Possible future project—subject to community interest and support. This page describes a possible program. Surveys are not yet open, and no actual provider results appear here.
Help each board start with better information.
Associations often buy similar services without an easy way to learn what other buildings experienced. A structured survey could make that experience useful while keeping each board responsible for its own decision.
COOCVE’s historical contractor survey listing compiled association feedback and expressly distinguished listings from recommendations or endorsements. Board Synergy could adapt that principle and add a separate property management survey. This is an independent proposal, not a COOCVE-affiliated program.
The aim is a reference tool for due diligence: what work was performed, when, under what conditions, and what questions a board should ask next.
Two surveys, with different questions
Contractor experience survey
Business name, trade, project type, and approximate completion date.
Association project or individual unit project—clearly distinguish the two.
Agreed scope, approximate project-size band, and completion status.
Communication, workmanship as observed, scheduling, change-order explanations, cleanup, and follow-up.
Whether licenses, insurance, permits, and association approvals were checked, with dates where known.
Any reported problem, its effect, how the contractor responded, and whether it was resolved.
Compare similar work. A small repair and a major building project should not be treated as equivalent experiences.
Property management experience survey
Management company, service period, association-size band, and service model.
Services actually included in the contract: bookkeeping only, portfolio management, or another arrangement.
Timeliness and clarity of financial reports, board packets, and responses.
Maintenance tracking, vendor coordination, emergency communication, and follow-through.
Support for records, meeting preparation, budgets, and agreed compliance tasks.
Continuity during manager changes and the clarity of extra fees.
Evaluate the company’s contracted service. Collect the assigned manager’s name privately only if necessary to understand the service period; omit individual employee names from published summaries.
Use a consistent scale, with room for context.
For each service actually observed, offer: 1—well below expectations; 2—below expectations; 3—met expectations; 4—above expectations; 5—well above expectations, plus not observed / not in contract. Exclude those last answers from calculated scores.
Ask respondents to explain the expectation and describe a specific example. Distinguish an agreed deadline from an informal hope, and a provider’s duty from a task the board retained.
Do not begin with a “best providers” list.
During the pilot, publish contextual experience summaries rather than a star ranking or overall score. A small, self-selected sample cannot establish community-wide performance or predict a future job.
Who can submit, and what gets verified?
Start with direct association experience. For the initial pilot, accept reports from directors or authorized association representatives with firsthand knowledge. Identify whether a submission is board-authorized or an individual director’s account; never imply board approval without confirmation.
Confirm the source privately. Obtain the submitter’s name, association, role, service dates, and contact details. Do not publish anonymous submissions whose source Board Synergy cannot verify.
Confirm the engagement. Request a redacted invoice, contract excerpt, or other proportionate evidence where needed. Verification confirms source and engagement, not the truth of every statement or legal compliance.
Control duplicates and conflicts. Use one association report per contractor project and one management report per defined service period, with corrections linked to the original. Disclose relationships, incentives, and business interests; exclude provider self-reviews.
Get publication choices. Explain which details will be published. Keep contact information and supporting documents private. Offer a separate, explicit choice about being contacted by another association.
Consider owner-reported unit projects in a later phase, as a separately labeled collection. Do not mix them into association-project results.
Review fairly before sharing.
A small review team should check relevance, firsthand basis, dates, confidentiality, and tone using the same rules for positive and negative feedback. Reviewers must disclose conflicts and step aside when they have a relevant relationship.
Publish concrete descriptions and clearly attributed opinions. Remove personal attacks, speculation about motives, and unnecessary personal details.
Do not publish private contracts, signatures, account numbers, privileged material, or allegations copied from neighborhood gossip.
Return unclear statements to the submitter for clarification. Do not rewrite a report in a way that changes its meaning without the submitter’s approval.
Before publishing a materially adverse named-provider summary, send the relevant substance to the provider and allow a proposed 10 business days to respond. Label its response separately. Silence does not verify an allegation.
Provide a correction and reconsideration process, keep a change history, and escalate disputed serious allegations for appropriate professional review before publication.
A disclaimer is not a substitute for a fair publication process. Before launching named-provider reports, have association counsel review the program’s publication, privacy, consent, and dispute procedures.
What would a published report look like?
Illustration only · Fictional provider and association
Example Services Company · Plumbing
Report type: Association project · Work: Replacement of a shared water line · Service period: Spring 2026 · Sample: One association report.
Reported experience: The respondent described clear scheduling and satisfactory cleanup. An additional visit was needed to address a leak; the respondent reported that the contractor returned and resolved it.
Context: This was a defined repair project. No conclusion is drawn about other trades, other projects, or current license and insurance status.
Review status: Illustrative format: source and engagement checked; factual statements remain respondent-reported. Provider response, if received, would appear separately with its date.
Shared experience—not a Board Synergy recommendation, endorsement, approval, or certification. Perform your own due diligence.
For every real listing, show the service period, report count, publication date, last update, and whether concerns remain unresolved. A missing listing or low response count says nothing about a provider’s quality.
A manageable 90-day pilot
Phase
Actions and deliverables
Weeks 1–2: Establish rules
Name a program coordinator and two reviewers. Agree on scope, conflicts, publication permissions, correction rules, evidence handling, retention, and professional review.
Weeks 3–4: Build and test
Create separate contractor and management forms, a restricted response spreadsheet, and a publication template. Test wording and access with a few associations.
Weeks 5–8: Collect
Invite a small group of associations through a neutral invitation. Welcome satisfactory and unsatisfactory experiences. Confirm sources and service periods, and remove duplicates.
Weeks 9–10: Review
Prepare summaries, request clarifications, allow provider responses, and test that private evidence cannot be accessed through public links.
Weeks 11–12: Publish and assess
Release a dated pilot report only after review. Measure participation, reviewer workload, correction requests, and usefulness before expanding.
Use 90 days as a planning target, not a promise to publish an unresolved report. Keep the pilot small enough for volunteers to review responsibly.
Keep the tools simple and the evidence private.
A practical starting configuration is two online forms, one restricted working spreadsheet, and a reviewed HTML or PDF report. Choose tools whose current account terms, access settings, and storage fit the program. Provide an assisted or paper submission option.
Publish only the reviewed output. Do not embed the raw response spreadsheet or expose evidence folders. Collect the minimum information needed and adopt a retention and deletion schedule before accepting submissions.
No survey submission button is active on this proposal page. Add actual form links only after the workflow and responsible reviewers are in place.
Protect independence and keep results useful.
No payment for placement, better ratings, favorable wording, or removal of legitimate criticism.
No referral commissions or provider-funded awards attached to the survey.
List providers alphabetically within service categories rather than presenting a preferred-vendor ranking.
Review the publication quarterly, invite updates after resolution, and move older experiences into a clearly dated archive.
For management companies, identify the service model and period so a changed manager or contract is not mistaken for the same experience.
Suggested notice on every survey and report
Board Synergy shares participant-reported experiences for informational purposes only. Listings and survey results are not recommendations, endorsements, approvals, certifications, or guarantees of any contractor, management company, or individual.
Reports reflect particular services and time periods, may be incomplete or disputed, and do not predict future performance. Source verification does not establish the accuracy of every statement. Readers must independently evaluate providers and verify current qualifications, licensing, insurance, and contract terms before hiring.
Prepared October 17, 2026. Proposed Board Synergy operating model; no affiliation or endorsement by COOCVE, UCO, WPRF, or any provider is implied. Timelines, review practices, and example formats are proposals for adoption, not existing program rules or legal advice.
Launch only if the community can support the work
Possible future project This idea would need sufficient association interest, reliable volunteer reviewers, a responsible program owner, appropriate professional review, and a workable correction process. Publication would begin only after those arrangements are in place. Nothing on this page invites submissions now.
Test interest first. Ask a small range of associations whether they would contribute firsthand experience and use contextual reports. Avoid treating expressions of interest as permission to publish a report.
Set a manageable review capacity. Decide how many submissions can be checked, how conflicts are handled, and what happens when reviewers are unavailable. Delay expansion if fair review cannot keep up.
Adopt written safeguards. Finalize consent, evidence access, retention, provider-response, corrections, withdrawal requests, and dispute escalation before collecting named-provider reports.
Review the pilot before continuing. Assess usefulness, participation, reviewer hours, correction requests, and unresolved disputes. Continue, redesign, or pause based on the results.
Keep safety and legal matters out of the survey queue. A survey is not an emergency report, a licensing complaint, a claim notice, or a substitute for legal advice. Direct reported threats to the resident-safety guide and appropriate authorities. Do not delay time-sensitive action while waiting for a review.
Every eventual summary should show service dates, project or management model, report count, review status, provider response where applicable, and correction date. A proposed 10-business-day response window is a program design choice, not a statutory deadline. No report or listing would be a Board Synergy recommendation, endorsement, approval, certification, or guarantee.