Saturday, January 12, 2013
GROOMING
The Agenda for an All Members Meeting to be held on January 16, 2013 is ambiguous and precise all at the same time. We are to arrive at 7:00 p.m. SHARP, at which time there will be a Call to Order and Approval of Chair. At 7:00 p.m. as well, members are to approve the Agenda. At 7:05 the Rules of Order will be read. At 7:10 Minutes of July 5, 2012 will be approved. At the same time (7:10) Minutes of September 27, 2012 will also be approved. At exactly 7:15 Minutes of November 22, 2012 will be approved.
Moving on to 7:20 p.m., a Planning Session will be held based on results of 'completion of survey results'. Members have not received a survey to fill out, so it seems that this tidbit of information is simply to lure members out to the meeting to satisfy their curiosity. The secret survey could be CHF's The Sound Management Test completed by various Boards of Directors and/or Managers of housing co-operatives across Canada in 2012, the results of which were quite concerning. In November, 2012, I registered for the CHASEO workshop Take The Sound Management Test because I, too, was curious as to the results of this survey (as were others in the workshop). One can access this survey under Resources on CHF's web site.
http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pages2007/yogmrresources.asp
I wonder if we'll be divided up into pods for this Planning Session for our final conditioning exercise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let me guess. Your BOD is bringing in a "guest" facilitator from CHF/CHASEO as Chair?
ReplyDeleteI obviously don't know what your by-laws or rules of order say but s. 75. of Co-operative Co-operations Act states that Pres or VP shall chair Member Meetings. If there are none or if they refuse, then Members shall pick pick someone from their number to act as Chair --- could be anyone. Try challenging app't of Guest Chair because I doubt anything in your by-laws gives BOD specific authority to bring one in.
Survey is prob the CHF one but what people write in survey may not be same as what your Board reveals the results to be ---if they do release them.
As for agenda, try adding items of your choice. Minutes, if they are like most Co-ops can also be "questioned" regarding their accuracy or more so, their omissions.
5 mins to read Rules of Order? Hmmm, that's an oddity. A word-by-word reading or just the bits Chair wants to emphasize to control the meeting?
Anything members can do to throw BOD off track at a meeting is always worth price of admission.
Thanks so much for your comments - it is much appreciated. I didn't make it to the meeting the other night and I don't yet know if quorum was attained. If it wasn't, we should be receiving another Agenda shortly for a follow-up meeting. The co-op has been hiring outside Chairpersons from CHASEO for a long time now. Contrary to what the agendas say, it is not a place where members' voices can be heard. The meetings are highly controlled!
ReplyDeleteY'er welcome!
ReplyDeleteContentious (def): Any meeting of co-op Members where said Members might actually ask questions of the BOD or hold them accountable for their actions or inaction (the horror!).
They've done that here several times too. At first, it was CHASEO heavyweights but now we get the lesser lights.
These "experts", as you say, are there for one purpose only --- to have the meeting come to a predetermined conclusion in favour of the BOD and that no dissent of any form be allowed to raise its ugly head. Anyone who thinks Member Meetings are for all the Members ---- bwwwaaaaahhhhh!
But at least it's fun to watch guest chairs squirm. All you have to do is quote the Act (where possible), a specific by-law article (esp. Organizational one)or better yet, refer them to your Rules of Order.They go in there assuming (sadly, a truism)that Members have never read or understand the Act, that all by-laws are the same (model CHF ones usually) and that rules of order are uniform. Above all, don't let them intimidate you. If need be, you do the intimidating.
I never thought that all our problems were specific to this co-op. What's aggravating tho is the culture that permeates the BODs, governance, management. The allegedly omnipotent CHF/CHASEO and their lobbying pretending that housing co-ops are free of problems, that every Member has a real say and that the movement is a wonderful, healthy bastion of socialist success.
Extremely little recourse (esp thru Courts) for Members who want the Act or by-laws followed or proper sanctions applied vs directors or property managers/coordinators who fail to do their jobs properly and/or put co-op at risk.
Doesn't mean that Members should roll over and accept what's happening. Even tho it might not accomplish much of anything, it's always a hoot (in a perverse sort of way) to hold BOD's feet to fire and let them know they are being watched.
Has anyone at your Co-op complained to Financial Services Commission? I read different things about how useful they are in resolving issues raised by co-op members. Act tho allows different ways to get them involved apart from just writing to Superintendent. See sections 146-8 and 178.
BTW: Thanks a lot for creating this blog. I have found it (and others) very informative. Oh, and I decided to give myself a name here --- "Chris" here. Cheers.
Hi Chris - My husband wrote to Financial Services many years ago, but didn't hear back from them. That avenue though has come up in our recent conversations. Thanks for letting us know about the appropriate sections to read.
ReplyDeleteWhen I attended the CHASEO workshop and a CHF town-hall style meeting, it created another level of insight for me into the co-op movement. I will try to address these thoughts in an upcoming blog, along the lines of what you have pointed out above.
I don't know if your reply section has word limit on comments, but I could blow it up discussing CHF and CHASEO and the detrimental effect they have on Co-op members. They have one purpose. To keep the housing co-op movement free from any bad press. 'Cause nothing ever goes wrong in housing co-ops, doncha ya know.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite the tight-knit (almost incestuous bunch) when it comes to protecting the image and those working for them. A bad property manager or co-ordinator gets fired? No problem, they're just moved to another co-op or get a job with Registry etc.
As for Financial Services, I've read and heard different things about how or if they'll get involved. I've got a cousin in a co-op elsewhere in the City who said a bunch of members tried complaining to Fin Services but were likewise brushed off.
But they have been parties to court actions where they had to investigate affairs of co-ops which ended up in receivership because of mismanagement. Most notable was Thornhill Green in York region. I think that was a CMHC funded co-op too and under same section 95. But I don't remember if The Agency had been formed at that time or not.
That case was major blow for CHF because they lost at every step inc. denial of leave to Supreme Crt. Court approved transfer to Region's Housing Authority because Thornhill was lost cause as Co-op.
Tho as I said in post about CONS Co-op and smoking, Fin Services often seems to take same position as Courts when it comes to interfering with democratically-elected Boards etc whether it be co-ops, clubs or associations like Y.
It's my impression (and only that) that if a complaints goes beyond disagreements with Board decisions or personal grievances about a Co-op's affairs, they might and I emphasize "might" look into it.
From what you've written in your posts, I think you've got enuff to at least have them look at situation there. But you would have to have the documentation --- esp about breaches of ACT by directors, any type of fraudulent activity (real or suspected) etc.
I doubt you could get enough supporters to agree to appt of inspector at AGM. Nobody would dare risk putting their hand up at public meeting for something like that.
So, it's either gather up all you have and file Notice of App with Court or write to Fin Services (CEO is Philip Howell) and try to present enough of a case that inspector s/b appt'd. Fin Services has same legal authority as a Member with courts so why not tell them they're in better position to do what it takes. After all, how many Co-op members have money and legal knowledge to do it?
I may post more later on subject once I have more time to think it over.
I've taken note of your comments. I need time to develop my thoughts as well. Thanks again.
ReplyDelete