A Question of Honour

An All Members Meeting was held to oust a Board member. The member, I suppose, had simply asked too many probing questions, as the charges outlined were preposterous.  When it came time to vote on the matter, numerous children on instructions from their parent(s), raised their hands in unison to remove the Director. 

Long standing members were astonished at what they witnessed, but were assured by one parent (ex-preferred Board member) that all the kids were Sixteen (16) years old and indignantly asked whether the members were questioning his honour. 

The By-laws state that Sixteen (16) year olds can become members and I guess that is what they were doing when they were lining up at the office the day after the meeting.

In the decades I lived in the co-op, I never knew of one family whose kids became members.

It is not a Question of Honour - it is a Question of Ethics!

When the Co-op Calls

A Community Education Meeting was held on Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 4:00 p.m.  It wasn't a formal meeting - it was formulated by the co-op's Property Manager and cohorts.  The notice stated:

What to Expect:

• Video Presentation

          Exposing your Neighbours   Interesting Footage

• How to promote Positive Behaviour
• How to deal with Illegal Activity
• How does this negatively affect the operations of your Co-op and you?
• What should the Members do next?

We will provide refreshments and light snacks.

Everyone should participate.  You may be surprised at the outcome.

*****

The Property Manager presided over this Sunday afternoon meeting.  No video footage was shown, nor any of the above agenda items discussed.  The cohorts of the Property Manager each praised the other for their complete devotion to the co-op and members were encouraged to 'love, love, love' one another.  A dedicated member was on hand to translate these self-praising spiels into Arabic for many meeting attendees.

This gathering proved to be an excellent indoctrination ceremony for upcoming meetings.

Buying Time

In late April, 2015 a Petition to remove the co-op's property management company was signed by many members and deposited with the Board of Directors.  The reasons for the Resolution was concern about the Property Manager's interactions with members, the methods being employed, as well as a dubious hiring process.

On May 25, 2015 a letter from the co-op's lawyer was distributed to all members stating that the Board of Directors voted not to "act on it".  An excerpt of the letter is as follows:

Had the directors passed a resolution to terminate the contract with XXX, that would have exposed [the co-op] and its directors to a claim for damages for breach of contract.  In my view, such a resolution is not therefore one that, in the words of the governing legislation, "may properly be passed" by directors . . .  Furthermore, the petition contained erroneous statements about the Co-op's by-laws.

The Board of Directors called a Special Meeting on Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 6:15 p.m. - off premises.  The Agenda did not state the purpose of the meeting.  There was barely a quorum at the meeting and the resolution was not passed.

 The Co-operative Corporations Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35, s. 70. states:

 (8) Where a by-law or resolution in respect of which a meeting of directors is requisitioned under this section is not passed or confirmed at a meeting of the members, no requisition for a meeting of directors in respect of a similar by-law or resolution shall be made for a period of at least two years. 

There is strong contention in the co-op that this whole process was rigged top down from beginning to end to ensure that the property management company remains firmly in place for years to come.

Collusion at its best!

Ex-Member Here!

After twenty-five years of living in the co-op I most talk about, we made the decision to move. The long moving process didn't seem quite real as my ties to the community were very strong and at this stage in my life, I wanted things to remain the same. Roots, I guess.

I devised ways in my mind to find a quick route back to the co-op - buses routes were too convoluted. If only I could walk diagonally to the co-op, I could be there in less than one half hour. But that would have meant walking through a swamp and trespassing on a wide expanse of railway tracks. Skateboards, roller blades and a spiffy two-seater wheelchair scooter crossed my mind, but I don't use a chair and the vision of me being the driver, with my husband in tow was too comically surrealistic for my kids. Oh well, I'm adjusting to my new locale.

There are tons of greenspaces where we live - multi-use nature paths everywhere and a connecting park every second block.There seems to be more social housing complexes in this community, but they're practically unnoticeable, as they are constructed in mostly the same manner as the private homes and just about as well maintained. Many of them back on to the beautifully landscaped multi-use walkways, extending their back yards to accommodate their own play structures. Having strolled through these complexes on our recent walks, reflecting back in time, we would have chosen to live in one of them, instead of half a lifetime living in the co-op and for reasons which I will elaborate on in future blog posts.

I may have departed the co-op, but I have not yet escaped.

ONE STOP SHOP

Proposed Occupancy By-law Excerpt:

15.2 Legal Actions by Members

If a member sues the co-op or takes other legal action against the co-op, such as a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, the Board of Directors should report the matter to the members in writing or orally at a members' meeting.  The report can include relevant detail, including relevant personal information of the person who started the action.  The Board does not have to report the matter to the members if it does not believe it would be in the best interests of the co-op to do so.  The Board would normally get legal advice about any disclosure or decision not to disclose.

15.3  External Complaints

If a member makes a complaint about the co-op to anyone outside the co-op, or sends anyone outside the co-op a copy of an internal complaint, the Board of Directors is entitled to respond to that complaint to the same persons or organizations.  In doing so it can disclose relevant personal information about the member and the member's household.  Examples include complaints sent to bodies like the Agency for Co-operative Housing, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a service manager, a government official, a newspaper, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, or a local co-op housing federation.

Intimidating threat - more to come ...

Organizational By-law No. 35

Excerpts from Organizational By-law No. 35, together with my comments:


2.3 ( c ) ii.  Pay the annual membership fee of $10.

There is now an annual fee, instead of a one-time fee.  This is a money grabbing opportunity for the co-op and it will not be universal. It will be treated like ‘fines’ - some members will be harangued and issued late fees if not paid, other members will be completely ignored.  Add one fine on top of another and eviction will soon follow.

3.2.  The Board must call regular Members; Meetings at least one (1) time a year.  This meeting is in addition to the annual meeting.

This has been changed from ‘at least three times a year and, as nearly as convenient, the annual meeting and the three regular meetings of the members shall be spaced at quarterly intervals through the year'.

3.6 (b) The Board sets the advance agenda for all Members meetings... Members can raise any matter at a meeting, but they cannot vote on it if it was not included in the agenda.

If proper notice is given, the Members can make any decision or pass any version of a by-law or budget.  The can do this even if the version they pass is different from, or contrary to the original.

Members can add items to the advance agenda as stated in 3.6 (d) and (e) of this by-law.

(d) Members can have any item put on the advance agenda. However, Members must give the Secretary written notice of the item at least seven (7) days before the deadline for sending out the notice of the meeting.

Any items that Members add will be put at the end of the advance agenda unless the Members change the order of the agenda during the meeting.

(e) If the Members do not give notice to the Secretary in time, they can, at their own expense, give written notice directly to all Members at least ten (10) days before the date of the meeting.

So, if the members fail to give the Secretary written notice at least seven (7) days before the deadline for sending out the notice, they can at their own expense give written notice to Members at least ten (10) days before the date of the meeting.  This makes no sense whatsoever.

3.8 (f) As for the Act, the Board does not have to call another meeting in response to the requisition if quorum was not present for the requisitioned meeting for two (2) years.  

This refers only to a Requisition by 10% of members to call a meeting of the Directors to pass a by-law or resolution.  It does not pertain to a Requisition by 5% of Members to call a Special Meeting.

The ACT states:

Requisition for by-law or resolution

70. (1) Ten per cent of the members of a co-operative may requisition the directors to call a meeting of the directors for the purpose of passing any by-law or resolution that may properly be passed at a meeting of the directors duly called, constituted and held for that purpose ...

(8) Where a by-law or resolution in respect of which a meeting of directors is requisitioned under this section is not passed or confirmed at a meeting of the members, no requisition for a meeting of directors in respect of a similar by-law or resolution shall be made for a period of at least two years. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.35, s. 70.


3.13 (f) When a motion or resolution presented at a requisitioned meeting is defeated, it cannot be reintroduced for two (2) years.

This only pertains to a requisitioned Board of Directors Meeting by 10% of the members to approve a by-law or resolution. 

CO-OP HAS REVERSED S. 70 & 79.

4.4 Requisition for a Member’s Meeting:

(b) The Board can include the business of the requisitioned meeting as part of any meeting that is scheduled during the time stated in Section 70 of the Act.  Therefore, it is not necessarily a separate meeting.

(c) This right to requisition does not allow the members to pass a by-law unless the Board has already passed it.  This procedure is to be used when the Board is not calling Members’ meetings as often as it should.  It does not give the Members any authority that they do not already have.

This is a manipulation.  S. 70 4 (b) of the CCA which allows for members to call a meeting and pass a by-law or resolution.

5.3 (a) To be a Director, a person must be eighteen (18) years of age or older and a member of the Co-op.

This is in conflict with the fact that members 16 years of age can apply to live in the co-op.

7.2 Supervision of Staff

(a) The Board is the final authority for the Co-op in relation to employees.  It sets the terms of employment.

(b) The employees work under the instructions of the Board.  However, the personnel policy or job description may state that some employees will work under the instructions of a senior employee.

That would be the Property Manager.

*****

Have not yet finished perusing the Organizational By-law.

Arrears By-law No. 37

Excerpts from Arrears By-law No. 37, together with my comments:

1.2  The Co-op Manager will handle arrears cases by following this Arrears By-law and when necessary, by sending arrears cases to the Board.

(It is now confirmed, the 'Manager' is now fully entrenched in this co-op.  The Co-op Manager will actually 'decide' who to put in arrears as was the case in a recent eviction.  The member owed no arrears; instead the member was asked to downsize.  When the member balked, the Property Manager revoked her subsidy retroactive to a year earlier thus throwing the member into arrears.  The Property Manager is very persuasive and convinced the members that the woman was indeed in arrears and members obediently evicted her.)

Schedule 1:  Schedule of Repayment of Arrears states that if a member owes $0.00 - $500, the member will have 30 days to pay same.  Co-op management in the past has had unimpeded success in collecting arrears from Social Services. The co-op sets the amount - the social agency pays up.  If Social Services has implemented a stricter policy in this regard, members will clearly be evicted.  No one on social assistance could possibly pay $500. in arrears in one month.  This is completely illegal. The arrears policy which had been in place since the inception of this co-op was one whereby a member could reinstate the co-op according to his/her means.

Spending By-law No. 39

Excerpts from By-law No. 39, together with my comments:

1.1  The Occupancy By-law says that each year the members will approve an operating budget for the next fiscal year. The Board has the authority to spend the operating funds of the Co-op in each fiscal year up to the amount of the complete operating budget

Unless the members decide otherwise at the time of  budget approval, the Board can use a surplus in one category of expense to offset a deficit in another category within the budget.

(The yearly budgets are ridiculous - $1,500. for legal fees, $2,400. for unit maintenance, which do not correlate with the audited statements.  A few years ago $90,000+ was budgeted for our Office Co-ordinator. At a later meeting the Treasurer had a ready-made answer - that the co-op had merely stacked that line with 'surplus funds'. In other words, a budget line entitled 'Tiddlywinks' could be stacked with $100,000. and the budget line for Legal Fees could be zero.  It makes no difference at all.)

2.2  The office will provide the board with a written budget review at least every three (3) months...

(Sounds good on paper ...)

3.2  Members' approval of the capital budget will authorize the Board to spend the Co-op's funds for capital expenditures for the purposes and from the sources specified to a maximum of the total expenditures in the budget.

(Members have approved and will continue to approve nonsensical budgets and the Board of Directors knows this.)

5.2 (c) The Board must show due diligence of trying to get three (3) written proposals for contracts and agreements of $15,000 or more.

(The co-op did not get 3 written quotes from auditing firms in January, 2014  and chose to lie about it - hence the key word 'trying' in this new by-law.)

An interview worth listening to:

http://tvo.org/video/210676/problem-fraud

Conflict of Interest By-law 36

Our co-op enlisted the services of CHASEO to revamp our by-laws in collaboration with a committee specifically chosen by our Board of Directors. 

The first package of these by-laws was delivered to members in early January. Only written comments, questions or suggestions submitted by 6:00 p.m. on February 10th will be considered. As indicated on the information letter 'No exceptions will be made'.

A meeting will be held on February 18, 2015 to approve the By-laws.  The co-op will have eight days to construct counter arguments to all written submissions and members will be forbidden to make any amendments at the meeting, as the deadline for any input was on February 10th - no exceptions!

The first by-law I'll discuss is the Conflict of Interest By-law 36. Excerpts are as follows, together with my comments.


1.1 All Directors, Officers, Committee members and Employees must carry out their duties honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the Co-operative rather than in their personal interest.

(Conflicts of interest are, and have been, inherent in this co-op since the inception.  Decisions are made based on bias, favouritism and/or pure hatred.) 

1.2 A conflict of interest can happen when someone living in a Co-op or an employee

A. Makes or takes part in a decision affecting the Co-op’s affairs, and

B. The result of that decision gives the person a financial or other benefit which the rest of the Co-op members do not have, or which only a few other members have.  This financial or other benefit may be direct or indirect.

(Like the Board Director who received all new windows and patio door, while other windows rotted in their frames.)

1.3 Examples of conflict of interest are

B.  Someone living in the Co-op or any employee is involved personally in a procedure of discipline where they made the complaint, or where a household member, friend or relative is being disciplined;

(This completely muzzles members like myself who support or represent other members who are being targeted, or who have taken legal action against the co-op, including myself.  If a member steps out of line - they will be disciplined.)

2.1 The facts of each case are different, and careful judgement is needed to decide whether there is a conflict of interest.  Even a perception of conflict of interest could undermine the appearance of integrity and the credibility of the Co-op’s business practices and the government funding program.

(Who are the Judges?  Directors whose friends have slipped into the co-op and given extraordinarily high subsidies?  The Property Manager who sidles up to the Treasurer to secure a  $63,000.+ salary and to all the other Directors who prop each other up for self gain?)

(D) The Manager/Staff person must report a conflict of interest to the Staff Liaison (if there is one) or to the President.

(This Property Manager controls the Board and has full and unimpeded access to the co-op's lawyer and controls 'the message' throughout the co-op.) 

(E) Members conflicts of interest

At members’ meetings, all members can discuss and vote as they wish, even if they have a conflict of interest.  However, members must declare the conflict of interest before taking part in the discussion.

(Any attempt by certain members to voice his/her opinion at a members meeting will be interpreted by the Board as a 'perceived conflict of interest'.)

Article 3: Avoiding Conflict of Interest

3.2 The Board will closely monitor its relationships, contracts, arrangements and agreements.  It will not engage in any that may result in a conflict of interest unless the situation is resolved as in Article 2.

Article 6: Information to the Ministry

6.1 The Board must report to the Ministry the minutes of any meeting where the Board decides to enter into a contract or agreement with a conflict of interest.  The minutes must record the options the Board considered and the Board’s decision.  The minutes must also show how the Board’s decision was in the best interests of the Co-op and is appropriate for a body that receives significant public funding.

(Really!  As if this happens!  CHASEO earns revenue from each contractor in their Cost Cutters program - a kick-back scheme if you will. )

DEAR JANE

The brief wasn't very brief at all.  It contained A-93 tabs and B-25 tabs.  It was served on us on or shortly before March 5, 2014.  I let it rest there awhile as the Hearing was some time away.  And then I began to peer inside the two-inch-high brief tab by tab. I cross-referenced documents which I had served on the co-op pertaining to our legal submissions, but was astounded by the abundance of documents under these tabs which had nothing whatsoever to do with the timing of our forced downsizing or the condition of the unit. These were solely meant to disparage us.  And then there were other kinds of documents, one of which I will describe here.

In order to prop up the co-op's assertion that they had to downsize us because of our deep subsidy, the Property Manager produced a fictitious document - a letter dated January 26, 2009 addressed to us, but with a salutation entitled 'Dear Jane', (a pseudonym for these purposes).  Our subsidy was not calculated in January, 2009, substantiated by our subsidy calculation letter signed by the then Property Manager and an outside Board Member in May, 2009 and further substantiated by email communications with our Property Manager dated February 27, 2009 and our letter to the Property Manager dated May 27, 2009.

I did, however, actively assist a member named 'Jane' through an eviction process from December through to March, 2014, and therein lies the maliciousness by the Property Manager in producing the fictitious 'pay back' document.  It's one thing to have to endure these spiteful games on a day-to-day basis, but to produce them in a Human Rights case is downright fraudulent.

We did not proceed to a full Hearing; instead our case was mediated.  I wish it had gone to a full Hearing, as these types of documents were not addressed.

The Property Manager has since stopped signing our subsidy verification forms and letters, but continues to sign sundry notices to members.