Over the 24 years of my practice I've encountered some puzzling and troubling behaviours. I'd like to share a few of them with you.

First is the property manager who showed total disregard for the apartment building that he was managing. Directions from the council of owners were repeatedly ignored. When he was confronted about his behaviour, he made this stunning admission: Quite frankly, you don't pay me enough, plus I really don't care. One thing can be said to his credit: at least he was honest.

Second is the Board member who was always silent during meetings. When the Board Chair approached him after a meeting and asked whether he had any insights on the issues at hand, he said: I have lots of good ideas, but you never ask me to share them. So much for proactivity, due diligence, and fulfilling the fiduciary duties to the organization. It is the duty of a Board member to proactively share input that can aid in the decision making process, regardless of whether he or she is prompted to speak at a meeting.

Third is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a public Board, who acted in a positive spirit without realizing he was crossing the line. He stood at a public Board meeting, acknowledged the exceptional work of two specific Board members, and then handed them tokens of appreciation. This CEO was probably not mindful of the appearance that he was complimenting his own bosses (as the CEO reports to the Board) and could even be viewed as bribing them with tokens of appreciation. Recognizing special work is a good idea, but in this case it should have been done by the Board, and not by the CEO.

Finally there is the Municipal Council that was listening to an impassioned plea for funding, presented by a prominent community leader. The plea was accompanied by a veiled threat that - if the funding was not approved - the presenter would actively campaign against opposing Council members at the upcoming elections. One councillor immediately moved that the funding be approved, someone else seconded the motion, and the motion was quickly adopted. An impulsive decision, made under public pressure and without the benefit of professional analysis, is likely to be flawed and create problems later on. It would have been better to postpone the decision to another meeting.