Term shouldn't be set in stone but more of a gudieline
It is up to the Board to make sure any agreement - with new or existing management - has proper protection for both sides. In at least one case I'm aware of the management hopefuls - all 5 of them - wanted 3 to 5 year contracts. OK, fine. If you are doing the job and the price is right I'm all for a reasonable to long term deal. But all of them had to include a 90 day and out clause. No owner vote required. What that said was either side can at will terminate the contract with 90 day notice. Period. So if things go well the original 3-5 years comes and goes and the contract is great. But if things go bad - for management OR the Association - a simple 90 day notice and poof - deal over. Remember the owners are taking a risk as well - performance is a two way street.
3 of the 5 hopefuls said "Sure - if you don't want us or we don't want you and we get 90 days notice to see if we can work things out or part ways we're fine with that. We don't want to be where we're not wanted" The other two? They didn't want to hear it "A deal is a deal. The term is the term. Why would would we let you out?" Guess who made the cut to 3 contenders and guess what clause is in the deal we signed (and later extended for 10 - yes 10 years)? A professional company, sure of what they do isn't scared to leave performance as the ultimate measure once they are assured the Association/Board is acting in the best interest of the owners. Those who are in it for the money and want the contract leverage in place to keep them on regardless of performance demand strict start / end dates. It spoke volumes to me and I would never sign a management agreement without a meaningful out clause.
I personally always push for an agreement that can be 5 years but gives the ability to terminate with or without cause after one year. SPM and DRI should agree to this each.
It is up to the Board to make sure any agreement - with new or existing management - has proper protection for both sides. In at least one case I'm aware of the management hopefuls - all 5 of them - wanted 3 to 5 year contracts. OK, fine. If you are doing the job and the price is right I'm all for a reasonable to long term deal. But all of them had to include a 90 day and out clause. No owner vote required. What that said was either side can at will terminate the contract with 90 day notice. Period. So if things go well the original 3-5 years comes and goes and the contract is great. But if things go bad - for management OR the Association - a simple 90 day notice and poof - deal over. Remember the owners are taking a risk as well - performance is a two way street.
3 of the 5 hopefuls said "Sure - if you don't want us or we don't want you and we get 90 days notice to see if we can work things out or part ways we're fine with that. We don't want to be where we're not wanted" The other two? They didn't want to hear it "A deal is a deal. The term is the term. Why would would we let you out?" Guess who made the cut to 3 contenders and guess what clause is in the deal we signed (and later extended for 10 - yes 10 years)? A professional company, sure of what they do isn't scared to leave performance as the ultimate measure once they are assured the Association/Board is acting in the best interest of the owners. Those who are in it for the money and want the contract leverage in place to keep them on regardless of performance demand strict start / end dates. It spoke volumes to me and I would never sign a management agreement without a meaningful out clause.