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.  

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.