ORANJ

Report on the Study of Resident Board Members, September 2010

Summary

1. 22 of the 24 communities in ORANJ have at least one resident board member.
2. Almost all of the resident board members had been nominated by the residents and appointed by the board of trustees.
3. All respondents reported that they were voting members of the board unless the board operated by consensus, without voting.
4. All the respondents reported bringing at least some items to the board’s attention
5. One surprising finding is that most of the respondents reported communicating with the residents on the board’s behalf.
6. There is some indication that some resident board members bring to the board items that are relatively trivial, e.g. food concerns, locks on doors.
7. Most communities that established resident board member programs before passage of the law mandating residents on boards of trustees, the “Experienced” communities in this study, differed in important respects from those that established the programs after the law was passed, the “New” communities in this study. These differences included the following:
   1. The boards of trustees in the “Experienced” communities had true executive powers, in establishing budgets and evaluating management, whereas the boards on which resident board members served in the “New” communities were more likely to be discussion forums without executive powers.
   2. The boards of trustees in the “Experienced” communities tended to have a clearer committee structure than the boards of the “New” communities.
   3. Resident board members in the “Experienced” communities tended to have more effective working relationships with the boards of trustees than did those whose programs were begun after passage of the law, the so-called“New” communities.
      

Report

In the spring of 2010, the Organization of Residents Associations of New Jersey (ORANJ) sponsored a study to follow up on NJ P.L. 1986 c. 103 which took effect in 2008 and mandated as one of its provisions:

“The board of directors, or other governing body of a facility shall include at least one resident as a full voting member of the board or body. Resident members shall be nominated by the elected representatives of the residents and selected by the board of directors or other governing body.”

Each of the 24 continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) in the area covered by ORANJ was asked to identify the resident(s) who were or had been serving on the board or governing body. Since this was an exploratory study all were asked to complete a questionnaire containing mainly open-ended questions. Each community provided at least some information.

Communities WITHOUT a functioning resident board member
It turned out that 2 of the 24 communities had no resident board member, had never elected any, and were not planning to do so in the future. One other community is not represented in this study because their resident board member had recently died and their replacement had had no experience. One community resident board member declined to answer because she “had had no experience.” She reported that, since she had been elected, the governing board had scheduled a meeting three times, and had cancelled each one. These 4 were eliminated from further analysis.

Communities WITH a functioning resident board member
A majority of these communities (12 of the 20) started having a resident board member after passage of the legislation. 8 reported having had at least one resident board member (or a resident observer, usually without vote) before the law. One CCRC had had a resident board member for the last 9 years. Several communities reported having more than one resident on the board but usually designated one as the official Resident Trustee.

Virtually all resident board members reported that they were selected or nominated by the residents or their elected representatives and were appointed by the governing board, as the legislation had mandated.

The search for patterns
Since this was an exploratory study we looked for patterns of responses. Maybe because responses on communication issues were sparse, we found little difference in responses to either the question “Does your Board communicate with the residents directly?” or to the question “Does your Board expect YOU to communicate with the residents on their behalf?” Five respondents said that all communication came through the CEO/Executive Director. Most referred to the mandated board-resident meetings but it was difficult to tell who actually did the talking.

One interesting outcome was that the majority of the resident board members who answered the question on communication with the board, said that they were expected to report to the residents on board activities. During discussion of the pros and cons of the legislation, prior to passage, one subject of general concern had been that residents would not be able to keep information confidential. These respondents did not mention confidentiality issues when asked about their role in reporting to the residents on the board’s behalf except that one said that he reported only on issues where a consensus had been reached. It is likely that each board laid down ground rules about information that was appropriate for dissemination although this was not asked in the questionnaire.

It was on questions having to do with bringing information to the board, especially how and when, that an apparent difference emerged.

We found that, broadly speaking, CCRCs with resident board member arrangements established prior to legislative mandate, the “Experienced” communities in this report, differed from those whose arrangements were established since passage of the law and are henceforth known as the “New” communities.

The “Experienced” Communities
There were 8 “Experienced” communities whose resident board member programs antedated passage of the law and only one of these looks more like the “New” group and does not fit the pattern. In the “Experienced” communities there are well established procedures for eliciting important concerns of residents, such as the following examples. Their resident board members report “regularly” or “every month” or “at each Board of Trustees meeting” and some mention exchanging emails and telephone calls between meetings. Their reports are “an item on the agenda” or part of the Board package that is distributed before meetings take place. In some cases, resident board members informally bring along resident “experts” to explain a given issue. Several respondents mentioned that their boards have implemented the suggestions that they have brought. Another important characteristic of the “Experienced” communities is that their boards tend to have executive powers. Parent boards may provide guidelines and broad policy directives but the local boards seem to approve the CCRCs’ budgets and evaluate management.

These complementary relationships did not happen overnight. For instance, a resident board member in one CCRC with multiple residents on the Board, thought that communication in her community was very good because some regular board members eventually become residents as well as vice versa. In another case, the concept of a resident board member is embedded in history. A respondent from one CCRC reported that since 1997 when the community first opened, “the founder always wanted a Resident Director on each community board.” Another commented as follows:

“Fortunately, we have a very good relationship between the residents, management and the board. It took years to develop the relationship and openness that we enjoy. It was not easy as it took lots of patience and perseverance to build the trust of management and the Board.”