By MICHAEL BROWN JR.

Tenants of a plush apartment complex in West Fordham are mulling a lawsuit against its board of directors, citing new fees illegally imposed by its Board president.

The tenants of Fordham Hill Owners Co-Operative have been locked in a bitter dispute with the Board of Directors since the middle of 2014 when its current president was voted for another term despite a lack of designated votes, or quorum, rendering the election and any subsequent decision-making invalid.

Shareholders were surprised to hear that Board president, Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter announced that the complex’s cable fee would go up by $30 and maintenance charges would rise by five percent. A chunk of shareholders, many of them senior citizens, live on a fixed income.

Meantime, long-term construction for its 60-year old buildings has stalled for over a year, inconveniencing tenant shareholders. Argo Real Estate has been managing the large cooperative for several years.

Frank Murillo, a tenant shareholder, has led the fight in obtaining answers on the fee increases from the Board. Since January, Murillo has gathered fellow neighbors to demonstrate in front of the complex, waving signs that read “Argo= Incompetence, Corruption, Greed” and “Argo Out.” Many were confused over the increases, which they believed had already been tacked onto monthly maintenance charges.

Chad Roeyer, a 20-year resident of Fordham Hill, joined the second protest on Jan. 10, declaring the no quorum decree a bullying tactic and not in the best interest of shareholders. “People should be worried about losing status as a co-op,” said Roeyer.

Many have also called for the ousting of Pilgrim-Hunter, who became the de facto Board president after lackluster voter turnout by shareholders. Many tenants who declined to be identified said Pilgrim-Hunter’s reliance on indifferent shareholders has shielded her from anyone challenging her during any election. In previous years, tenants were offered a breakdown over how many votes were needed to secure a quorum for the election. This year they weren’t offered one.

In a letter from the Board of Directors, the Board claimed that the fee increase was justified because “the corporation faces extensive infrastructure repairs and upgrade expenses. Therefore, it is imperative that we build up the reserve fund to pay for these overdue and necessary capital projects. Otherwise, we will need to impose large, special assessments or borrow more money to pay for these repairs.”

Murillo is not buying this, demanding that the Board open up the books and have a forensic auditor examine them since the Board “instituted these changes without a quorum.” Many now suspect the Board imposed the extra fees to misappropriate funds. They were also curious on monies the Board borrowed to keep the buildings afloat. A separate audit was completed, though never released to shareholders.

“How they came up with this additional $30 fee is unrealized….absolutely irrelevant, slipped in last minute,” said Murillo.