No Cents

At an All Members Meeting held on January 20, 2014 a Proposed Budget for 2014-2015 was passed. When I asserted that legal fees would certainly be more than the $1,500. allotted for same, a Director piped up, 'Not with these lawyers' - meaning, I suppose, that the Board of Directors intended to charge back any and all legal fees to targeted members.

Unit Maintenance & Repair budget line was $2,400., but our Maintenance Contractor's budget was $34,800. - an incongruity there.

Property Management went up from $61,500. to $63,000. in 2014.

Our Financial Audited Statements presented (and passed) at our July 20, 2014 meeting stated that our legal fees are expected to be $15,692., General Unit Repairs are slated at $41,292.

Property Management was actually $62,559. in 2013.

Bad debt recovery came in at a loss in 2013 at $11,141., expected to rise to $16,262. in 2014. These are the real legal costs to the co-op, not the airy-fairy budgeted line of $1,500.

The Property Manager upheld a Priority Chart presented at our January and July meetings.  It states that 3 of 60 back decks in Phase I have been completed.  We do not have 60 back decks in Phase I - we have 9.  Nevertheless $10,000. is budgeted for Phase I and $15,000. for Phase II for 2014-15. Balconies are budgeted at $15,600. And the list goes on.

Vacancy losses for 2013 were $34,212. and are expected to rise to $42,979. in 2014.

The co-op is now stating that they have no money. The Proposed Budget passed on January 20, 2014, together with the Priority Chart puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of our very highly paid Property Manager, who clearly has no expertise in financial matters whatsoever.

WITHOUT NOTICE

A Notice of our Annual General Meeting was distributed 10 days before the meeting, but the package, including the audited Financial Statements were delivered only 2 days before the meeting.  

At the meeting I read out Section 75 (1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, which states that 10 days notice of the meeting is required.  Our By-law 3.7 (b) states:

In the case of the Annual Meeting, such notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the financial statement and auditor's report for the previous fiscal year.

This was not convenient to the Property Manager or to the Treasurer of our co-op, so they simultaneously belted out that the CCA took precedence.  The reason why the entire package was not delivered to members 10 days prior to the meeting was to quell any discussion of the Minutes of previous meetings or the three Resolutions being presented.

Ten minute discussions were allotted for each Resolution on the Agenda.  A motion was made to defer the three Resolutions to a future meeting. Members must have succumbed to the Property Manager's rolling of her eyes or her petulant pouting, as this motion did not pass. 

Three minutes each were allotted for the approval of two sets of minutes - more to come in that regard.

The Auditor presented the Financial Statements.  As no one had had time to peruse the statements in that they were distributed two days before the meeting, the Financial Statements were approved without discussion.

Elections then followed.  The member who had been on the Board since 2009 finally stepped down. (According to the Property Manager's re-writing of history, this member had only been on the Board for two years.) Six members were elected to the Board of Directors, two of them previous Directors.

THE CASE OF 39

At our most recent eviction meeting the Property Manager emphasized how important it was to gain entry into 40 units which purportedly had high water usage readings.  To her complete dismay only 39 units were inspected, but then her spirits were buoyed when she proudly exclaimed that 39 leaks had been discovered, which is complete nonsense.

But in keeping with this farcical conclusion, one could say that we'll all wait another 39 weeks to have the 'leaks' repaired ...

DESIGNER EVICTION

Security camera peering down over shed roof

into neighbour's back yard

On May 2, 2014, the Property Manager and maintenance man installed front and rear security cameras on the unit next door to a member the Board of Directors chose to evict.  

On June 11, 2014 a month after police notified the co-op that this was illegal, the police entered the unit outfitted with the cameras and repositioned them.  They stated in no uncertain terms that if the cameras were moved, to call them and they'd come back and address the situation again.

The Property Manager at the Member's Appeal Meeting stated that the cameras only 'looked' like they were focusing in on the potential evictee's backyard and driveway.  The reason:  It only seemed as though the cameras were pointed that way because of the siding of the building - besides which these cameras were being tested because other cameras were going to be placed around the co-op.

The member whose unit the cameras were mounted on stated that her flowers had once been trampled.  The front camera pointed directly down on the targeted member's driveway nowhere near any flowers, both backyards are fenced in and the camera was pointed directly into the neighbour's yard.  

The Property Manager stated that the Board of Directors had photos of a water bowl and a feeding dish for cats and that constituted the grounds for evicting the member - she had violated By-law 26 - Feeding animals and wildlife.

By-law 26 - Enforcement states:

1.  For the first violation the Co-op will issue a written warning.
2. For the second violation, the member will be issued a $25.00 fine.
3.  For the third and subsequent violation, the member will be issued a $50.00 [fine] and a notice to appear before the Board of Directors.

The member received a Notice to Appear before the Board of Directors for a $25.00 fine, with no deadline for payment.  In so doing, the Board of Directors violated their own By-law.

The Property Manager had an answer for that:  The Board of Directors didn't 'feel' like giving the member in question a $50.00 fine; instead they chose to evict her.

The Property Manager distributed a list of complaint letters replete with names and dates going back to 1996.  The member attended her Hearing before the Board of Directors on April 29, 2014 and lo and behold a complaint letter written by my next-door neighbour was received by the co-op on April 28, 2014!   (My neighbour told me about an incident which happened several years ago - bird poop on the roof of her car attributed to birds attracted to a bird feeder). The Board of Directors did their homework unscrupulously well.

The Board of Directors declared that the member did not meet the co-op's standards for co-operative living and so declared her a 'Nuisance'.  

Now my next-door neighbour who complained about the bird poop on the roof of her car, has never attended one meeting in the co-op in the decades she's been here, but she meets the 'coop's standards for co-operative living' as do all the other members who are in non-compliance with the co-op's by-laws and policies as we speak.  

The meeting was raucous - members were shouted at by the CHF Chairperson and members shouted right back at him.  He warned a member that he would call police.  Someone most likely did because three patrol officers on bikes (we live beside a park) were soon at the front walkway of our office building.

It was voting time.  The Property Manager handed out ballots in a candy bowl fashion.  She stated that they didn't need to do this in an organized way because she could remember everyone she had given a ballot to.  Fifteen seconds later when my husband asked for a ballot, without missing a beat, she taunted, 'Didn't I give you one before?' And then - she gave him one.  To quote one of her admonitions to a member:  You don't know WHO you are dealing with.

Well, some members are realizing who they are chillingly dealing with.

The vote was NOT to evict the member.

TAKE NOTICE - AGAIN

The following are Notices of Entry for one year. These do not include when work is done in a unit or repeat 'visits'.  The fire alarm inspection, plumbing inspections and annual inspection could all have been done in one inspection - they used to be. All these Notices of Entry erode members' rights to peaceful enjoyment of their units - their homes  - and actually create a sense of insecurity.

1. Plumbing Inspection - June 17, 2013.*

2. Smoke Detector Inspection - July 22, 2013 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.  The member is not required to be home, but if the co-op does not have a key to a member's unit, a locksmith will be called and the member will be charged. 

3. Pest Control Notice - October 21, 2013.  

4.  Furnace Maintenance - October 22, 2013 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

5. Annual Unit Inspection - November 11, 2013 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

6. Plumbing Inspection - April 7, 2014 - between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.*

7. Sump Pump Upgrade - May 13, 2014 between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

One would think that a 4-hour time frame to enter a unit would suffice, but not in this co-op.  

* The Plumbing Inspections were done in choice units, not because of high water consumption, but rather to harass and intimidate members. Privileged members continue to endlessly water their lawns and let their children play under water hoses, while other members must ration their use of water.

THE (IN) DECISION

A Board of Directors Meeting was held on April 29, 2014 to consider ending the occupancy and membership rights of a member - in other words 'eviction'.

Here is the decision:

1.  Letter dated May 1, 2014 - "The Board of Directors have not decided to end your occupancy rights in the above unit on May 11, 2014 and have decided to end your membership in the co-operative on that date."

2.  Schedule E - Eviction Decision - "4.  The occupancy rights and the membership in the Co-operative of the members in the above unit are ended on May 11, 2014."

3. Schedule E - Further Decision - "A new Notice to Appear will be issued for Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. where the Board of Directors will consider ending the membership and occupancy rights of the above member on Sunday, May 25, 2014.

Tacked on to Schedule E under the heading Behaviour is a new charge: 

You owe $526. of housing charge arrears to the Co-op as of March 31, 1014.

There is no such fictitious charge in the new Notice to Appear.

Instead, on Friday, May 2, 2014, the co-op's maintenance man, - at co-op expense - installed strategically placed front and rear security cameras on the unit next to the potential evictee's unit. The Property Manager forfeited her day off to oversee this operation and can now watch my neighbour and all of us 24 hrs. a day on her smart phone.

The completely incomprehensible eviction decisions and the security cameras are intimidation tactics - poisonous game playing at its worst.

THE CULL

On April 17, 2014, one day before Good Friday, a Notice to Appear was strategically placed in my neighbour's mailbox.  The Notice stated that she is to appear before the Board of Directors at a meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 29, 2014, wherein they will consider ending her membership.  Should the Board of Directors vote to evict the member, she will have to vacate her unit on May 11, 2014 - Ten (10) days later.  The member has been living in the co-op for twenty-four years!

The reason for her proposed eviction is that she now owes the co-op $25.00 for breaching By-law 26 - feeding wildlife animals.  She had an overturned green garbage pail on her front step landing, which had a chewed hole at the rim.  This was deemed by the Property Manager to be a feeder.  A small piece of wood was at the base of her deep basement window well.  This was to harbour animals the Property Manager declared and promptly took photos of the two offences.

By-law 26 states:

Enforcement

1.  For the first violation the Co-op will issue a written warning.

2.  For the second violation, the member will be issued a $25.00 fine.

3.  For the third and subsequent violation, the member will be issued a $50.00 (fine) and a notice to appear before the Board of Directors.

The member did not receive a $50.00 fine - she was immediately served with a Notice to Appear.

The letter stated that the member refused access to her unit by a maintenance man.  She and her family were not feeling well that day, so she asked if he could return the next day.  She waited for the maintenance man the next day, but he didn't show.  When questioned later in the week, the maintenance man told her that he was given instructions by the Property Manager not to go back to the unit.

The member was also accused of 'intimidating and harassing behaviour towards members, their family and guests in the co-op past and present' and 'intimidating and harassing behaviour towards the office staff''.  We have only one office staff, so that would be the Property Manager.  The members/family/guests is her next door neighbour, who promptly reports to the Property Manager replete with photos.

The Notice to Appear states:

You do not have to vacate your unit, but the Co-operative may obtain a Writ of Possession (eviction order) from a court after your membership and occupancy rights are ended.  If you do not vacate your unit, the Co-operative will also seek a court order that you pay its legal costs.

The member was given Ten (10) days to vacate because she purportedly owes $25.00 to the co-op.  If she were to owe nothing to the co-op, she would have Thirty (30) days to vacate.  It is not difficult to see how atrociously contrived this intended eviction is. 

By-law 26 was specifically put in place because the neighbour didn't like the woman feeding stray cats, birds or squirrels.  The By-law has now achieved its goal and to mark this special occasion, the Notice to Appear was joyfully delivered to the member just before the long Easter Weekend, a celebratory religious holiday for this member and her family.

This will be the sixth eviction recently attempted in our co-op.  The last one was such a success that the Board of Directors and the Property Manager are clearly zealous about cleansing our co-op.

Hope on the Horizon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz8njyhHZFY

LIAR-LIAR

Before the words were even out of her mouth about how the Board of Directors abused her at a meeting designed to evict her, the Property Manager belted out, 'It's a lie!'  Other Board members quickly piled on the abuse - LIAR!    The President of the co-op, who Chaired the meeting, also attested to the fact that what the member was saying didn't happen.  He hadn't attended the Board meeting, but said that he had read a 'transcript' of the Board minutes.  The meeting was electronically  recorded and of course, the expletives were conveniently deleted.  The woman crumpled into tears.  With her permission I will tell her story.

The member is vulnerable - a victim of domestic violence.  She is also on a disability pension and is coping as best she can given her circumstances.  She was late on several occasions in getting her subsidy renewal application in.  To further complicate matters the Property Manager insisted that her son apply for OW and things unravelled from there.  The member was never late paying her housing charges because it was paid directly by ODSP.   

In December she received a letter from the Property Manager saying that she was overhoused - that she would have to downsize to a 2-bedroom unit.  She submitted two letters from an orthopedic surgeon that she had had surgery, needed a year to recover and also needed a downstairs washroom.  Up to that time no arrears were mentioned.  If so, the co-op would not have consented to downsize her.

The Property Manager refused to acknowledge her medical letters and out of the blue, she received a notification that the co-op had retracted her subsidy retroactively to May, 2013 and that she was now $2,400. in arrears.  The reason:  Incomplete subsidy information.  And the piling on began.  There was extensive damage to her unit - holes in walls:  FIX THE WALLS in a very short time span - the co-op would re-enter the unit to assess.

A Notice of Hearing was sent to the member - attend a Board Meeting where a decision to evict her would be considered.  The member attended the Board meeting, along with a lawyer from a community legal aid centre.  At the Board meeting she was berated - she was told that she had brought the abuse on herself, that her physical disability wasn't a disability at all - she could walk down stairs no problem, just like another Board member.  The lawyer didn't defend her, just quickly touched her not to respond.  The member left the meeting in tears.

The very next day she received the Board's decision in her mailbox - evicted -  to leave her unit in a couple of days.  She appealed the decision and set about to tell her story at the Special Meeting last night.  She had no lawyer representing her - I was her support person.  The co-op's lawyer was there to fortify the Property Manager.  No help was needed in that regard, so he didn't say a word for the entire meeting.  The sum of $1,500. was budgeted for legal fees for 2013-14.  The reason being is that the member being evicted will be charged for his services.

A member sitting next to me wanted the Property Manager voted out of the meeting.  The Chair asked how this would be possible.  He missed the point.  The Property Manager is known to roll her eyes, smile sardonically when challenged and many members don't even want to be in her presence.

The member up for eviction in a very quiet voice, trembling and in tears continued reading her notes to the membership.  TIMES UP! Now it was the Property's Manager's turn.

For over one hour she went on and on and on.  In a dreary monotone, she read every date of every email to the member and vice versa. She had control of members.  They were stuffed into this very small meeting room and for all intents and purposes just wanted her to stop droning on.

I then spoke, saying that I had helped the member through this ordeal.  I stated that CMHC deferred overhousing to co-op by-laws, that our by-laws allowed for the use of discretion in deciding whether to postpone a move, or not move a member at all.  That the co-op had a Domestic Violence By-law and instead of showing empathy and compassion to the member who had suffered domestic violence, that they were abusing her even more. 

I stated that the member received approximately $1,000. in disability benefits, that she now had to pay full fee for a unit because her subsidy was taken away, and to completely annihilate the member, the Property Manager had imposed a Performance Agreement on her to repay $600. per month for 4 months until her 'concocted' debt to the co-op was paid off.  I stated that it was preposterous to even think that the member would sign such an agreement - it was designed specifically to entrap her.  

I then read out the Performance Agreement in our by-laws which was flexible according to the financial means of the member being asked to sign.  This and other statements I made incensed the Property Manager - she went to the office to get the by-laws to prove me wrong.  She stated that it was a by-law or policy that anyone owing arrears over $2,000. would have to repay it in 120 days.  I said that's ridiculous - that my husband and I couldn't even do it - how could someone on ODSP or OW pay that amount of money.  A long-standing member spoke up saying that the Performance Agreement I had read out was the one which had been used in our co-op since its inception.  How convenient that the member being evicted owed $2,000.  

A member who attended the meeting spoke empathetically about victims of violence - that the trauma affects one's very being and coping skills for a very long time.  Members finally came alive and gave her a subdued round of applause.  

My husband then spoke up and began his sentence with, 'In the 24 years we've been living here, the co-op has been ...  He was then drowned out by a very coarse voice yelling back at him. Someone yelled out, 'Call the question!'  And with that it was time for the vote.

Strips of paper had not yet been prepared for the vote.  Some were roughly ripped into such thin strips, you could curl them up and flick them in the air.  During the break one woman who was actually evicted and miraculously is still here, said that she couldn't vote, because her unit number was not listed anymore on the sign in sheet. H-m-m-m.

The vote was tallied - 26 for eviction, 21 against.  The Property Manager had won another battle.  Victory was palpable in the air - subsidized, well housed Board members rejoiced at having crushed their opponent - a vulnerable woman completely at their mercy.

I walked over to my friend and told her how proud I was of her for holding up under such stress.  Other members felt the same way and we held each other up.  Tomorrow is a brighter day for my friend and her dignity will be upheld.

In closing I would like to say that several Board members have had abusive relationships and have had damage to their units as a consequence.  In general there are many units occupied by members in a gross state of disrepair, so why focus in on this member.  Why hound her to distraction - letters arrived in her mailbox anytime of day or night, the Property Manager entered her unit on very short notice - alone. Why humiliate her as though she didn't even exist.  It certainly was not about good corporate governance.  It was out and out bullying.
        

THE 3 R'S

We received a Tax Receipt letter dated February 22, 2014 from our Property Manager for our housing charges paid in 2013.  As the calculations didn't appear to be accurate, I did the calculation.  It turned out that the amount stated in the letter pertained to the housing charge we paid in 2010.  

The co-op submitted an incorrect housing charge calculation pertaining to 2010 in our Human Rights case.  The document was not signed or dated and I stated at that time that the document had been fabricated for the purpose of our Human Rights case.  I, therefore, submitted the correct calculation, along with a signed and dated document from the co-op substantiating same.  My calculation was re-used in the letter we just received for the year 2013.  

I wrote the Board of Directors indicating my concerns with the integrity and trustworthiness of our Property Manager as she had signed the letter.  Shortly thereafter I received quite a threatening email  from our Property Manager.  She claimed that this was an error on the part of the bookkeeper and warned me that this was the final time that she was going to ask me to cease and desist from talking about her.

Firstly, let me say that it is very difficult to bypass the Property Manager because she "manages" everything in the co-op.  If you fail to fill out one line in the multitude of documents one is required to fill out, the document will be dropped back into your mailbox any time of day or night.  Members are not allowed to talk to contractors.  In many instances if you have a concern which you would like to refer to the Board of Directors, you will receive an email back that she, the Property Manager, has been given the ultimate authority to deal with this and that.

The bookkeeping company has been lauded for their wonderful detailed work and has just been re-hired by our co-op.  The bookkeepers are the fall-back people should a discrepancy be challenged by a member.  However, when it comes to thousands of dollars in chargebacks, or arrears, our Property Manager is never wrong.  You pay up or you get evicted.  If you are evicted and wish to dispute the facts, the ex-member can hire a lawyer.  The Property Manager is fully protected by the co-op's lawyer, for which the evicted member is then charged.  And for further protection the Property Manager will take out a No Trespassing Order.

The Property Manager is not overseen by the Board of Directors.  She is given full control of everything, including them.

Receipts, Reprimands, Retaliation - works everytime!

The Invasion

The Property Manager is no doubt at this exact moment sitting down at her desk and wondering whether FiFi or FouFou has had their shots and knowing instinctively which members did NOT declare their pets.  Add to this knowing exactly who is parking where - even though the yellow pavement parking signs are covered in snow.  Surely she must be taking note of a member's commercial vehicle which had been parked illegally in a vacant unit's driveway for months.  Both infractions warrant fines, warnings, hearings before the Board of Directors and last but not least, being towed at member's expense.

The Annual Inspections (which aren't Annual at all) also have to be followed up on.  The inspections were verbally recorded by a contractor - these will now have to be typed up and given to each member who may decide to challenge some of the findings.  It is to be noted that on many occasions the Property Manager marches into units on her own and takes photos.  In those cases who watches the watcher?

All Members Meetings are recorded on smart phones and almost certainly when members attend Board meetings.  The Property Manager transcribes those recordings - all with a special twist.

One busy woman!

Group Therapy

http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1972981,00.html

A Funny Thing Happened ...

At our All Members Meeting held on January 20, 2014, three quotes for our auditors were presented.  Members were not shown these quotes.  One quote was $9,200., our present auditors quoted $9,000. and after rummaging through her paperwork our Property Manager stated that the third quote from our previous auditor came in at $10,000.

A Director made a motion to accept our previous auditor's quote.  The Treasurer strongly interjected saying that our previous auditor never had the Financial Statements in on time and on and on.  So strong was her objection that the Director who had suggested voting for our previous auditor shrunk back in her seat and said (paraphrasing) 'OK, OK, not him'.  Members laughed and voted for our present auditors.

I would like to say at this time that the reason why our previous auditor had difficulty in preparing the Financial Statements was because the Board of Directors was so dysfuntional that he couldn't get the appropriate paperwork.  The co-op was semi taken over shortly thereafter.

This auditor's name was bandied about in a negative fashion for more than five minutes.  And here's the point of this blog entry - the auditor in question did not submit a quote to do our Financial Statements.


 

Special Delivery

Yesterday members received another WITHOUT PREJUDICE YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION IS REQUIRED notification from our Property Manager.

It was a scolding for either not submitting or partially submitting a Composition of Member Household and Annual Information Form.

Ours acknowledged receiving proof of vaccination for our pets, but reprimanded us for not providing proof of liability insurance or our policy's expiration date.

The original DEMAND for information asked for PROOF OF CONTENT/HOME INSURANCE ... AS PER THE OCCUPANCY BY-LAW.  We duly submitted a letter from our insurance company acknowledging the renewal of our policy as of March 25, 2013.  In March of this year we will receive another renewal letter.  A person can cancel their home insurance at any time, so proof of an expiration date is meaningless.

On January 6, 2014 I submitted these documents to our co-op and notified them by email that:

Although we've always had household insurance, I cannot find any mention of the necessity for same in our Occupancy By-law.  Article 5.5 Insurance refers to co-op's insurance, not to member household's insurance.

(This is definitely a tip off to the By-law Review Committee) 

The final intimidating paragraph of our Property Manager's follow up states:

If you do not complete and return this form, your household will be in breach of the policies and by-laws of the Co-operative.  Failure to provide this information will result in reporting to the Board of Directors for further action.

There is also no policy demanding that members carry household insurance.

The deadline for submission is tomorrow.  Our Property Manager loves deadlines!

Oh, can I possibly have a copy of the co-op's insurance policy?  After all, I'm paying for it.

MEETING ENTRAILS

The Board Members were in good spirits when the meeting commenced, one of them having  just received her last new window installation.  All was warm and cozy.  The WITHOUT PREJUDICE letters having been duly distributed, the Agenda was approved.  Two sets of Minutes dated July 25 and October 15, 2013 were approved, with certain amendments.

Next up was a Resolution to have a member previously slated for eviction, sign a 2-year Performance Agreement.  I stated that this was the first time that a Performance Agreement Resolution had come before the Membership for approval.  A discussion ensued - that it was for the betterment of the co-op.  I stated that I objected to this Performance Agreement in that the Property Manager could then make the member sign an agreement before a Judge, make the member pay for the co-op's legal fees and that fictitious charges could put the member in arrears, thereby violating the Performance Agreement.  I stated that if the Property Manager didn't get her way the first time, she'd try again. 

The Chairperson (a Board Member) ruled me out of Order according to the Roberts Rules of Order.  I then stated that they could kick me out of the meeting, but that I would speak my mind.  The meeting bumbled on.

The Property Manager gave an update on the Dotmocracy Planning Session - fixing the non-existent 60 back decks in Phase 1 and all.  It didn't matter that the Capital Expenditures totalled $100,000. for this year alone - everything went as planned.  Later during the meeting the subject of tearing down the fences and sheds came up.

Sheds for the 3 & 4 bedroom units will remain as they are tucked underneath the balconies in the front of the units.  I shudder to think of what the co-op will look like stripped of the back yard sheds and fencing.  There will be no privacy and in its place will be free-reining BBQ's, garbage containers, junk of all kinds, and members' dogs running at large.  Of course, preferred members will be able to keep their fencing and archways, but members will not be allowed to discuss this tiny discrepancy at a member's meeting.   Further discussion of sheds and fences will be held at our next Members Meeting.

The Treasurer presented the 2014-15 budget.  I asked why only $1,500. was budgeted for legal fees.  As stated in my previous post, the Board Member and Property Manager reiterated the fact that it was accurate and that all legal fees are charged back to whatever member is targeted at the time.  I asked who their lawyer was - the co-op has changed lawyers.

I asked why $3,700. was budgeted for By-law review.  The Board member said that the co-op's By-law Review Committee has linked up with a consultant from CHASEO - hence the fee.  I didn't ask who the people are on this committee, but I can well assume they were hand picked by the Board of Directors.
 
I asked why the Unit Maintenance & Repair line was only budgeted at $2,400.  The Property Manager stated that this little known line was questioned before.  (No, it wasn't this line - it was the Security line.  I said at the time that it pertained to the alarm system.) The 2014-15 budget was then unanimously approved.

Next up was the approval of our auditors.  Dissatisfaction with our auditors was expressed by the Board of Directors in that the auditors tacked on fees not initially agreed upon.  Three quotes were obtained, and to no one's surprise our auditors were re-approved.  These auditors are part of Cost Cutters, a kick back scheme for CHASEO.

Next up was a Resolution for the construction of a swing set to be placed in a common area which I shall call the Dumping Ground.  It is a known flood zone and unkempt.  This area was destroyed when a Board of Directors decided to turn a landscaped burm into a snow removal area.  To achieve this in the most destructible way possible, tons of rocks were unloaded on the flat surface and down the sides of this burm.  Evergreen trees have been ripped to shreds because of the massive dumping of snow and grit.  The Property Manager smoothed this over by saying that the trees were too close to a unit anyhow.

I mentioned that municipalities have done away with swings because of liability issues.  Not a problem - a Board member stated that our insurance has already gone up by $10,000. purportedly because of our new play park.  No one blinked about this, nor did anyone ask what kind of swings were going to be placed in this common area, so I did.  There will be two swings for older kids and one bucket swing.  Because the park is dedicated to First Responders, two new First Responder type spring toys will be constructed.  I didn't tell them that the police car spring toy doesn't work - it doesn't rock as the stones and wood chips are too high.

I had earlier raised the subject of squirrels and this was up next for discussion.  I said that the squirrels were misbehaving, that they were f---------- (not the F word - the other word) and reproducing - in other words they were not vamoosing from the co-op.  (As the whole meeting was tape recorded, it will be interesting to see if the F-word is transcribed verbatim.)  The members took up this subject with passion - one member suggested putting bleach in garbage bags, another person blamed members for continuing to feed squirrels and yet another member earnestly related how New Yorkers were now eating squirrels.  On two occasions I turned the discussion back as to why I brought the subject up.  I said that the Pet By-law and the Parking By-law will never work.  The Chairperson said that we were only talking about squirrels.  The squirrel discussion was addressed under the Agenda heading, Parking Lot Items.  He seemed to agree that squirrels fit under this category quite well.

Before the discussion was dropped entirely, I asked members to keep an eye out for the 'Cow-Cat'.  Some people knew the cat I was talking about - the black and white elongated, totally emaciated cat.  This cat was abandoned by a member (most probably in excellent standing).  I urged people to let me know about the cat because I would like to somehow save that cat.  The members didn't get that either.  In order to save the cat, I would be in violation of the Pet By-law by feeding a stray animal.  Squirrels attracted coyotes some members declared.  No one said anything about the Board member's half a dozen outdoor roaming cats attracting coyotes.  Common sense did not prevail.

The topic of vacancy losses came up near the end of the meeting.  The Chairperson said that it was a difficult time of the year to fill units - would anyone like to move in this cold weather?  Tell that to the subsidized people who received notices to downsize in 15 days just before Christmas and New Years.  No mercy was shown to them - in fact it was done to purposefully cause as much distress as possible - they were not afforded a 70-day notice.

And with that the meeting came to a close - not before being handed out Dotmocracy stickers though to place on wall mounted posters.  And with the quick-second placement of these stickers, our next Maintenance priorities will be declared.

Thursday vent insulation repair

Under the above subject line, the Property Manager emailed me on January 7, 2014 to say:
 

Would the contractor be able to enter on Thursday, January 9 at arund 10am to have a look and perhaps resolve the bathroom vent insulation?

We agreed that 10:30 would be fine. 

On January 8, 2014 I wrote the following email to the Property Manager:

When the roof tiling was replaced, the exhaust fan pipes were disconnected and never reconnected.  The bathroom exhaust fan pipe must be reconnected to the roof port and the insulation must be properly repositioned both as originally installed.  Our bathroom fan needs to be upgraded to open the flap to the outdoors.  To just slip insulation over the exposed pipe is futile.

The Property Manager replied that the contractor would "assess the issue and make the necessary repairs".

On January 13, 2014 I sent the following email to the Property Manager:
  

The contractors came by on Thursday to assess the upper bathroom fan issue, but immediately asked if they could go into the basement.  I said OK - several minutes later I went down to the basement and saw that the contractors had removed the steel slab covering the sump pit and one of the contractors was taking photos.  I went back upstairs and they remained in the basement for quite a while.  I went back down and the contractor was taking a photo of a ventilation pipe.

How many photos did the contractor take and why did he take photos?  The contractors were only supposed to reconnect the bathroom vent pipe.  Kindly provide me with copies of these photos and the reason why they were taken under the ruse of fixing our upstairs bathroom fan.

A few hours before yesterday's All Members Meeting, I finally received the following email from the Property Manager:
  

These contractors are also doing the sump pump inspections for the co-op.  They are the ones who replaced XX's sump pump.  I informed them that you have a sump pump and they knocked it off their list of pumps to inspect while they were there.

We are checking for make/model, back-up pumps, alarms, etc.  I will receive details of the sump pump inspections once they have all been completed.
 
It was a last minute discussion and I forgot to send you a quick message.

I replied:

The contractors took more photos than just the sump pit.  They went around the whole basement and took photos.

 The Property Manager replied:   

I just spoke to the contractor.  He took pictures of the floor and is providing the Co-op with a quote to fill in the cracks.

He is the type of contractor that sees potential work and goes ahead and quotes on it if it is in his scope.  He apologizes for alarming you in any way.

I replied:
       

The contractor came with instructions to take photos of the basement and that is exactly what he did - the walls and pipes included.  He did not take photos of the basement floor because of potential work, such as filling in the floor cracks  This is utter nonsense.

The contractors did not alarm me - they were very polite, but on a mission other than reconnecting our bathroom vent pipe to the roof port.  This was not a spur of moment sump pump check.

Kindly provide me with the photos the contractor took.

The Property Manager replied:

I do not wish to engage in your accusations.  You are free to believe whatever you wish.

I will not provide you with any pictures as I do not have any to offer. 

As I said before, when I receive the details of the sump pump inspections, I will provide them but I am going to amend my previous statement.  The co-op's lawyer will be provided with any information I receive, when I receive it, and he can provide it to you or your lawyer if he choses.

Enjoy your day

I replied:   

I have every right to ask for those photos and will continue to ask for those photos.

*****

This is in keeping with letters at least two other members received from the co-op's lawyer telling them that they must not talk about or criticize whatever our Property Manager does.  Because the Property Manager has total access to the co-op's lawyer, the co-op should budget more than $1500. for legal fees for 2014-15.  When I brought the low budget figure up at last night's meeting, the response was that this figure was totally correct in that the co-op forces targeted members to pay all the co-op's legal fees.

Oh, and what if the targeted member refuses to pay protection fees for the Property Manager?  Well, she will just put the member into arrears and evict the member that way.  

We have a Human Rights complaint against the co-op.  It is going forth to a Hearing based on the condition of the unit and the timing of the move.  

NAILED

There was an All Members Meeting last night.  There to greet me was not a forced sign up sheet to participate on a low functioning committee; instead the Property Manager handed me a letter.  What could this be, I thought to myself, a confirmation of subsidy?  No, it was a WITHOUT PREJUDICE - YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION IS REQUIRED letter.

The letter stated that an AMM was called on January 7, 2014 (no quorum was reached), members must attend all such meetings and that the only way one can get out of going to these meetings is to notify the office, IN WRITING, "24 hours prior to the meeting that the you (typo included) are not able to attend by reason of health or work."

There was a whole stack of these letters to be handed out to delinquent members should they show up for this meeting.  

The letter was dated January 8, 2014.  Why weren't these letters delivered to all members prior to January 20th and not only to the members who attended the meeting?  Wouldn't it be more advantageous to intimidate all members and see who shows up? 

The Wish List

The co-op distributed a proposed budget for 2014-2015.  Administration costs are projected to be $113,350.  Maintenance costs are projected to be $157,100.  

Although not stated in this budget, our deficit for the year ended March 31, 2013 was $144,314.  Therefore, any surplus for the following years should go to pay down this large deficit. This year our surplus as at October, 2013 in the amount of $68,047. will (or should) be applied to pay down the deficit.  Nothing is budgeted in the year 2014-2015 to bring our deficit down to zero.

The Replacement Reserve Contribution is set at $70,417. and a Special Reserve Contribution is set at $43,948. for a total of $114,365.

Many things in the proposed budget are strikingly odd, such as the measly sum of $2,400. for Unit Maintenance & Repair and $4,500. for Paving, Grounds & Landscaping (we have LOTS of potholes!).  Tree Removal and Trimming scored much higher at $22,700.

As no quorum was reached for our All Members Meeting held on January 7, 2014, a new Agenda was distributed to members, along with a Co-op Priority Chart which outlines proposed spending in 2014-15.

This Priority Chart is based on a Dotmocracy planning session.  Windows garnered the most votes (27).  Next came Furnaces, By-law Review, Lighting, Fences (back decks) and Balconies.  

The Chart states that 3 out of 60 back decks in Phase 1 were completed.  The co-op only has 9 back decks in Phase 1.  Nevertheless, $10,000. is slated for repair of these non-existent back decks.

The total cost of the projected work in 2014 rounds off to $100,000.   Our Replacement Reserve and Special Reserve contributions as of October, 2013 total $45,707.  In order to pay for all this work to be done in 2014, we would need to raid our Capital Reserves to the tune of $100,000., leaving nothing for roof repairs, for example.

This dream list seems to be off the chart.
 
 

Because We Can

There's special treatment for those members on OW/ODSP who renew their subsidy.  In 2011 these members would merely write the name of their agency, the number of beneficiaries, the name of their worker and the worker's phone number in Section 5 of the application.

Since the hiring of our Property Manager, the form has been streamlined:  One must now fax that part of their subsidy application to their worker to fill out and  have it faxed back to the co-op office.  It is completely 'out of the hands' of the member so to speak.

The co-op has developed another way to degrade members on OW/ODSP - the co-op forces the member to have their housing charges deducted directly from the agencies.  That way the co-op can increase their housing charges or claim fictitious arrears without any interference from the member whatsoever.
 
Over the years I've often wondered to myself:  How low can the co-op go?  And it never reaches bottom!

 

THE MESSAGE

Our Property Manager loves to write in all capital letters, along with multiple use of bolding and underlining.  Mind you, I do quite often write the title to my blog posts in capital letters to highlight the topic.  The Property Manager has another tactic in mind though - it's a screamingly loud way to intimidate members,

The Declaration affixed to the application for subsidy renewal uses the same wording as of old, but now takes up a whole page.  It reads:

DECLARATION: 

I DECLARE THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION IS ACCURATE, TRUTHFUL AND COMPLETE IN EVERY RESPECT AND FULLY DISCLOSES MY GROSS ANNUAL INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES.

I AUTHORIZE [CO-OP] , CMHC, THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES, ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HOUSING, REVENUE CANADA AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS FORM IN ANY MANNER DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE CO-OPERATIVE, AND I AGREE TO CO-OPERATE IN ANY EFFORT TO VERIFY THIS INFORMATION TO THE EXTENT REQUESTED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE.

I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THE CO-OPERATIVE'S HOUSING CHARGE ASSISTANCE BY-LAWS AND TO REPORT ANY CHANGES TO INCOME OR FAMILY SIZE AS SOON AS THEY OCCUR.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM A LEGAL RESIDENT OF CANADA AND THAT I HAVE NO OUTSTANDING DEBTS TO THE ONTARIO HOUSING CORPORATION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT MISREPRESENTATION OF MY HOUSEHOLD INCOME OR FAMILY SIZE, ILLEGAL RESIDENCE IN CANADA OR OUTSTANDING DEBTS TO THE ONTARIO HOUSING CORPORATION, GIVES THE MINISTRY OR THE CO-OPERATIVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE MONTHLY HOUSING SUPPLEMENT PAYMENTS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE LAW.

*****

I love writing in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS - it gives one such power and authority, notwithstanding the inherent authority given to the co-op when members are forced to sign such a Declaration.