Crushed!

Members were notified yesterday that the co-op is under new management, well - actually four layers of management to be precise. For the first time in our co-op's history a realty management company, which manages large office buildings in the City of Ottawa, will manage our "development in a competent professional manner". BUT, they don't say what they'll be managing. Will they be responsible for co-op maintenance only? They, in turn, will take their orders from our Property Manager, who is also on our Board of Directors. Included in this pyramid is our Office Co-ordinator, and last but not least, our Board of Directors. Left at the bottom of the heap are our lowly Members, who will have NO say.

Will a Yertle the Turtle type burp have any effect on this grand scheme?

Monday Update

As per the Property Manager's request I forwarded her a copy of The Privacy Commissioner of Canada's decision regarding documentation to be used for calculating one's subsidy. She stated that she wanted to pass this information on to CHASEO, CHF and the Office Co-ordinators in the City of Ottawa - the very same written instructions I had asked the previous Office Co-ordinator to do this past April. The Property Manager did not acknowledge receipt of the decision, even though she seemed very anxious to share this 'news' with the co-op sector.

My husband initiated a Human Rights Tribunal action against the co-op a few months ago. The Human Rights Tribunal sent our claim to the co-op and received no reply. They will try again and if they receive no response, they will render a judgment.

A few weeks ago a maintenance man assessed our outstanding work orders, as he did in other units. This man has since been hired - we have heard nothing more about these work orders.

When we transitioned from ODSP to OAS, our income changed. The previous Office Co-ordinator kept delaying a recalculation of our subsidy, so I calculated it for her: Income x 30%, less credit for utilities and a credit for our sump pump. When the annual subsidy renewals were to be calculated this past April, she didn't do them, telling some members, 'That's OK, your subsidy is the same as last year'. Our Office Co-ordinator is no longer with us, but some members are paying for her lax ways. Notices of Eviction are now being served to long-standing responsible members, even though the members were never notified that they were in arrears. Members in this situation have no representation - Housing Help won't help co-op members, nor will Community Legal Clinics or Legal Aid. The co-op sector added fuel to the fire by asserting that Para-legals could not represent members, which has no 'legal' basis whatsoever.

Will we soon receive our Notice of Eviction?

Frigid Waters

On April 15, 2009 our co-op voted for a Financial Solvency By-law. The alternative was to go into Court ordered Receivership. The crisis was set out as follows:

1. The arrears and vacancy rates have created a cash flow loss in the co-op.

2. The subsidy is over-allocated and has created an internal subsidy program that the co-op cannot afford.

3. The cash flow crisis means that repairs are not getting done and vacant units cannot be adequately marketed.

4. The capital reserves have been heavily used in recent years. There are insufficient funds for current major repair needs.

5. The community has no lasting trust in the successive boards that it elects. It results in a hostile atmosphere that has delayed important and effective decision-making in the co-op. It creates lack of pride, concern and enjoyment by co-op members.

A representative of The Agency told us that there were a dozen other housing co-ops in Ontario which were also 'in care'. We were to be governed by 3 non-resident and 2 resident Board Members. Our By-laws were to be suspended for 3 years.* There would be no committees, although social and gardening volunteerism would be allowed.

We are now 2 1/2 years into this 3-year plan. There are no visible improvements in the co-op, nor in the sense of community. The All Members Meeting, which should have been held in June, might be held this month. If so, another resident member will be elected to the Board, replacing a non-resident Board member. Next year, technically speaking, the co-op should revert back to the membership. It would be interesting to hear how the dozen other co-ops 'in care' are doing. Without signals from other co-ops in dire straights, we are a lone drifting iceberg.

*Our By-laws are cherry-picked - invoked at will.

Privacy Commissioner of Canada's Ruling x 2

Subsidy Renewal Applications were delivered last week. Members had submitted these same forms in February of this year, but our previous Office Co-ordinator did not do the calculations. My first question is: What happened to our documents? There was no security whatsoever in the office. Paperwork was endlessly strewn about the common room, letters were found in the recycling bin unshredded and documents were undoubtedly removed from the office.

The subsidy form delivered is the same form we complained about to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The form makes reference to FBA/GW. Family Benefits and General Welfare were replaced by Ontario Works in 1998. The form still includes the demand for the drug card used by these recipients. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada in April, 2011, ruled that the drug card neither confirms who the beneficiaries are under these programs, nor how many residents occupy a unit. It merely denotes who is covered under the drug card. [See post - April 13, 2011]

The co-op would have received a copy of this ruling, but nevertheless, I sent a typed copy to the office, to which I received no reply. I resent this copy to the office last week and received a polite and almost curious response, asking if I could send her a copy of the original ruling, so that she may inform CHASEO, CHF and the Office Co-ordinators throughout the city. The Privacy Commissioner's office in their investigation, also interviewed The Agency regarding their demand for the drug card. The Agency stated that they DO NOT require the drug card as proof of income. So this leads me to my second question: Why on earth wouldn't The Agency notify the Office administrators of co-ops, not only in Ottawa, but throughout Ontario AND issue them new forms in light of the fact that The Agency receives millions of dollars each year to oversee co-ops? Personally, I think that The Agency responded to the Privacy Commissioner's Office with, 'Who Us? Of course not - we're completely on top of everything'. In other words, they covered up!

What is really disturbing is that my husband and I had to go outside the co-op movement in order to effect change within the co-op movement. We will await the new subsidy forms with patient anticipation.

A Question of Balance

Our co-op is presently undergoing an audit since the departure of our Office Co-ordinator and the Maintenance man - the first audit having been done in the first quarter of this year. Word has it that an All Members Meeting will be held after the audit is completed.

On Track

Last week I emailed the office with some work orders and within two hours a maintenance man came by to assess the work to be done. It was just about an instantaneous response. The company at that point was not hired, they were in the process of giving estimates to the co-op. We were really impressed with this maintenance man's professionalism, knowledge and respectful ways and conveyed that to the office. This company also works for other co-ops in the city.

JACK

Jack Layton: 1950-2011