facing the old guard

In conclusion, I feel that SACHA should be reminded of its duty to intervene in a situation such as this, where a co-operative has irretrievably broken down due to breaches of co-operative principles as expressed in the Housing Co-operatives Act 1991, the relative sections of which are outlined in the submission to the meeting of November 1 2004. Anna feels that her situation also reflects that of other members who are unable or unwilling to make a stand against a powerful and manipulative minority in the co-op. The co-op has written of its excellent financial state. As a person who has been treasurer of a co-op over a number of years I know that the financial state of a co-op can be and usually is the result of efforts by individual members and can be completely divorced from the state of health of the co-op itself, so I don’t see this as a valid argument for maintaining the status quo.

I would finally recommend to the appeals panel the letter of the co-op’s former Chair, Sheila Ward, dated 8/1/05, as an excellent summary of Anna’s particular difficulties with the co-op.

That appeal submission has finally been delivered, and it’s in the hands of the appeals committee, which will present its findings to the SACHA board at the end of February. we spent a gruelling day at SACHA, Sarah and I, with our ‘clients’ – Sarah represented one appellant in the afternoon, I represented the other in the morning. We faced three old guard co-op members, described by Sarah as the squadron leader, the faithful lieutenant and the dumb corporal. The squadron leader of course did most of the talking, and the term trepverter comes to me again. I’m never able to come out with the right rejoinder at the right time. I was asked to summarise at the end, and not being familiar with the process, I was unprepared - my initial submission had been written. I did respond to the remarks from the other side about Anna’s moving day. The squadron leader actually said to the panel that Anna shouldn’t have been given her keys on that day, backing up the neighbour’s claim that she should have been sent home with all her goods and chattels on a hot day in late January, only to return the next day when she had her pay slip. In criticising this, (I said it was ridiculous) I unfortunately failed to target the squadron leader, and the fact that she still insisted, after knowing about Anna’s legitimate explanations, that the letter of the law should come before trust. I spoke only of the general behaviour towards Anna on that day, and I’m sure the panel accepted my point.

The other point I missed was more serious. During discussions about the maintenance committee’s responses to Anna’s maintenance issue, the stormwater drain and the flooding of Anna’s small garden was brought up. The squadron leader said, almost in an aside, that of course Anna had dug the garden up to make the flooding look worse than it was (presumably before photographing it – she brought much photographic evidence to the appeal). This jaw-dropping claim was totally unsubstantiated.