IREM insider / ETHICS REPORT
ACTIVITY OF IREM
ETHICS BOARDS AT 2012
IREM LEADERSHIP AND
a walk-through of the building to
conduct an energy audit. The Complainant maintained this action was
unethical, as his company managed
the building and he had no knowledge of the appointment.
The Complainant alleged violations of the Pledge and Article
5, which is Relations with Other
Members of the Profession. Both
parties attended the hearing, and
the Respondent also called a witness. The Respondent maintained
she was not seeking management
of the building; rather, her intent
was to increase the efficiency of the
building as she had done for other
properties. After careful consideration, the Hearing Board concluded
that there was not clear, strong and
convincing proof of an ethics violation.
The Ethics Appeal Board did not
meet as no appeals were requested.
The;Ethics Inquiry Board;reviewed;two;new
complaints. A CPM and ARM Member was
The second complaint came from condo own- ers concerned about the transition to a wireless
alarm system in condominiums
managed by the Respondent. The
Complainant and other owners
submitted two proposals to the
Respondent with the intent of sav-
ing the association money, but did
not hear back from the AMO Firm.
The Complainant alleged the AMO
Firm would have broken the local
law without the help of the con-
cerned owners, thereby putting the
tenants’ safety and health in danger.
The Board determined the Com-
plainant was not a member of the
condominium board that manages
the association and voted to dismiss
EILEEN LYNCH ( ELYNCH@IREM.ORG) IS
ETHICS ADMINISTRATOR/AMO® COORDINATOR AT IREM HEADQUARTERS IN CHICAGO.