The staffing of a Board of Directors with volunteers always presents
opportunities for theft. In one
community, two of the three Board members lived out-of-state and did not
monitor the financials. The third Board
member regularly conducted odd jobs in the neighborhood, such as keeping the
area around the compactor clear. In his
mind, his work should have been compensated, so he regularly used the
Association’s corporate card to purchase various electronics for personal
use. It wasn’t until our firm was
retained to provide management services that this was uncovered and stopped.
The two disengaged Board members did not realize that the
Association could be held criminally liable, under the legal concept of imputed
liability. They also didn’t realize that
they could be personally held responsible for failing to properly discharge
their duty as Board members.
This situation is an example of what can occur because of agency
dilemma, which is created whenever there is an inherent conflict between
motivations between Board members, the Board and homeowners, and the Board and vendors. In each of these relationships, one party has
information not easily accessible by the other.
To combat this, there needs to be processes in place so that no single
party can make all the decisions without the influence, input or approval of others.
Monthly bank statement reconciliations are a must. This ensures that, at least every thirty
days, if a questionable transaction occurs, it will be spotted by someone not
directly involved. In instances of
rampant fraud, the Board may decide to go to an expensive ‘positive pay’ system
where a list of payments is submitted to the bank on a daily basis for
comparison. Reconciling isn’t something
just for the Association to focus on: Homeowners
should be encouraged to regularly reconcile their own bank statements each
month, even if assessments are only paid a few times a year. While missing or misapplied assessment
payments do occur, if this occurs frequently it may be a sign for certain fraud
schemes.
Annual CPA audits, even if only for a limited review of
financials, are vital. Something basic
like the requirement that all reimbursement requests have actual physical
receipts (issued by third-party vendors) helps deter false claims. Just knowing
that these and other monitoring activities occur will deter many would-be
fraudsters.
Pressure for committing fraud often comes from family needs,
personal debt or simple greed. Feeling
unfairly treated, ignored or unappreciated are also factors. 87% of those who commit fraud are first time
offenders. Four out of five fraudsters display
the following red flags:
·
36% live beyond their means
·
27% are experiencing financial difficulties
·
19% have an unusually close relationship with a
vendor or customer
·
18% have control issues
·
15% are going through family stress
·
15% like to wheel-n-deal
·
13% are irritable, suspicious, defensive
The best defense is to have a clear and open method of
reporting. The tone set by the Board can
either encourage or discourage an environment where fraud thrives. Nearly one in ten cases is tied directly to poor tone at the top.
Another defense is to setup a formal review process for
potential Board members. Does your
Association have a nomination committee, or conduct any type of vetting of
potential Board candidates? Require
resumes, a list of references, and be sure to actually contact these references. When conducting the interview with the
candidate, be aware that, according to studies conducted by psychologist Robert
Feldman, on average people tell three lies during a 10-minute
conversation. Only half of these lies
are detected. "Trust-but-verify" is the
best way to increase the odds when interviewing potential Board members.
Some behavior to watch out for during a nominating interview
when discussing issues such as theft: The
candidate repeating each question; starting each response with “honestly” or
“to tell the truth”; or answering each question with a question, such as “Why
would I do something like that?” Other
warning signs are an unwillingness to end the discussion, displaying a lenient
attitude toward real or hypothetical wrongs, paying very little attention to
any paperwork presented during the meeting, noticeable changes in voice volume
on certain topics, and leaning away from the interviewer.
While most of us who volunteer for Board service are honest
and will do right, we must reduce opportunities for those who might be tempted
to do otherwise.