Attached to the Agenda for our January, 2013 All Members Meeting was the following resolution:
We resolve that: The minimum housing charge for members receiving a subsidy in Phase 1 shall be set at the maximum shelter allowance for Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Supplement* Program (ODSP).
The backgrounder for the resolution in part states:
In April 2012, the mortgage was renewed and the co-op was required to pay less towards their mortgage for Phase 1. Therefore, the Co-op is receiving less money for subsidies.
This is a repeat performance. Here is an extract from a Confirmation of Assistance letter sent to us by our Office Co-ordinator in 1996:
Due to the economic situation, social cuts and the co-op's mortgage renewal for April 1, 1996 the co-op has a very limited number of dollars for subsidy in Phase 1. According to CMHC, Rent Geared to Income is to be based on 28% of gross monthly income and for Social Assistance, maximum component based on family size.
In 1996 I was Chairperson of the Maintenance Committee. Our maintenance budget at that time was $78,410. Our Capital Reserves were well over $100,000. The co-op was financially sound. The reason why members on Social Assistance were ordered to pay maximum shelter costs was because of interference by the same woman who phoned me about our 'overhoused' cat. And everyone knew it.
The spiel worked then and is working now - seventeen years later. Getting the Provincial Government to pick up the tab for subsidized members on Social Assistance allows the co-op to give extremely large subsidies to a favoured few in return, of course, for their support come election time.
*Support
Obviously, since yours is a different operating agreement than ours --- we weren't a CMHC co-cop --- I can't speak to specifics.
ReplyDeleteApart from your comments, I seem to remember a similar situation elsewhere where co-op tried fixing rents to shelter allowances and/or
setting them based on a percentage --- or trying to increase the percentage --- of total subsidies rec'd or accounting for less funding. If it was a court case, I couldn't find it. That is so frustrating.
On the general point about subsidies, I don't doubt that their "application" is indeed handled by a manager in a manner to suit the Co-op's purpose. IOW: Give them to the "favoured few" even if it's on a temporary basis and secure support for all things BOD-related.
"Buying" the vote whether it is for an actual election, as a favour for not speaking out or joining disaffected Members looking for legit change is age-old tactic. Doesn't have to be subsidies. Could be, as you well know, favouritism in getting repairs, new fridges, look the other way on late/partial rent payments and a plethora of other "goodies."
That graft system works because the ones on the receiving end are hardly about to complain. Most others are too sheepish or afraid to speak out. It all speaks to consolidating support for directors. This happens more when an existing BOD is in low esteem, has a high turnover or when Members don't want anything to do with the BOD because of the cast of characters masquerading as directors.
I would like to think that at least some of these people have a modicum of shame in that they know this is wrong. Or they might have an iota of intelligence in realizing that by throwing your hat in with a certain group of directors/clique can come back and haunt them in the future.
BODs are no different than gov'ts or medieval courts albeit on a much smaller scale. Power jockeying, favours and alliances only work as long as a group is in power. Once they're turfed, so goes your "influence" or supply of treats. Naturally, there are those Members who will continue to play the game with whoever is in power --- loyalty is a foreign concept to them.
I found the case mentioned above. Taken from legal website Quicklaw, not CANLII. I know it's long so you can just use it for your own info rather than posting it if you want.
ReplyDeleteAgincoourt Co-Operatuive Homes v. Edwards [2006] O.J. No. 2294
17 As already indicated, the starting point for the housing charge to be paid by a subsidized member is a fixed percentage of their household income. When Mr. Edwards first moved in that
percentage was 25%. The Co-operative then raised the percentage to 28% and more recently to 32%.
18 Mr. Edwards submitted that these increases were contrary to CMHC policy and that he should not have to pay them. Again, Section 1(6) of the Agreement between CMHC and the Co-operative specifically provides that the occupancy charges that are charged in accordance with the income of the occupants may be revised from time to time by the Co-operative.
19 Mr. Edwards' counsel also argued that the Co-operatives Housing Charge Assistance Policy and Procedures were incomprehensible and, therefore, Mr. Edwards should not be blamed for his confusion about these charges. Specifically, she referred me to the following excerpt from that By-law:
"1. Eligibility Requirements
All applicants must meet the following requirements:
a) Only applicants for whom their household's housing charge is equal to more than 28% of the household's adjusted gross monthly income excluding utilities ...".
20 While I agree that the wording of this clause is awkward, I do not agree that it is incomprehensible, particularly when read in the light of the documentation that Mr. Edwards filed in response to the Co-operative's application. At Tab "C" of his Affidavit, there is an informational document that contains the following excerpt:
"HOW IS AGINCOURT CO-OP FINANCED?
Agincourt Co-op's mortgage is funded and insured by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In addition to guaranteeing the mortgage, CMHC also provides Agincourt Co-op with a grant to help with the overall operation of the Co-op. One of the conditions of this grant is that at least 15% of the units be filled on a housing charge geared-to-income basis. These units are available to co-op members who require assistance to ensure that they pay no more than one-quarter (25%)* of their monthly gross income for housing."
21 Thus, the only co-op members who are eligible for subsidy are those for whom the regular rent (excluding utilities) represents more than a defined percentage of their household's income.
This is, in essence, what Section 1(a) of the Housing Assistance By-law provides.
22 Therefore, I do not accept that the Co-operative inappropriately increased the percentage of Mr. Edwards' income that was payable by way of housing charges.
31 In my view, there is a big difference between being told that you are over $11,000.00 in arrears and being told that you owe just over $5,000.00. By 2004 (when the decision to terminate
was made) Mr. Edwards had been a member of the Co-operative for eight years and was 67 years old. He has now been a member of the Co-operative for 10 years and is almost 69. He lives on a fixed income. Given these circumstances, and given the error made by the Co-operative concerning the amount that Mr. Edwards owed, it would be unfair to issue a writ of possession without first giving Mr. Edwards the chance to pay off the arrears that he owes. In reaching this decision, I am
exercising my discretion under Section 171.21 of the Act.
The Co-operative claimed $19,999.00 by way of arrears. If $12,000.00 is deducted from that amount, Mr. Edwards owes a total of $8,000.00. I order that Mr. Edwards is to pay these arrears at the rate of $100.00 per month commencing on July 1, 2006, which amount is to be added to the other housing charges that he will owe for the months that he continues to occupy his unit.
34 The Co-operative's application for a writ of possession is dismissed.
H.E. SACHS J.
Thank you for all your very well stated posts. I will become more active on my blog in a week or two.
ReplyDeleteAll the best.