Foggy Horizon

Our Property Manager is no longer in the employ of the co-op, although for the time being the property management company still is. Only a select few in our co-op know what transpired, so all I can do is speculate on the repercussions of what the future holds.

The management company could bring in a new Property Manager or the Board of Directors may be in the process of trying to take back the co-op from third party management. CMHC could also be involved at this point in light of the fact that over the past few years our vacancy losses have been in the order of $300,000. and the co-op may no longer be viable.

A newsletter from the Board of Directors should enlighten co-op members as to what transpired and what our status is at the present time.

Subsidy Applications 2012

On July 7, 2008 our lawyer wrote a letter to the co-op concerning subsidy issues. On September 2, 2008, our lawyer again wrote the co-op indicating that she had not received any response or acknowledgement of her previous letter. In the letter the lawyer stated that she had contacted the Privacy Commissioner's Office and confirmed that we were justified in questioning whether the co-op's demand for an ODSP/OW drug card violated the Privacy Act. On September 25, 2008, the lawyer closed her file as the co-op would not respond to her by email, fax, letter or telephone call.

My husband and I, therefore, lodged a formal complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. On June 21, 2010 the Privacy Commissioner of Canada ruled in our favour citing that the subsidy application form was Thirteen (13) years out of date (Family Benefits and General Welfare do not exist anymore) and that the drug card had nothing whatsoever to do with calculating one's subsidy. The co-op received a copy of this ruling, however, the same outdated subsidy application form continued to be used.

Members received notification that it's subsidy renewal time again; however no applications were delivered to members. In answer to my query, the office has just informed me that CMHC has now asked the co-op to revise their subsidy application form and that it is not yet ready.

It's very disturbing that we had to go outside the co-op movement in order to effect change within the co-op movement.

Details

The budget presented to the members on February 8, 2012 was simplistic. Components were not defined and there was no column regarding the previous year's expenditures, so no comparison could be made. However, two entries did stand out. Our vacancy losses for 2012 are projected to be $40,000. and our bad debts and collections budget line reads $26,000.

The membership voted for a 3% increase in our housing charges. Our Property Manager stated that our units are presently 15% below market rate and the only way to effect major repairs in the co-op is to bring in more revenue.

Members were told in 2009 that if we didn't vote for the Financial Solvency By-law, CMHC would withhold subsidy funding and that we would go directly into bankruptcy. However, if we were to vote for the By-law that CMHC would provide funds for repairs and improvements. It was confirmed at our meeting on February 8, 2012 that no such funding is forthcoming.

The Social Club

Our co-op held an All Members Meeting on Wednesday to approve a proposed budget for 2012 - 2013. Quorum was difficult to reach and so the Property Manager sat at the head table and phoned individual members asking them to attend. I was one of them. When I arrived I noticed that the same core of people who had attended the Annual General Meeting were there. It was, in essence, a girls' night out. With coiffed hair and freshly applied make up, the party began. The laughter, the inside jokes, the cajoling , the whooping it up, all made for a very embarrassing and frustrating meeting.

When I informed the Board of Directors that the fire hydrants in our complex are privately owned and that we have to have them serviced every year, one of these partiers gleefully spouted out: We don't have any fire hydrants any more - DO WE?

There was a $2,000. 'Security' line in our budget, which not even the Property Manager knew what it was for. I stated that it was most likely for our office alarm system as we have no other forms of security in the co-op. With a certain zeal a female interjected that it was probably for the 50/50 lottery funds, which as the story goes, was turned over to the co-op and never accounted for.

They were having such a good time that it was strongly advised to fine members $25.00 for not joining the party. One of the girls recollected that we might already have a By-law for that. (It does not exist.) The momentum grew: Why not 'evict' people for non-participation? Some of these people themselves had not attended meetings in the past, but that did not matter. They were a cohesive, in-sync force in need of an agenda. It was time to exact retribution.

Next meeting: Same time and place. Please dress for the occasion.