2010 hosted the first AGM that I can recall being adjourned for lack of a Sunridge Estates quorum, and it was the first general meeting I have attended where there was any swearing.
Ironically, after myself and others were induced to leave at 7:15 the meeting was only 1 short of a 22 vote quorum, which included proxies when it was officially adjourned at 7:30.
The AGM was held on February 4, 2010, but out of 68 owners, 43 could still not bring themselves to attend; which is unfortunate. Owners should pay more attention and re-think their priorities if they value peace, order, and good government over strife, chaos, and shame.
Measuring dogs was defeated.
Al MacLeod was not.
Instead of a council of 7, we got Mr Mac and 3 others, 2 of whom resigned.
Just because others would not stand for council with Mr Mac being the first nominated - we did not have to be inescapably stuck with him by acclamation - he still needed a minimum number of votes.
Everyone nominated was elected, including a new neighbour in unit 410, who was not the registered owner and not eligible. We don't know whether he was entitled to vote or held a proxy.
If I understand correctly, out of the votes, which included 13 by proxy and most of the rest being elderly owners without strata blog access, or newcomers without Sunridge experience, Mr Mac got 25, which was over the number required to be valid. However, a number of those votes are in serious question and may not have been cast if proxy votes had not been handed over without disclosure of Mr Mac's conflicts of interest and the associated dangers to the strata corporation had been comprehended before Mr Mac got in, started swearing, and people started resigning.
Most importantly, it is appears that ballots that were not submitted were counted as votes cast in favour of everyone nominated, rather than as abstentions. This affects the validity of the election.
One of the many examples of this misrepresentation is recorded in the minutes as
CARRIED. For - 37 / Against - 0 / abstentions - 0 with respect to a bizarre resolution that "those elected serve on council for the next fiscal year", which was made after the secret ballot vote. In protest, my husband and I did not participate in that vote, and others - including the motions to approve the agenda, the budget, and last year's minutes - yet the minutes erroneously count us as having voted "For" everything, except for where we picked our battles and actively voted to abstain or oppose. This was how the votes on every motion were recorded for the whole AGM - so it made little difference how many votes, if any, were actually cast as "For". I didn't participate in this particular motion as in my opinion it was a useless motion, in conflict with both the secret ballot vote and the law, which is to elect council to serve until they resign or owe money, or for one year until the next AGM - not the next fiscal year which would in effect force owners into holding an AGM on New Years Eve.
The way abstensions were recorded as votes in favour at the AGM is not an innocent misrepresentation of the votes cast, but a deliberate one; made knowingly after actually counting votes cast for and against. As strata managers erroneously advise on the Strata Property Act based on generally accepted practices through the strata industry, they are actually going away beyond just practicing law without a licence, but are taking on the role of judges also. The act says votes "cast" not votes "assumed" as subversively as negative option billing.
The lady who bought unit 412 was unwilling to serve on council because it looked like too much work when so much of the property manager's job, such as preparing minutes, had been transferred to members of council. She asked, "Why is that?"
The answer, as far as I have seen, is that Mr Mac wanted, (or, needed, with respect to negligent or criminal activities) as much power as possible in his own hand to lessen the risk of his role in matters being exposed in minutes or correspondence such that he would be held accountable for damages. The other reason, in my opinion, was that he effectively brought the strata corporation close to the brink of bankruptcy and desperately needed to implement cost-saving measures, such as do-it-yourself gardening and deck painting, to hide the financial crisis and stave off being sued for damages.
I should have spoken up and answered her at the meeting; but people become conditioned to things, like a frog in a pot on the stove, and once again I was too stunned by everything else that was going on. In any event, from what she said it sounded to me as if a review of Mr Mac's past minutes could be deterring careful people from, not just involving themselves on council, but from buying here at all.
*********************
In spite of everything, a couple of members of council puntuated Mr Mac's boasts with praise for how he set things up for the new council (nothing new about that; he never lets go) and how hard he worked, (which is so true; God help us) without regard to the costs. He was nominated for council by Donna Blight, who told the meeting that Mr Mac had been really helpful to her since she moved in, and said she
"can't believe" that he cut down our trees without a permit or a vote while we were on vacation and then advertised the wide open view of the unit above us.
Donna was clearly undeterred by evidence of Mr Mac acting in conflicts of interest on council while selling real estate in the complex, including the roles of himself, not to mention his collegue and city councillor, Mae Reid, of Prudential Sterling Realty, in the enormously expensive extra deck fiasco, which he described in the same ad as "bonus - sunrises and sunsets on separate decks". Donna showed no interest in investigation and expressed no concern for others, saying only that Mr Mac had been helpful to herself. Donna gives fresh blood to the remaining 25% of owners are still willing to support Mr Mac and ignore his failure to act in good faith rather than in his own self interest, with willful blindness to the continuing unfairness of a 25% minority of owners who are beneficiaries of those nice, big, extra decks that the other 75% pay for whether they can afford to or not.
Dave Hensman, President of Teamwork Property Management Ltd., (referred to in the minutes as the "Broker") said what sounded as if Mr Mac had asked council at the AGM on January 28, 2010, to sign an agreement under section 9-3 of the Real Estate Services Act Rules, which would allow him to participate on council while selling real estate within the complex. Mr Hensman said it would be attached to the minutes.
Mr Hensman gave an explanation of how a member of council's opportunities to act in a conflict of interest respecting their own unit are multiplied when they are selling real estate within the complex, and how the costs of management increase in proportion to the increased risks of liability and time taken in trying to manage such conflicts.
This item of business was sprung as a surprise, without notice. In fact, as a point of order, the co-chair ,Nini Nestor, clearly gave notice that no new items of business could be raised from the floor and arbitrarily announced that there was no unfinished business. No disclosure of the conflict issues was included in the notice of the meeting or the agenda, so all of the owners were not made aware of the dangers Mr. Mac's involvement would place the strata corporation in before blindly signing over their proxy votes.
When asked for an example, Mr Hensman said there were many - it could be a decision to repair one unit and not another - to keep strata fees or costs down or when one unit was more likely than another to generate a commission for the realtor on council.
I have direct, personal knowledge of the covert nature of that scenario; the litany of correspondence produced; the triggering event in an endless revolution of property management; the budget challenges and extra cost burden to meet the strata's repair obligations without access to insurance benefits for which premiums were paid; and the posting of blogs on the world wide web - none of which is in the best interests of the strata corporation. Mr Mac's client didn't have to pay the insurance deductible; we were left in their wake with endless grief; fighting forever for repairs to be completed.
Nini Nestor and Ruth Taylor were pretty quiet; Nini sort of reminded me of Joan MacDougall; I'm not certain why exactly.
In response to the conflict issue Mr Mac said "you can't stop me from earning a living" once again demonstrating his long and successful experience in combining skillful exaggeration with partial suppression of the truth in confusing the real issues. He is so adept at the half-lie that it's dangerous. His full lies are easier to expose. He is evasive and full of misleading information.
When it comes to common property he has no concept of mutually acceptable equitable sharing or procedural integrity. He destroyed common property leaving it looking like a war zone for years, exploiting the vulnerabilies owners and pressuring them until they were forced to pay for extra decks for a 25% minority, instead of trees for everyone else.
Mr Mac was pretty fired up throughout the AGM with his customary mix of boasting and hurling accusations, mostly associated with what seemed to me like his own misconduct.
Mr Mac raised various strata record issues, which sounded to me as if he was instrumental in setting up. Teamwork was saying some records, including some (litigation?) binders, were missing or not passed on to the 2009 council; and what was passed on for signature and filing by the new council was an error-ridden consolidated set of bylaws, about which Mr Mac was now making an issue.
I've seen Mr Mac use the same technique so often over the years in covering up after himself that I recognized the familiar bait and switch, smoke and mirrors pattern. It was, however, the first time I've seen anyone from a property managagement company stand up to Mr Mac. It was something to see - it really was. In my opinion it was worthy of a standing ovation.
With respect to the issues that were raised about strata records being tampered with or missing, I told the meeting that Mr Mac took them all when he had no more probable reason (re tampering, after cutting down trees instead of reinstating strata plan decks)and absolutely no right to after he resigned
When Mr Mac started yelling and swearing at Mr Hensman from Teamwork, they resigned as our property management company.
Mr Hensman said what sounded as if the 2009 council was great to work with but Mr Mac wrecked so much havoc last year, even while not on council, that his company was not willing to continue on as our strata manager if Mr Mac was going to be on council. Donna, the nice lady who nominated Mr Mac pleaded, repeatedly, practically begging Mr Hensman not to resign; it was as if she just "can't believe" there could possibly be any serious offences with respect to Mr Mac. Mr Hensman told her it would be impossible for Teamwork to go forward with Mr Mac on council.
Mr Hensman said the strata corporation is losing good people who won't work on council with Mr Mac. He told the owners that this strata has serious systemic problems with respect to Mr Mac. He gave us the strongest possible warning.
Council approved Mr Mac's request to relieve him of a duty to act honestly, with reasonable care and skill, such that the strata corporation is not entitled to the same protections otherwise applicable.
The whole thing, once again raises the issue of filing a criminal complaint with the RCMP and taking action to recover compensation for the millions of dollars of damage to the strata corporation, common property, and human life.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE
After having the same strata management company for 16 years, from 1987 to 2003, - we will be on our 7th strata management company in a scant 6 years, from 2004 to 2010, - and about our 10th property manager since Mr Mac moved in here on March 15, 2002. I suspect that it is getting increasingly difficult and ever more costly to find property management for this troubled strata corporation.
I have discovered evidence that leads me to believe that while Mr Mac was the strata president he utilized the strata corporation and new strata managers, in combination with harassment and the passage of time, so as to gain access to the $10,000 holdback on unit 518, which belonged to Mr and Mrs Halford, at least according to the August 23, 2004 date of the special levy, which was well beyond the agreed upon end date of March 1, 2004 in Mr Mac's contract of purchase and sale.
Mr Mac could not allow me to have access to strata records in time to warn the Halfords before he got his hands on that money. The strata corporation had no business handling that money in any way and could now be liable for more than $10,000 in damages.
*********************
Of course, Mr MacLeod held off on swearing until after he got back on council. Trevor Neuman was swearing and hurling threats about water shut-offs pretty much as soon as he opened his mouth, and although he would probably work well with Mr Mac, he was not nominated to fill a seat.
With Mr Mac as the first name nominated, it was not possible to fill all the seats on council so there are 6 on council this year, instead of 7. Amanda and Sheila stayed on; although I didn't hear anyone nominate either of them. I may have missed it. For whatever reason, Amanda Parent, having spoken in support of Mr Mac at the meeting, resigned right afterward.
