The Rap

Well, this is cute. We just came back from a Board meeting with nothing resolved with regards to our co-op subsidy. My husband met the Office Co-ordinator earlier today and she assured him the working poor were being hit harder than those on ODSP. That would lead me to believe that they would be paying something like 60% of their income for their housing charge (rent). But no, they'll be paying 35% of their income for rent, which is either the same as they've been paying all along or a 5% increase.

We were assured that the Board* has the calculations down pat this time, that we should accept the fact that there is a 'real world' out there, and that people pay utilities. I live in the 'real world'. The co-op is taking our utility money!! They pretended to know nothing about the Human Rights Tribunal decision, Iness v. Caroline Co-operative Homes Inc. (No.5), 2006 HRTO 19 (Can LII) (Iness) and CHF's Bulletin - Section 95 (56.1) Housing Co-operatives, dated October, 2008, instructing co-ops to abide by the Tribunal's decision allowing members full credit for their utilities within their Shelter Allowance.

An ODSP benefit unit consisting of 2 people receive a maximum Shelter Allowance of $714. A single person receives a maximum Shelter Allowance of $454. Our housing charge is going up to $645., which forces us to take $181. out of our Basic Allowance to pay for utilities. The single person ends up with a surplus of $250., - well within their Shelter Allowance to pay for all their utilities. What kind of calculation is that? The Board knows darn well about the Human Rights Tribunal Decision, but is choosing to ignore it.

The Board still insists that they'll need our drug card, because the 'law' requires them to. Our lawyer confirmed with the Privacy Commissioner's Office that this request violates the privacy laws and offered to amend the co-op's documents. I told them that when kids reach 18 yrs. old, they no longer receive drug benefits, but can remain on the benefit unit. Also if I was in a 'step-out program', not receiving any ODSP, I could still receive a drug card. I could also choose not to have a drug card or a child of mine could be covered under another drug plan. Didn't matter. They kept insisting that the drug card would confirm to them how many people are on the benefit unit. Do you throw your hands up in the air when confronted with such stupidity? This confirms to me once again that they haven't got the slightest notion of what they are doing. They also stated that they're not interested in anyone not on the drug card. What does that mean?

We were asked what size unit we were in. I said 3 people in a 4-bdrm. unit. They said that we need to downsize. Interesting point - except for our medical letter on file and the fact that the co-op newsletter stated that there'll be no internal transfers to save costs of revamping units. Why didn't the Board member know about this? It would cost $10,000. to revamp this unit, plus the unit we would move into would also need to be refurbished. For health reasons the unit would have to have new windows, laminate flooring, the heat vents cleaned out and not a trace of mold throughout. The co-op is renting out units, which we know have mold issues and the co-op is not informing the new members about this problem upon move in.

The first line of sight for a person wanting to rent here is the disgusting state of the co-op office building.** With weeds three feet high, who would want to live here? Why not instead go with a part-time Office Co-ordinator, - pay for the hours worked - save over $30,000., pay for a landscaping company to spruce up the office area and redo the floors and whatever it takes to revamp the office. It boggles my mind that this has not been done.

We were given some jargon about how co-ops work. My husband developed co-ops 25 years ago. Believe me - he knows co-ops. We had a 'what-if' conversation awhile ago. What if our co-op had been taken over by a drug cartel? How would we get the attention of CHASEO, CHF or The Agency, when the constant spiel is:

Your Board is working very hard and should be commended for their work. If you have a problem with your Board, you could change it. You're the ones who elected them.

But what got my dander up was the comment by the outside Board member that our subsidy was not an 'entitlement'. I replied that entitlements to my mind are the bonuses of mega-wealthy CEO's and egotistical politicians, e.g. 'I'm entitled to my entitlements', - MP David Dingwall and certain Office Co-ordinators. The co-op movement's mandate is to provide affordable housing, including subsidies. We need not grovel at the feet of people who make extremely high wages within the co-op sector. Without us, they'd have no jobs.

Problems have arisen in co-ops, but you'll have difficulty finding anything about them on the web. I did find one case of fraud in a London, Ontario co-op. Here's a link to that site:

http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=218045&s=homes

The co-op sector did damage control by stating that everything was going to be alright, because they were bringing in an outside Board.

Co-ops have been in business for 30-40 years and they still don't know how subsidies work? Every year their formula changes, but they always insist that it's the right one they're using. Their letter to us dated August 31, 2009 stated that the reason why the housing charge was going up was because our co-op was in a deficit situation. What does that have to do with a formula? They then went on to say that the real reason is that they have to comply with 'recently set government guidelines dealing with the new allowable amounts for shelter . . .' It was no news to us that what the co-op was referring to was the Federal 56.1 program, which has been in place since the inception of this co-op. What a bunch of hogwash.

The reason why we have no subsidy monies is because the co-op used that money to pay outstanding bills incurred by the previous Board. There is no onus on an accountant to connect the dots on whose units the money was spent; therefore, no accountability.

I do not see any improvement in this co-op since the new Board took over. There were weeks in the summer time when no one was in the office at all. There was no newsletter distributed by the office as to why it was closed, no emergency phone numbers to call, the telephone voice mail was full. For all intents and purposes, the co-op was abandoned. I am not impressed with this new management style. This is 'Good Governance' at its worst.

________________

* The three outside Board members. The two in-house Board members abstained.

** Volunteers worked very hard this weekend cleaning and scrubbing the co-op office building for my daughter's baby shower. I thank them so much for that. My above statement relates to how it looked before they cleaned it up.