Lawmakers are considering a bill that would establish an ombudsman who would be charged with resolving disputes between condo owners and associations.
Several owners testified in favor of the measure at a public hearing before the legislature's Judiciary Committee on Friday. They said an ombudsman would protect their interests and foster greater transparency regarding the workings of condominium associations.
The ombudsman would operate within the state Department of Consumer Protection. The position would not be funded by state taxpayers; instead, condo associations would be assessed a $4 surcharge per unit. There are about 240,000 condo units in the state, so the fee would generate about $960,000. Additional funds would be generated by increasing the condominium manager's filing fee from $100 annually to $400 every two years.
Attorney General George Jepsen backs the idea, saying his office receives hundreds of complaints from condo owners each year alleging violations of state law or association bylaws. An ombudsman "would provide help to outmatched, overwhelmed unit owners who are fighting for their basic rights,'' he wrote in written testimony submitted to the committee.
Other condo owners testified that the associations that run their complexes often work in secrecy, using "executive session" as an excuse to conduct business in private.
But others spoke against the bill. Andrea Scalzo, owner of a Danbury-area property management company that represents more than 2,500 condo owners, says the bill would create a costly and unneeded layer of bureaucracy. She says there are already laws in place to protect owners and notes that condo boards are elected by unit owners. If owners are unhappy with the governance of their complex, "there are mechanisms in place to change that,'' she said.
State Sen. Ed Gomes, a Democrat from Bridgeport, asked Scalzo if condo associations generally announce the reasons for going into executive sessions, as is required of state and local government boards. Executive session is reserved for matters relating to litigation or contracts, but Scalzo said that association members generally do not publicly state the reason why they are seeking to conduct business in private.
"So much for transparency,'' Gomes said. The crowd in the hearing room responded with a smattering of applause.