Holiday Hypocrisy
Scrooge Evolved
January 17, 2026
In Dickens’ era, cruelty required little justification. Today, it arrives wrapped in policy language and asks to be applauded. At 175 E Delaware Pl HOA, the board recently derailed a motion to give direct HOA employees the same Association funded bonus already paid to contract management staff. The result is a familiar pattern with a modern twist: unequal treatment preserved through process, with inequity presented as virtue.
Brought to you by Drew McManus, your neighbor in 7908.
The 21st Century Scrooge
In Dickens’ time, Ebenezer Scrooge was easy to spot. He was openly cruel, proudly indifferent to the suffering around him, and uninterested in what anyone thought of him. His moral failure was obvious because it was unvarnished.
The 21st century Scrooge has evolved.
Today’s version is not merely a miser. He is just as callous, just as willing to deny fairness and dignity to others, but with an important upgrade. He now demands applause for it. He insists his decisions are not only justified, but virtuous. He cloaks self interest in process, inequity in policy, and hardheartedness in the language of prudence and professionalism.
This evolution was on full display in the recent board decision to reject a straightforward motion to provide HOA employees an equal Association funded holiday bonus to match the bonus paid to contract management staff.
One Building Two Standards
At 175 East Delaware, contract management staff receive two holiday bonuses. One comes from the voluntary, owner funded Holiday Fund and is distributed to everyone. The second comes directly from the Association and is paid only to contract staff.
Direct HOA employees receive just one.
Same building. Same owners. Different treatment.
The motion before the board was simple. It did not reduce anyone’s pay or penalize management. It proposed extending the same Association funded holiday recognition to maintenance staff, door staff, and receiving room employees.
The majority of board members rejected it.
How Inequity Gets Defended
Board President, Scott Timmerman, led the opposition. He also happens to be on the Holiday Fund Committee, a fact that makes the board’s position harder to ignore.
Timmerman argued that the union is responsible for securing union employee bonuses, so unequal bonuses are not unfair. This worked to confuse the point. The issue is that the Association chose to fund a second bonus for contract management staff while denying the same recognition to its own employees.
He invoked union constraints as a barrier, despite the union contract explicitly allowing discretionary bonuses with simple notification. He cited vague “information provided by our union representative” without specifics, warned against “a precedent setting change,” and referred the motion to the Finance Committee for review, which typically meets in June, three months past the motion’s March 1 deadline.
When approached for details, Timmerman referenced “issues that must be addressed” but listed nothing specific. He never identified what information was missing or what required months of committee review for a $28,000 expenditure in a building with over $10 million in reserves.
Drew McManus, Dec 17, 2025
Hi Scott,
In addition to the email I sent to all board members, I wanted to reach out to ask you more about some of your specific reasons against approving a one-time discretionary bonus for our direct employees. Please let me know if any of these incorrectly summarize your position and if they are accurate, I’d like to learn more about how you arrived at each point. I’ve included specific questions with each point:
- High Satisfaction Ratings: Recent survey data shows that 83% of residents are satisfied with the staff, and any dissatisfaction usually relates to building logistics rather than employee performance.
The survey results made it clear the HOA’s direct employees received higher satisfaction ratings than the management company staff. As such, why wouldn’t the survey also support the need for approving the one time bonus as defined in the motion? - Pay Differences are Normal: Compensation varies based on role, market rates, and industry standards; higher pay for specialized roles like Engineers or Managers is not “unfair.”
How are normal pay scales applicable to whether or not our employees deserve a bonus distributed equally to each member? - Market-Based Management Pay: Management salaries and bonuses are determined by education, experience, and standard industry practices.
What industry practices are you referencing exactly and how are base pay rates related to an equally distributed bonus? - Union-Set Wages: Pay and benefits for non-management staff are negotiated and set by their union, not the board.
The union has already provided employers, Homeowners Associations, a concession in the form of not mandating bonuses but the collective bargaining agreement with SEIU1 expressly allows discretionary bonuses for union employees. How then is it the union’s responsibility when they’ve already given the employers what they asked for? - Financial Precedent: Any extra one-time payments could legally obligate the employer to continue those payments every year.
What information are you basing this statement? The collective bargaining agreement provides for discretionary bonus allocations and the National Labor Relations Board’s five core criteria for past practice (provided below) have very strict language. Giving a bonus as it was proposed has zero risk of crossing any of those items, let along all five. - Resident Holiday Fund: Employees already receive bonuses through a resident-funded holiday pool, which has exceeded $100K annually.
The holiday fund is already distributed between HOA employees and Sudler staff. The proposal was to provide the employees an equal bonus to the one the Association gives to Sudler above and beyond the holiday fund. so how does the Holiday Fund enter into the equation?
Scott Timmerman, Dec 18, 2025
The motion was referred to the Finance Committee for further consideration. There are issues that must be addressed, including information provided by our union representative about such bonuses. The Board was considered in its decision to not rush into a precedent setting change in employee compensation without both the relevant information and appropriate review.
Drew McManus, Dec 18, 2025
Scott,
Thank you for responding.
You mention “information provided by our union representative about such bonuses.” What specific information did they provide? Section 6 of the SEIU Local 1 contract explicitly authorizes discretionary bonuses with the requirement of notifying the union. I’ve spoken with the SEIU local’s Residential Director and she was very clear that there is nothing preventing employers from issuing a discretionary bonus to their members per the terms specified in Section 6. There simply isn’t anything more complicated.
Regarding “precedent setting change,” the motion was explicitly for a one-time discretionary bonus. The NLRB’s criteria for establishing past practice require consistency, repetition, and reasonable expectation of continuation. A single payment meets none of those thresholds. What legal analysis suggests otherwise?
A $28,000 expenditure in a building with reserves exceeding $10 million is a negligible expense and seems straightforward to approve. I’m trying to understand what concerns or issues require months of committee review when the union contract explicitly permits this action. you reference issues but fail to list anything specific. Can you see how owners might interpret your leadership on this issue as a procedural maneuver designed to kill the proposal through timeline alone rather than a good-faith effort to gather relevant information?
On timeline: the Finance Committee typically meets in June, three months past the March 1 deadline in the motion. How does the committee review process work given that timeframe? Is the Finance Committee meeting in January to expedite this issue and getting the bonus approved?
Finally, I note your response doesn’t address the six specific questions in my original email about industry practices, union responsibility, financial precedent, the Holiday Fund’s relevance, and survey data. Please provide replies to those questions and to where you stand on whether or not you support approving an equal bonus for our HOA employees that you approve for the management company employees.
Asking To Be Applauded
This is what distinguishes the 21st Century Scrooge. Not just the refusal to act equitably, but the insistence on drawing attention to personal generosity while denying institutional equity.
Celebrating a voluntary fund while championing a vote against equal Association funded bonuses is not stewardship. It is ethical outsourcing, shifting credit for generosity onto oneself while shifting responsibility away from the institution.
The original Scrooge did not ask to be admired for charity while withholding fairness he had the power to grant.
Owners Should Take Note
Boards show what they value through their choices. At 175 E Delaware Pl HOA, the decision to deny equal bonuses while celebrating a voluntary fund reflects whose work is recognized and whose is overlooked. Owners should demand transparency and equity before applauding leadership.
Do you know how the employees at your building are treated?
But Wait, There’s More…
Coming next: We’ll take a deeper dive into the Holiday Fund that includes my direct exchange with the Holiday Fund Committee co-chairs when I reached out with a request for information and how Timmerman deflected a board member’s request for basic fund information during the January 2026 board meeting.
Notice: An earlier version of the article incorrectly identified Board President Scott Timmerman as the co-chair of the voluntary Holiday Fund. He is a member of that committee and in his role as Board President, appoints the committee chairs.
