Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Snowy Day
What a wonderful gesture. My thanks to my neighbour who shovelled our walkway. Happy Snowy Day!!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Subsidy Calculations - Part I
Our co-op has found a new way to stack its coffers - by retracting subsidies and it affects the most vulnerable members in the co-op - people on Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Under ODSP a recipient is entitled to work. ODSP then deducts 50% of the recipient's earnings. However, for income tax purposes, ODSP's T5 gives the GROSS amount they would have paid the recipient, without taking into consideration the 50% deductions for earned income. The co-op has decided to use the gross amount in their calculations, plus the T4s of the recipient. These two amounts can bring the recipient's income over the level allowable for subsidy qualification and BINGO the recipient loses their subsidy and by definition their security of housing. The consequence is that a recipient is PREVENTED from working.
This is GROSS discrimination against disabled persons.
An example: An ODSP recipient has Multiple Sclerosis and is afforded the opportunity under ODSP to work and earn money within the person’s capability. The recipient knows that it is a degenerative disease, but for the time being it is in remission. The disabled person has secured a subsidized unit and is now earning a part-time income. This income is being deducted on his/her ODSP income stub by 50%. The co-op then is determined to take an additional 35% off the person’s pay stub. The ODSP recipient is now losing 85% of his/her earnings. Add to that the co-op’s determination to add the GROSS amount of ODSP payments on his/her Tax Assessment to the recipient’s T4s and presto! - the disabled person loses their subsidy.
Reality Check: If an ODSP recipient had an income greater than the amount they qualify for under ODSP rules, they would no longer receive ODSP.
Spouses of disabled recipients must work (some exceptions due to medical circumstances allowed) under ODSP rules and this puts in jeopardy their security of housing. Furthermore, an ODSP recipient would be reluctant to enter into a relationship with a part-time working person because of this. This is a gross violation of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, the Preamble of which states:
The Act further declares that:
The co-op is discriminating against the most vulnerable in society in that the co-op will provide subsidies to the working poor, but not to disabled people receiving ODSP if they choose or are mandated to work. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Equality Rights, states:
The co-op, as an entity, cannot block a disabled person’s right to participate equally in society, or to disqualify a disabled person from receiving subsidized housing by the mere fact that he/she or their spouse works part-time.
Co-ops exist to provide affordable housing to this sector of society. THAT is their mandate!
NONE of these subsidy changes have come to an All Members Meeting for members approval. The co-op has ILLEGALLY thrust these twisted calculations unto unsuspecting members, in good standing, without any notice or rationalization. As a result families are undergoing severe strains - something they could NOT have envisioned a year ago.
Taking the gross amount of ODSP's T5, plus 35% of a recipient's earned income is a new tactic. In the past the Shelter Component was used to calculate an ODSP's recipient housing charge. Why? Because all other forms of income are taken into consideration by ODSP and deducted accordingly. There can be no DOUBLE DIPPING!
This is GROSS discrimination against disabled persons.
An example: An ODSP recipient has Multiple Sclerosis and is afforded the opportunity under ODSP to work and earn money within the person’s capability. The recipient knows that it is a degenerative disease, but for the time being it is in remission. The disabled person has secured a subsidized unit and is now earning a part-time income. This income is being deducted on his/her ODSP income stub by 50%. The co-op then is determined to take an additional 35% off the person’s pay stub. The ODSP recipient is now losing 85% of his/her earnings. Add to that the co-op’s determination to add the GROSS amount of ODSP payments on his/her Tax Assessment to the recipient’s T4s and presto! - the disabled person loses their subsidy.
Reality Check: If an ODSP recipient had an income greater than the amount they qualify for under ODSP rules, they would no longer receive ODSP.
Spouses of disabled recipients must work (some exceptions due to medical circumstances allowed) under ODSP rules and this puts in jeopardy their security of housing. Furthermore, an ODSP recipient would be reluctant to enter into a relationship with a part-time working person because of this. This is a gross violation of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, the Preamble of which states:
The people of Ontario support the right of persons of all ages with disabilities to enjoy equal opportunity and to participate fully in the life of the province.
The Act further declares that:
The purpose of this Act is to improve opportunities for persons with disabilities and to provide for their involvement in the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to their full participation in the life of the province. 2001, c. 32, s. 1.
The co-op is discriminating against the most vulnerable in society in that the co-op will provide subsidies to the working poor, but not to disabled people receiving ODSP if they choose or are mandated to work. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Equality Rights, states:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The co-op, as an entity, cannot block a disabled person’s right to participate equally in society, or to disqualify a disabled person from receiving subsidized housing by the mere fact that he/she or their spouse works part-time.
Co-ops exist to provide affordable housing to this sector of society. THAT is their mandate!
NONE of these subsidy changes have come to an All Members Meeting for members approval. The co-op has ILLEGALLY thrust these twisted calculations unto unsuspecting members, in good standing, without any notice or rationalization. As a result families are undergoing severe strains - something they could NOT have envisioned a year ago.
Taking the gross amount of ODSP's T5, plus 35% of a recipient's earned income is a new tactic. In the past the Shelter Component was used to calculate an ODSP's recipient housing charge. Why? Because all other forms of income are taken into consideration by ODSP and deducted accordingly. There can be no DOUBLE DIPPING!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Accountability
It seems that Boards of Directors are invincible. The Board has the luxury of having legal protection - legal protection which the members pay for, yet the most vulnerable members have no way of appealing the Board’s decisions, unless they pay for legal counsel themselves. Community Legal Clinics rarely step in.
Boards of Directors must be accountable to the members and must be transparent. As I previously stated, our co-op is one step away from being bankrupt, yet we do not receive financial statements or updates of any kind. We were supposed to have a quarterly meeting in September. The Board stated (at a recent eviction meeting) that the reason why we haven't had an All Members Meeting is because they are waiting for the financial statements, but I think it has more to do with a certain Motion before them.
Our lawyer has not yet received a response from the co-op to letters she sent to them in July and September of 2008. Yet, the Board threatens to revoke members' subsidies if they do not hand in ALL documentation demanded by them by a certain date. Included in this documentation is the requirement to submit a copy of ODSP's drug card, which has nothing to do with the calculation of one's subsidy. Our lawyer has confirmed with the Privacy Commissioner's Office that we are justified in viewing this as a violation of privacy rights. I queried the Board about these letters before the eviction meeting was called to order. There was no response.
Confidentiality? It is an open secret in this co-op that there is no such thing as confidentiality. Board members keep personal information of members in their own units; Board business is discussed amongst friends. There is lax office security and overall gross incompetence in the management of this co-op. During a recent eviction proceeding, the Board of Directors released the members' entire file to the membership, including their S.I.N. numbers, dates of birth and banking information. No apology was issued by the Board for this severe breach of confidentiality.
AND this is the tip of the iceberg . . .
Boards of Directors must be accountable to the members and must be transparent. As I previously stated, our co-op is one step away from being bankrupt, yet we do not receive financial statements or updates of any kind. We were supposed to have a quarterly meeting in September. The Board stated (at a recent eviction meeting) that the reason why we haven't had an All Members Meeting is because they are waiting for the financial statements, but I think it has more to do with a certain Motion before them.
Our lawyer has not yet received a response from the co-op to letters she sent to them in July and September of 2008. Yet, the Board threatens to revoke members' subsidies if they do not hand in ALL documentation demanded by them by a certain date. Included in this documentation is the requirement to submit a copy of ODSP's drug card, which has nothing to do with the calculation of one's subsidy. Our lawyer has confirmed with the Privacy Commissioner's Office that we are justified in viewing this as a violation of privacy rights. I queried the Board about these letters before the eviction meeting was called to order. There was no response.
Confidentiality? It is an open secret in this co-op that there is no such thing as confidentiality. Board members keep personal information of members in their own units; Board business is discussed amongst friends. There is lax office security and overall gross incompetence in the management of this co-op. During a recent eviction proceeding, the Board of Directors released the members' entire file to the membership, including their S.I.N. numbers, dates of birth and banking information. No apology was issued by the Board for this severe breach of confidentiality.
AND this is the tip of the iceberg . . .
Viability of Our Co-op
Our co-op is on the brink of bankruptcy. Our Capital Reserves are depleted and we are presently being monitored by the co-op sector. We, the members, are not being informed as to whether or not our co-op will be re-financed, or whether we'll cease to exist as a co-op. We have many vacant units, some sitting empty for years. We've been told that there is no money to fix them up. Ironically though, over the past few years certain member's units have been completely renovated with new windows, flooring, bathrooms, kitchen cupboards, appliances, while other members must continue to live in substandard conditions. One can say that our co-op will soon be divided into the 'Haves and Have Nots'.
We have a huge mold problem in the co-op. It has been recommended that our siding be replaced as mold spores on the underside are permeating the walls into the units. Many units have rotting moldy wooden windows. A Building Assessment Audit was recently done to determine the condition of the buildings. The members have not been apprised of its findings, but I was informed about one aspect of the recommendations, which indicated that the windows only need a coat of paint. This in essence means that members who live in units where the windows and doors have been replaced live in relative comfort, while other members may be forced to live with rotten windows for another ten or fifteen years. Not an equal sharing of co-op's resources to my mind. We also have carpenter ants in the co-op, which have eaten through window sills, wooden supports in the basements and the balconies as well. I have no idea if this problem was flagged in the Building Assessment Audit, or if anyone with a knowledge of maintenance issues in our co-op was even consulted before the walk around.
So that's the physical side of our co-op. Then there's the social atmosphere side and volunteerism. There are cliques in our co-op. The disdain of some cliques for the others has partially led to the shattering of the social atmosphere. There are those members who have volunteered a great deal in the past and have simply given up and then there are members who've never participated and never will.
I sometimes think that our co-op should be dissolved and amalgamated with the City's non-profit units. But then there's a tugging at my heart which says NO.
We have a huge mold problem in the co-op. It has been recommended that our siding be replaced as mold spores on the underside are permeating the walls into the units. Many units have rotting moldy wooden windows. A Building Assessment Audit was recently done to determine the condition of the buildings. The members have not been apprised of its findings, but I was informed about one aspect of the recommendations, which indicated that the windows only need a coat of paint. This in essence means that members who live in units where the windows and doors have been replaced live in relative comfort, while other members may be forced to live with rotten windows for another ten or fifteen years. Not an equal sharing of co-op's resources to my mind. We also have carpenter ants in the co-op, which have eaten through window sills, wooden supports in the basements and the balconies as well. I have no idea if this problem was flagged in the Building Assessment Audit, or if anyone with a knowledge of maintenance issues in our co-op was even consulted before the walk around.
So that's the physical side of our co-op. Then there's the social atmosphere side and volunteerism. There are cliques in our co-op. The disdain of some cliques for the others has partially led to the shattering of the social atmosphere. There are those members who have volunteered a great deal in the past and have simply given up and then there are members who've never participated and never will.
I sometimes think that our co-op should be dissolved and amalgamated with the City's non-profit units. But then there's a tugging at my heart which says NO.
A Place to Call Home
The architectural design of our co-op is quaint. It's rather Victorian looking - relatively narrow units with steep roofs, wooden balconies and slanted bedroom walls. We have wide open spaces around us, large common areas between the units and compared with densely constructed private market housing, we are luxuriating in greenspace.
I have an attachment to this co-op, perhaps because I was so intimately involved with its maintenance. I was hoping it would age gracefully, but it looks like every unit is now struggling to hold itself up. And then my thinking becomes more expansive in knowing how many families have called this co-op Home.
Members leave their member status at their front door and become people again. Babies are born, people marry, people die and people move on. There's a value to life in the co-op that is to be treasured because for everyone of us, we are living and breathing our lives together. We form bonds whether we like it or not. It's not that one must relish a 'love/hate' relationship, but deep down inside, people feel comfortable here. We come together in times of crisis. We look after each other. People phone to ask how a family member is. We hang out together - even in pyjamas. We can stare at the night stars and moon together. There is no pretentiousness here; we are all on the same footing. Instead there is a common bonding in a philosophy called 'co-operative living' and this is Home.
I have an attachment to this co-op, perhaps because I was so intimately involved with its maintenance. I was hoping it would age gracefully, but it looks like every unit is now struggling to hold itself up. And then my thinking becomes more expansive in knowing how many families have called this co-op Home.
Members leave their member status at their front door and become people again. Babies are born, people marry, people die and people move on. There's a value to life in the co-op that is to be treasured because for everyone of us, we are living and breathing our lives together. We form bonds whether we like it or not. It's not that one must relish a 'love/hate' relationship, but deep down inside, people feel comfortable here. We come together in times of crisis. We look after each other. People phone to ask how a family member is. We hang out together - even in pyjamas. We can stare at the night stars and moon together. There is no pretentiousness here; we are all on the same footing. Instead there is a common bonding in a philosophy called 'co-operative living' and this is Home.
Domestic Violence By-law
The Domestic Violence By-law (No. 5.8) has to be one of our most controversial by-laws. The initial proposal stated that all it would take to evict an alleged abuser would be a complaint from a third party. A neighbour, for instance, who might not like you, could complain about your behaviour and before any more damage could be caused by YOU, you could be evicted in ONE day. A spouse could also rid him/herself of a partner - just because! All of this would take place even before a Court of Law would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. In other words, the co-op would be the Judge and Jury - a law unto itself. My husband and I found this to be dangerous territory, so we invited a reporter from a local newspaper to attend our All Members Meeting. She was barred from the meeting. The co-op was bound on pushing this Domestic Violence By-law through with righteous determination.
The by-law which was passed, while a tad more rational, still gives the co-op powers which infringe upon one's civil rights. Where no 'proof' has been established, the co-op will rely on a panel of 'three professional people from outside the community'. If the panel believes that domestic violence has occurred, the Board will act on ending the abuser's occupancy rights. No conviction necessary!
The co-op declares that we are now a 'Violence Free Zone'. Not bad for a co-op that can hardly tie its own shoelaces.
The by-law which was passed, while a tad more rational, still gives the co-op powers which infringe upon one's civil rights. Where no 'proof' has been established, the co-op will rely on a panel of 'three professional people from outside the community'. If the panel believes that domestic violence has occurred, the Board will act on ending the abuser's occupancy rights. No conviction necessary!
The co-op declares that we are now a 'Violence Free Zone'. Not bad for a co-op that can hardly tie its own shoelaces.
Evictions - Part I
Evictions are proceeding at a rapid rate in our co-op, mostly due to arrears. We were told by the Board at such a meeting the other night that CMHC said that we must go 'by the letter of the law'. But do we really adhere to that direction? How many other members at the meeting were in arrears themselves and voted to oust another member in similar circumstances?
It is truly a 'trying' situation for a member facing eviction. How fair is the process when a member can say 'Call the Question' and your fate thereafter rests with the members' votes? How impartial might their votes be? In this regard, I wish that co-ops would fall under The Landlord Tenant Act; one would stand a more balanced Hearing.
Were all the members who were recently presented with Eviction Notices treated equally and apprised of their rights? Or was the tone of the letters they received so intimidating, that they chose not to appeal the decision of the Board to evict them.
I find eviction meetings very humiliating. I equate these meetings to public shamings and I cannot help but to think to myself, 'There But the Grace of God Go I'. Because it could happen to anyone - the charges could be merely trumped up, or frivolous. What if there is no quorum? I heard it stated at a recent meeting that 'The Board would wait ten minutes for members to show up, and if there was no quorum, it would be a wrap'. A wrap indeed!
In 1998 a Petition to evict me was signed by eighteen members. They weren't going to evict my husband and children - just me. The charges were that my writings were controversial and that I was in violation of the Pet Policy having two pets whilst sitting on the Board of Directors. There were many people in the co-op in violation of the Pet Policy, including the initiator of my proposed eviction. My husband and I were long proponents of following the City's Pet By-laws as these take precedence over the co-op's by-laws and we were in concurrence with them. (The co-op now follows the City's Pet By-law.)
If the Petitioners weren't successful in evicting me, they contrived a list of other options. The scheming that went into this Petition was quite incredible. One option was to strip me of my membership for a lifetime. I could then apply for 'Guest' status and that my husband would have to be responsible for any and all of my actions. Another option was to force me to resign from the Board of Directors and that I would never again be able to run for the Board during my occupancy in this co-op. A Restraining Order and a Performance Agreement would also be implemented in order to keep me in line.
I distributed, in writing, my response to the above. 'Guest Status' was the most sinister of the options. A Guest has no rights in a co-op. If a Board of Directors decides to end the Guest Status of a person, the person is denied the right to appeal such a decision. This was a diabolical attempt to evict me by default. A member came up to me while I was distributing my response. She asked me if I was the member in question. I said 'Yes'. She then asked me how she could remove her name from the Petition as she agreed with what I had to say. This woman did not even know me and yet had signed the Petition to evict me. An hour or so later a letter was distributed informing members that 'For legal reasons' the meeting to evict me was postponed, not cancelled - they had lost one of the requisite eighteen people needed to start a Petition. To date I am technically on hold . . .
This was not the first time that I had been singled out for eviction. In another co-op a husband and wife were on the Board of Directors together. They ran duct tape across the office floor near the entrance and a sign on the counter read "DO NOT CROSS THIS LINE". Well, I guess I transgressed this new principle in law, because a Notice was slipped under my door informing me that I had to attend a Hearing at the next Board meeting and that they were charging me with being a nuisance. A review of the By-laws quickly indicated to me that this could lead to eviction, so I contacted a lawyer. The lawyer advised me to invite ALL the members to attend my Board Hearing. At the next General Meeting, I stood up in front of the members and invited everyone. A short time later a Notice was distributed to members, indicating that this so-called Hearing had been postponed, not dropped. I wanted to pursue this further, as I knew how vulnerable people could be to this type of abuse. I asked the Board to hold a meeting to allow my lawyer to speak to the members about their rights. The Board refused, so I booked the hall in my own name and invited the lawyer. The meeting was very well attended, appreciated and a real eye opener for all.
Co-ops can be insular and cult-like. It's healthy to keep a foothold in the real world.
It is truly a 'trying' situation for a member facing eviction. How fair is the process when a member can say 'Call the Question' and your fate thereafter rests with the members' votes? How impartial might their votes be? In this regard, I wish that co-ops would fall under The Landlord Tenant Act; one would stand a more balanced Hearing.
Were all the members who were recently presented with Eviction Notices treated equally and apprised of their rights? Or was the tone of the letters they received so intimidating, that they chose not to appeal the decision of the Board to evict them.
I find eviction meetings very humiliating. I equate these meetings to public shamings and I cannot help but to think to myself, 'There But the Grace of God Go I'. Because it could happen to anyone - the charges could be merely trumped up, or frivolous. What if there is no quorum? I heard it stated at a recent meeting that 'The Board would wait ten minutes for members to show up, and if there was no quorum, it would be a wrap'. A wrap indeed!
In 1998 a Petition to evict me was signed by eighteen members. They weren't going to evict my husband and children - just me. The charges were that my writings were controversial and that I was in violation of the Pet Policy having two pets whilst sitting on the Board of Directors. There were many people in the co-op in violation of the Pet Policy, including the initiator of my proposed eviction. My husband and I were long proponents of following the City's Pet By-laws as these take precedence over the co-op's by-laws and we were in concurrence with them. (The co-op now follows the City's Pet By-law.)
If the Petitioners weren't successful in evicting me, they contrived a list of other options. The scheming that went into this Petition was quite incredible. One option was to strip me of my membership for a lifetime. I could then apply for 'Guest' status and that my husband would have to be responsible for any and all of my actions. Another option was to force me to resign from the Board of Directors and that I would never again be able to run for the Board during my occupancy in this co-op. A Restraining Order and a Performance Agreement would also be implemented in order to keep me in line.
I distributed, in writing, my response to the above. 'Guest Status' was the most sinister of the options. A Guest has no rights in a co-op. If a Board of Directors decides to end the Guest Status of a person, the person is denied the right to appeal such a decision. This was a diabolical attempt to evict me by default. A member came up to me while I was distributing my response. She asked me if I was the member in question. I said 'Yes'. She then asked me how she could remove her name from the Petition as she agreed with what I had to say. This woman did not even know me and yet had signed the Petition to evict me. An hour or so later a letter was distributed informing members that 'For legal reasons' the meeting to evict me was postponed, not cancelled - they had lost one of the requisite eighteen people needed to start a Petition. To date I am technically on hold . . .
This was not the first time that I had been singled out for eviction. In another co-op a husband and wife were on the Board of Directors together. They ran duct tape across the office floor near the entrance and a sign on the counter read "DO NOT CROSS THIS LINE". Well, I guess I transgressed this new principle in law, because a Notice was slipped under my door informing me that I had to attend a Hearing at the next Board meeting and that they were charging me with being a nuisance. A review of the By-laws quickly indicated to me that this could lead to eviction, so I contacted a lawyer. The lawyer advised me to invite ALL the members to attend my Board Hearing. At the next General Meeting, I stood up in front of the members and invited everyone. A short time later a Notice was distributed to members, indicating that this so-called Hearing had been postponed, not dropped. I wanted to pursue this further, as I knew how vulnerable people could be to this type of abuse. I asked the Board to hold a meeting to allow my lawyer to speak to the members about their rights. The Board refused, so I booked the hall in my own name and invited the lawyer. The meeting was very well attended, appreciated and a real eye opener for all.
Co-ops can be insular and cult-like. It's healthy to keep a foothold in the real world.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Democracy/Co-opcracy
Are housing co-operatives truly democratic? Or are they entities unto themselves - Co-opcracies. Yes, housing co-ops do elect Boards of Directors and a set of By-laws are their governing principles, but in my experience, Boards of Directors have more often than not, become dictatorial and instill fear into their members. This is not a healthy environment and while it is true that any member can run for the Board and have input into the running of a co-op, very little changes in the top echelons. Power in our co-op often falls into the hands of a few members, who re-cycle themselves on a Board over and over again. Members need not have any qualifications or good judgment to sit on a Board, nor do they have to know the By-laws. But apply them they will and this can have major consequences for the members. Subsidized members are especially vulnerable to this type of abuse and there is little in the way of legal help for them. Our legal clinic has often said that disputes have to be settled between the members and their Board of Directors. The different levels of co-op overseers side with the Board in most instances and insist that the Board of Directors is always working in the best interests of its members. Why is this? Because there can never be anything wrong with the functioning of co-ops? I think that to acknowledge dysfunction within co-ops, there would be a lot at stake for the co-op sector both politically and monetarily.
If Boards of Directors always work in the best interests of the co-op and its members, members would be on equal footing, but they aren't and never have been. A heavy-handed approach has been entrenched in this co-op since its inception. It's time to apply the organizational flow chart. Members - then the Board.
If Boards of Directors always work in the best interests of the co-op and its members, members would be on equal footing, but they aren't and never have been. A heavy-handed approach has been entrenched in this co-op since its inception. It's time to apply the organizational flow chart. Members - then the Board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
