broker and board

It is rife with conflicts of interest, but that is obvious. The only real question is whether those conflicts are made known and everyone goes into dealings with this person and building with open eyes. If the broker is elected by those who know his/her status, then what's the problem? If the sellers and buyers go into knowing, what's the problem. Personally, I find the whole thing offensive and would probably not want to be part of a coop that doesn't have a code of ethics in place to bar such things. The appearance of impropriety is best avoided, let alone actual impropriety. But if this community finds it works for them, then they go into with eyes open and shouldn't be heard to complain of self-dealing and misappropriated coop business opportunities and breaches of fiduciary duties later. It is impossible for a broker and board member to serve both seller and board with highest level of loyalty for surely conflicts arise. Lots of recusals would be needed. Which makes me think why would the coop elect such a person to the board. Whatever. I bore myself with this....

the only real problem that i see is the "sole broker in the building". this sounds monopolistic. i hope this person does not sit on the acceptance committee, because that would really be beyond conflict of interest.

there were many articles in NYT for the past 5 years stating that a lot of brokers are on the boards, especially in more expensive buildings.

i personally don't care if the person is a broker and sits on the board. usually, they would be able to provide some insight on what they see on the street. you should be able to get a good management company, rather than trying and interviewing many, and good contract/contractor price.

I'll play Devil's Advocate once again and point out that I've seen an awful lot more self dealing by various board members who weren't brokers than those that were.