skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Members received notification of an Annual General Meeting to be held on December 7, 2011. The Agenda is tight. Members are asked to approve the Audit for the year ending March 31, 2011, to vote on a pending eviction (humiliating for the member in question), to elect a new Board of Directors, to elect a delegate to CHASEO/CHF, to elect a PIP representative and lastly, under Other Business, to introduce the new Directors.
The Agenda does not indicate how many Directors are to be elected. However, an attached job description of the Powers and Duties of the Board states: The Election of Directors shall take place yearly or at such other interval NOT EXCEEDING FOUR (4) YEARS as is provided by the "Articles", and all Directors then in Office shall "retire", BUT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RE-ELECTION. (REF: Section 90 (2) of the ACT)
This article stipulates that ALL Directors must resign. Does this mean that the external Director(s) must resign too? There will definitely be a manipulation of this rule. This clause also allows for the re-election of the present internal Directors - a tricky, but clever, move on the part of the present Board of Directors.
The Duty of Directors attachment goes on to quote another clause of the 'ACT' as follows: The "Articles" or By-Laws may provide for the election and retirement of Directors in rotation, but in that case no Director shall be elected for a term of more than four (4) years and at least two Directors shall retire from Office in each year. (REF: Section 90 (4) of the ACT)
So why the two opposing references to the ACT? The Board of Directors want to cherry pick part of one reference and part of the other. To further elaborate on this scheme, the Property Manager/Board of Directors includes an additional paragraph: b) Any qualified Member of ____ may run or rerun as the case may be, without any mandatory waiting period, as is consistent with the "Volunteer Principles" of the Co-operative Movement and with the Provisions of Section 90 of the ACT. Refer to ARTICLE 10.00 on the Members' Right to Remove any Director before the end of the Elected Term.
Our By-laws stipulate that a Director whose time in office has expired, must retire for one year before running for election. The reference to Article 10.00 means that if you're really tired of a Director who has been in office for 4 years and gets re-elected for another 4 years, there's a solution for that - simply expel him/her from office. Of course, a majority of members would have to vote on that option in order to take effect.
"What does the 'Volunteer Principles" of the Co-operative Movement mean? It can mean absolutely anything, at any time, by a party or parties twisted enough to invoke them.
There are references to our By-laws throughout this briefing, yet time and time again the Board of Directors state that we do not have any By-laws - that they were set aside for a period of 3 years. The Financial Solvency By-law No. 31 only allowed for the co-op to bring in non-resident Board Directors. Our By-laws remain intact. The By-law reads as follows: THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY BY-LAW NO. 31
Be it Enacted as a By-law of _______ as follows:
PART I - BASIS OF THIS BY-LAW
1. Purpose of this By-law: The purpose of this By-law is
to put the Co-op on a sound financial basis and to bring the Co-op's business and operations into good order.
to provide for a temporary three-year Board of Directors that will include non-resident members and will be able to accomplish the purposes stated above.
to provide for a process of returning to exclusively resident directors within three years.
2. Priority: This By-law takes priority over all other By-laws of the Co-op, including the Organizational By-law (By-law #4). If there is any conflict or inconsistency, this By-law governs.The words 'accountable' and 'transparency' are not mentioned under the Powers and Duties of the Board and that's a good thing, because there is no time slot in this Agenda for members to discuss the Board's past or present performance on such issues as not overseeing the performance of our previous Office Co-ordinator, not ensuring the the Co-op's property is adequately maintained, not keeping members apprised of the financial affairs of the co-op, etc., etc.
The machinations of this purported democracy are mind boggling.
On October 30th, I wrote to the Property Manager about getting a stairlift installed under the RRAP program. To date I have not received a reply.
On November 2nd, I emailed work orders (which have been outstanding for a year) to the office. I received a reply from the Office Co-ordinator on November 3rd indicating that she was going to forward these to the maintenance team. To date these work orders are still outstanding.
I also asked about when the elections would be and how many positions would be available on the Board of Directors. The Office Co-ordinator stated that she'd get back to me within days. I have not yet received a response.
Our previous Office Co-ordinator did not do the subsidy calculations last February. In August the co-op sent out notices indicating that it was subsidy renewal time and instructed members to submit their documentation once again. Members have heard nothing since. Was the request for new documentation merely a ruse to satisfy the auditor's request because the documentation we submitted in February was no where to be found? On November 11th, I wrote the Office Co-ordinator asking for the return of the documents we submitted in February. I did not receive a reply to my request.
The Human Rights action my husband initiated with the co-op has begun. The only comment I will make at this time is that we will be responding to the co-op's lawyer's assertion that we cost the co-op a whole lot of money in vacancy losses. We will address other issues in due course.
Ten days ago I emailed a request to our Property Manager to have a stairlift installed in my unit, as I will be undergoing an operation on my Achilles Tendon. CMHC has a program called RRAP, a residential rehabilitation assistance program, which loans are forgivable. This is my first foray into accommodation rights for disabled persons. I have not yet received a reply to my email.
Even though a property management company has been hired to oversee maintenance issues in our co-op, no one has seen any maintenance men on site. I emailed a list of outstanding work orders to our Office Co-ordinator and was assured that they'd be passed on to the maintenance crew. In addition to this, an electrician was supposed to arrange an appointment with us to have our electrical panel inspected. We have not been contacted on either front.
In the meantime I think a miracle is occurring. Dr. Scholl's heel lifts seem to give me relief while stretching to rake up leaves. Now that is wholesome news.
As a follow up to my post entitled Tragedy on the Commons in June, 2010, there's more news to report. The accused is well known in this community and landscaped several paths in our greenspace. Many of us were interviewed by detectives about the accused's comings and goings and his peculiarities. We may never know the extent of his crimes, nor how many victims may have been disposed of in our forested area. We have reported some disturbing findings to the police over the years, but we have no idea about any follow through. The hydro corridor is only one part of our greenspace. The clear cutting most likely was to preserve the integrity of the electrical grid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/11/04/ottawa-cleroux-preliminary-hearing.html
THEN
THEN AGAIN
AND NOW
AND NOW
MORE OF NOW
What unimaginable devastation! Gone are the grape vines, raspberries, strawberries, cherry trees, and all varieties of blossoms. Hydro Ontario used to trim the bushes and trees - not any more. This property was a flight route for birds - a stop over if you will, with lots of fruit bearing trees and bushes to nibble on. What about the wildlife which used to roam this greenspace? And to add insult to injury, we can't get any information from Hydro Ontario as to why they clear cut our greenspace. The only comment they made was that the community feels 'safer' now. I'll say - now that we can see clearly for 3 kms. in all directions ...
I received an answer to my email to the office regarding the state of our basement. The Property Manager will be bringing in a foundation repair company to assess various basement problems in the co-op. The Property Manager, was (and maybe still is) one of our non-resident Board Members. She is an employee, or part owner, of the management company hired to oversee our co-op. Progress or conflict of interest?
Elections are months overdue. Still no word about subsidy confirmations. No visible work is being done in the co-op, yet we are still standing. The co-op has asked the Human Rights Tribunal for a month's extension in the action we have taken against them, one factor being that the co-op is still undergoing an audit. That's the longest audit I've ever heard of ...
