who don’t — should be cautious about treating the results of this engagement process as a definitive expression of what Seward Park residents want. The people with the most time to show up are not always the people whose views best represent the community. And a process that appears democratic on its surface can, if we are not careful, produce outcomes that serve the few rather than the many.

Finally, it is worth keeping one additional dynamic in mind. Those who most vocally demand community engagement processes often do so because they believe such processes will validate their own views. If the engagement process ultimately produces results that do not align with their personal preferences, there is a real possibility they will reject those results — arguing that the process was flawed, that not enough people participated, that the wrong questions were asked, or that the resulting plan doesn’t sufficiently incorporate the input received. In other words, the call for engagement may, for some, be less about democratic principle than about strategic expectation. Residents should be watchful for this pattern, and, if we are ever going to get the project off the ground, the Board should be prepared to stand behind the process’s outcomes and move forward even if those who initially demanded it are not satisfied with where it leads.

What It Means to Serve on the Seward Park Board

Posted on by
Reply

By Jodi Zagoory, former SPC Board Member

Serving on Seward Park’s board is one of the most meaningful ways a shareholder can contribute to our community — but serving as a director is  also one of the most misunderstood roles in cooperative living. It’s not about having power over your neighbors or influencing decisions for personal benefit. It’s a serious, voluntary commitment that demands integrity, humility, and a genuine dedication to the collective good.

So what does the job actually entail?

Policy, Not Management

At its core, a director’s role is to set policies that the management company carries out, and to vote on the wide range of issues that arise in the day-to-day business of the cooperative. Directors do not order staff around directly — that’s management’s job. The board communicates to management what it wants done, and management handles the how.

Monthly board meetings cover everything from reviewing the co-op’s financial reports to voting on sales, sublets, and changes to stock certificates. Directors are also responsible for decisions about contracts and leases, legal actions against vendors or shareholders, capital projects, budgets, borrowing, and the selection of the co-op’s attorney and accountant. In short, the board shapes the financial and operational direction of Seward Park as a whole.

Fiduciary Duty Comes First

Every decision a Seward Park board member makes must be grounded in one question: what is in the best interests of the corporation? Not what’s best for a friend, a neighbor, or even themselves. Directors are bound by New York State Business Corporation Law and the co-op’s governing documents — the proprietary lease, bylaws, and house rules — and they must act in accordance with the governing documents at all times.

This duty means strict confidentiality about shareholder matters, zero tolerance for discrimination, and an absolute prohibition on preferential treatment for family or friends. Directors receive no compensation of any kind. The work is entirely voluntary.

The Character a Good Board Member Brings

Beyond the legal duties, what separates a good board member from a great one comes down to character. The best directors are open-minded — willing to consider perspectives and information that challenge their initial assumptions. They are inclusive, making sure that the voices of all Seward Park shareholders, not just the loudest ones, are considered when decisions are made.

Great board members are also willing to compromise. Rarely does any single director have all the answers, and the best outcomes for Seward Park almost always emerge from a process of give and take. A director who digs in and refuses to budge — regardless of what they hear from colleagues or shareholders — isn’t serving the community; they’re serving their ego. Being a team player is not a soft quality; it’s a core requirement of the job. The board functions as a unit, and its collective decisions carry far more weight than any individual opinion.

Perhaps most importantly, great board members are honest — even when honesty is uncomfortable — and they are willing to engage with people who disagree with them. Constructive disagreement, handled respectfully, is how boards arrive at the best outcomes for Seward Park. A director who surrounds themselves only with like-minded colleagues, or who avoids difficult conversations, isn’t serving the community well. The ability to sit across from someone with a different view, listen genuinely, and work toward a sound resolution is not just a nice quality — it’s an essential one.

A Rewarding Form of Public Service

Yes, the role is time-consuming. Directors review contracts, proposals, reports, and legal documents. They attend monthly meetings and carry the weight of decisions that affect hundreds of Seward Park shareholders and the businesses that serve them. But like any form of voluntary public service, there is real satisfaction in helping guide our community forward — making it safer, more financially stable, and a better place to call home.

If you’re considering a run for the Seward Park board, go in with clear eyes about what the job demands. And if you’re the kind of person who listens before speaking, welcomes a challenge to your thinking, knows when to compromise, and puts the community above yourself — you’re exactly who our board needs.