I'm Fed Up with Amber Property Management: How About You?

I'm posting here a copy of the complaint I just filed against Pam Morris, the CEO of Amber Property Management in Mission Viejo, CA. Right now, about 20% of us live in communities controlled by HOAs and serviced by property management companies. As far as I'm concerned these HOA's are a legal and financial disaster. Overtime, I expect we will learn to understand them better and develop improved ways of holding them accountable to our bylaws and state regulations. In the meantime, I thought it would be useful to post my complaint in the forum to illustrate how it can be done. I'll keep you informed of the results. The text of my allegations follows: 

I’m alleging that Pam Morris, CEO, Amber Property Management violated at least three sections of the Community Associations Institute's (CAI) Professional Code of Ethics. Here is the background.

Staff at Amber Property Management sent out a Call to Candidates for an upcoming election to the Board of Directors of Del Prado HOA. One of the people most interested in running for the Board of Directors, Ashlie Hadley, did not receive a copy of the Call for Candidates documents even though it had been promised to her in the newsletter. Ms. Hadley has attended all board meetings for the last year and a half and was highly interested in running for one of the three open seats. After Ms. Hadley failed to turn in a form announcing her candidacy and her name was not included in the ballot materials sent to her fellow homeowners. After the ballots were mailed out, Ms. Hadley complained that she did not receive a copy of the Call for Candidates documents.

According to Amber Property Management, the reason why Ms. Hadley did not receive a copy of the Call for Candidates documents is that she elected to receive her communications from Amber Property Management by e-mail. Amber Property Management reports that it did not send the Call for Candidates document to any of our members who elected to receive their information by e-mail. By not sending Ms. Hadley a Call for Candidates document, AmberProperty Management violated Section 5 of the CAI Professional Code of Ethics by failing to “...exercise due care and perform planning and supervision as specified in the written management agreement, job description or duly adopted Board policies.” This lack of due care was so great that at least 42 homeowners or approximately 10% of our members did not receive the Call for Candidate document.

Moreover, Ms. Morris violated Section 8 for the CAI Professional Code of Ethics by failing to “Insure that homeowners receive timely notice as required by state statutes or legal documents and protect their right of appeal.”

Without seeking the approval of the full board of directors in either a special meeting or an emergency meeting, Ms. Morris issued a statement announcing the cancellation of the March 8, 2016 Annual Meeting. This statement was postmarked February 16, 2016. I have attached a copy of this document and the envelope it came in. I allege that Ms. Morris violated Section 3 of the CAI Professional Code of Ethics which says she must: “Act in the best interests of the client; refrain from making inaccurate or misleading representations or statements; not knowingly misrepresent facts to benefit the Manager.” Specifically, she violated our Del Prado HOA bylaws which do not allow for the cancellation of the annual meeting at all. In addition, she violated our Del Prado HOA bylaws by sending a 2^nd Call for Candidates without obtaining a decision to authorize that mailing from the full Board of Directors of Del Prado HOA.

In summary, I am alleging that Pam Morris gravely her violated the CAI Professional Code of Ethics by 1) failing to properly notify members and provide them with the documents needed to run for a seat on the Board of Directors, 2) announcing the cancellation of the annual meeting in violation of Del Prado HOA bylaws and 3) cancelling the annual meeting prior to obtaining authority from the Board of Directors to take this unprecedented action.

Yes, 80% is Good Enough: Why Perfectionism Hurts Your Grant Writing Success

One of the most persistent traits I have observed in charities that are going broke is a certain steadfast focus on what I like to call "inappropriate perfectionism." I suppose that sort of perfection would work in fields where you have unlimited time to complete a task. In grant writing, however, it can lead to institutional suicide.

General Colin Powell, for example, teaches that military leaders need to take action even if they only have 80% of the information they need to make a decision.  The problem, as he sees it, is that if they wait for the other 20% they will be in danger of losing the opportunity before them. 

In a similar way, I think it is a mistake to try to obtain anything like 100% perfection in your grant applications.  This level of perfectionism takes up too much time that might be applied - more profitably - to other worthwhile objectives, including applying to other funders for grants.

In my experience, I really don't gain all that much more from the funder with that extra 20% of perfection I've built into my grant application.  As long as I have all the elements that the funders are requesting in their application guidelines, then I'm typically better off spending my time writing some additional new grant applications.

One problem with setting 100% perfection as your standard is that you become tempted to simply recycle existing, already perfected material.  Although this seems like a smart idea on the surface, in my experience it leaves you with a grant that often displays little attention to the articulated needs of the funder. You have, in a sense, given them the perfect answer for someone else's grant application.

The folks that read grant applications for a living seem to develop an odd sixth sense that lets them know when an old grant has simply been recycled for a new audience.  They can detect recycling through the consistency of your message and the way you highlight (or de-emphasize) key elements of your proposal.

If you are willing to work a little harder, I think you can create a fresh and convincing message without driving yourself nuts with perfectionism.  

Standards of Excellence: How to Work Effectively with Your Proofreader

I know that I have a tendency to be hard on proofreaders and their idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, my success as a grant writing consultant would have been impossible without the help of the very picky people who seem to delight in triumph every time they catch me in an error or spelling mistake. 

 

Plain Language Tips: Proofreading

Overtime, I have developed some rules I apply to working with proofreaders, rules that help them, and me, be more effective. 

1. I save the proofreading for last. This means that before I involve a proofreader, I need to be personally confident that I have done everything I can to make the document perfect. This means reviewing the document after I have had a good rest.  
2. I try to involve the client in the proofreading too. In every charity, there is generally at least one person who seems quite content to go over the application in great detail. 
3. I use the on-line tools available through Microsoft Office. Using these tools, I can quickly review the grammar and spelling in the document. I can also recover from my bad habit of using the same word twice in a row. 

I turn to the proofreader for help only after I have followed through on these three basic steps listed above. 

Believe it or not, there is still plenty of work for them to do. The proofreaders now have final responsibility for making sure that the document is correct in all aspects.

1. The proofreader makes sure that we are using correct English grammar, exact spellings of words, and conventional English usage. 
2. The proofreader is also responsible for double checking the spacing between words and between sentences. 
3. The proofreader is also tasked with making sure that the document displays perfect internal consistency. This means that the same concept is identified and spelled the same way throughout the document no matter where it is used. A similar level of perfect internal consistency must occur in titles, headings, and the table of contents. Even the captions under the photos we use need to be perfectly consistent in style and size.
4. The proofreader checks that we have actually answered the questions posed by the federal government or the private foundation. To facilitate this aspect of their job, I include the questions I am responding to in the next to final draft of the narrative. This way, the proofreader can compare my responses to the specific requests of the federal government. I have won lot of money because of proofreaders who managed to make me aware that my answer was completely off-base or inappropriate simply by pointing out that I misread the question. After the proofreader has done their job, I remove the questions from the final draft. This gives the grant readers the impression that we just magically got all the answers right. 

All in all, a professional proofreader is a necessity and worth every penny that you invest in their efforts. If you need the services of a professional proofreader yourself, then do not hesitate to send me an e-mail atjohn.drew@drdrewguaranteedgrants.com and I will make sure to connect you to an outstanding professional.

  

Standards of Excellence: How to Work With an Outside Consultant on Your Grant

Luckily, my background as a political science professor has given me unusual advantages when it comes to writing federal grants. This is simply because my training and practical experience prepared me to develop successful research projects. While the topics that I cover as a grant writer are a long way from my own research on child labor laws and child welfare programs, a lot of the techniques used in academic research are quite applicable to creating a powerful and persuasive federal grant application. 

Filling in the Blanks of Historic Child Labor Photos

 

Since I do not do academic research full-time anymore, I find I am now more dependent on the goodwill and understanding of national-level research/evaluation consultants. I still remember how to do regression analysis, survey research, or program evaluation; Nevertheless, my expertise is stretched to the limit when it comes to understanding the literature reviews of other fields -- particularly in the hard sciences or in the sometimes obscure details of educational theory. 

 Here are some of my best tips for working with experts in your field. 

1. I think the most important thing is to get a very polished draft ready to submit to the outside research consultant. I have found that many of these extremely talented individuals are more than happy to comment on or improve your grant application, but you need to be careful with their time and their attention span. By waiting to send them a virtually finished product, you demonstrate that you are conscientious and that you have gone as far as possible on your own expertise and power.
2. I am careful to follow up on their suggestions in terms of additional reading material, theoretical perspectives, or new ways of displaying information. I have found it surprisingly easy to follow up on the outside expert's suggestions simply by looking for the same information on line. I do not need to become an expert in their field. Nevertheless, with a little on-line research, I can get my understanding up to the 80% level needed to win in a federal grant competition. By following up on the consultant's suggestions and being a good student, you win more of their time and their respect. 
3. I am generous about including the outside expert in the federal grant application. Often, I will include an outside expert as an evaluation specialist, a role that entitles them to at least 10% of the gross revenue coming in from the federal grant. On a million dollar grant, this will give the expert the possibility of a $100,000 payday - more than enough to engage their full attention in perfecting your grant. 

Finally, if you are having a hard time finding a national level expert to help you out, you can sometimes get leads from the folks teaching at major universities. Often the federal government itself will provide you with a list of outside experts that have passed their standards of approval. All in all, it is best to approach the national level expert when you have completely run out of ideas and absolutely done your level best. This way you will demonstrate that your project and your work effort are worthy of their best attention.

High Speed Grant Writing Tips: Focus on the Desperate Need for Your Project

As you may know, Drew & Associates recently assisted Irvine Valley College (IVC) in winning a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education. According to an article by Chris Fuchs of NBC News, IVC was one of just ten U.S. colleges and universities to receive grants totaling more than $14.5 million to help expand and strengthen educational opportunities for Asian-American and Native American Pacific Islander students.

Irvine Valley College plans to use the money for an intercultural center for students interested in science, technology, engineering, and math, as well as art, President Glenn R. Roquemore told NBC News.

Of the 14,964 students enrolled in Irvine Valley College, 28 percent are Asian, according to the school's website. Roquemore said his school received $1.5 million spread out over five years and will also use that funding for faculty and peer mentoring services, as well as for outreach to Asian-American and Native American Pacific Islander students.

"Although Irvine is oftentimes observed as being fairly wealthy, 50 percent of our students are on what's called bond waivers, and that means that they actually qualify being in poverty based on federal guidelines," Roquemore said.

Drew & Associates Client is One of Ten Colleges Awarded Grants to Expand Opportunities for Asian, Pacific Islanders

I am proud to report that my Drew & Associates team wrote a successful $1.5 million grant for Irvine Valley College that was featured in a recent NBCNews article. The text of that article is shared below:

Ten Colleges Awarded Grants to Expand 

Opportunities for Asian, Pacific Islanders

Chris Fuchs

October 21, 2015

Ten U.S. colleges and universities will receive grants totaling more than $2.9 million to help expand and strengthen educational opportunities for Asian-American and Native American Pacific Islander students, the U.S. Department of Education announced last week.

The grants can be used to improve instruction, facilities, and the quality of academics on campus, according to the Department of Education.

"These funds will enhance the quality of these schools to better prepare Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander students for success in college and careers, by giving them the skills they need to compete in the 21st century, global economy," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement.

Four of the 10 colleges and universities to receive federal awards, ranging from $269,023 to $300,000 per grant, were in California. According to the U.S. Census, 14.4 percent of California's population is Asian, 1.7 percent American Indian and Alaska Native, and 0.5 percent Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.

To qualify for the grants, at least 10 percent of a college or university's undergraduate population must be Asian American or Native American Pacific Islander, and the school must be eligible for Title III funding. Part of the Higher Education Act enacted in 1965, Title III funds are allocated to assist schools in expanding educational opportunities for minority and low-income students.

Irvine Valley College, a community college in Orange County that received one of the grants, plans to use the money for an intercultural center for students interested in science, technology, engineering, and math, as well as art, President Glenn R. Roquemore told NBC News.

Of the 14,964 students enrolled in Irvine Valley College, 28 percent are Asian, according to the school's website. Roquemore said his school received $1.5 million spread out over five years and will also use that funding for faculty and peer mentoring services, as well as for outreach to Asian-American and Native American Pacific Islander students.

"Although Irvine is oftentimes observed as being fairly wealthy, 50 percent of our students are on what's called bond waivers, and that means that they actually qualify being in poverty based on federal guidelines," Roquemore said.

News of the grants comes a week after California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill proposing new categories that Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders could use to identify themselves when providing demographic data that state agencies, boards or commissions are required to collect.

"Dividing people into ethnic or other subcategories may yield more information, but not necessarily greater wisdom about what actions should follow," Brown wrote to the California State Assembly in explaining his decision.

Proponents of the bill have said that offering more options for ancestry and ethnic origin could help policymakers better identify and address issues in higher education and healthcare access particular to certain groups within the Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities.

In education, wide disparities exist in California among these groups, according to a report by the Campaign for College Opportunity, a nonprofit based in California. While 73 percent of Chinese complete California community college in six years, for instance, only 29 percent of Samoans do the same, the report said.

Betty Hung, policy director for Asian Americans Advancing Justice, told NBC News she applauded the Department of Education for providing grants that strengthen and expand educational opportunities for Asian-American, Native American Pacific Islander students.

"In awarding $2.9 million in grants — including to four community colleges in California — the Obama Administration recognizes the significant barriers to educational access and success, including high poverty and low graduation rates, faced by disadvantaged Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander students," Hung said. "This investment by the Obama administration in educational opportunity and success is really an investment in the future of our students and our nation."

Saving Time, Making Money: Thoughts on Sophisticated, Professional Grade Research Tools

Since 2012, I have been a satisfied customer of an online tool for researching grant funders that has been developed by Foundation Search, a Canadian organization. I'm pleased to say it has really made a difference for our clients in winning foundation grants.

It has certainly organized our efforts and saved us time in finding the hottest prospects for your grant campaigns.

One of the most spectacular features of this grant research tool is that it allows us to search on the directors of the foundation that have already given you grants and then identify the other foundations where these people also serve as board members. This tool can be quite useful in identifying the easiest ways to build on your charity's reputation within the funding community - especially its top leadership. 

I'm pleased it has made such a big difference for our efficiency and effectiveness as a grant writing consulting business.  If you would like to see the power of this database for your own charity, please do not hesitate to give me a call and we will perform a quick search to see what surprising opportunities are available in 2016.  

Don't Neglect Last Minute Grant Writing Tasks: Double Check Names, Addresses and Phone Numbers

"Pacific Ocean Off Monterrey, CA"
by John Drew 20 by 16 inches oil on canvas.

To use your final minutes with your grant proposal effectively, it is useful to understand a little bit about human nature.

When you are first drafting the grant applications you are usually careful about addressing the letter properly and including the right phone numbers and e-mail addresses.  The temptation is to never double check these items again since they do not involve any cognitive ambiguity.  We assume we have the basic contact information correct and tend to consider rechecking this information to be a waste of time.

In reality, however, the various changes you have made to the document over time - or the changes injected by others - may have inadvertently allowed errors to creep into information that you assume to be certain and unassailable.

The problem here is that errors can pop up and when they do they create striking damage - both in terms of your charity's credibility with the funder and your own credibility with your employer or your client.
  

To my shock, I've often found the most crucial contact information to be filled with minor errors.  Since this is the information that the funder will definitely be using - if they skim everything else - I like to spend some of those final, precious moments reviewing the readily checkable contact information.  Above all, it is important to make sure that you have the name and address of your funder correct. At conferences, the funders take delight in making fun of charities that mess up these basics. Be wise and pay attention to these most important details at the last minute.