a terrible state

The maintenance committee has since told Anna that only emergency maintenance will be dealt with by the committee while the property is under appeal. This decision was not taken to the general meeting, and seems to be an example of discrimination against Anna (and other appellants). It should be noted that any property handed over to another co-op or association will need to be handed over in a proper state of maintenance, and if they are not handed over then maintenance will need to be done as usual, so there is no rationale for this decision.

As she has felt intimidated by the presence of maintenance committee members in her house, when they have raised issues irrelevant to the matter at hand – including discussion of Anna’s membership – Anna has been reluctant to deal with the maintenance committee directly, though she has always communicated any requests and concerns in writing. Many of the committee’s written responses have been dismissive and factually inaccurate. Responses are often back-dated, to cover up for the inertia of the committee.

It should be noted that Anna is well aware that the maintenance committee cannot all be expert in maintenance matters, nor is it to be expected that all maintenance matters will be dealt with as promptly as tenants may hope for, but the lack of respect for Anna shown by maintenance committee members, the constant distortions of her requests, and the systematic abuse with which she has been treated have made her position in the co-op untenable. Since she has done nothing wrong herself, she feels strongly that she shouldn’t be penalised by losing her house, which would indeed leave the maintenance committee with a sense that this is ultimately a ‘victory’ for them.

Apart from her difficulties with her neighbour and with the maintenance committee, Anna has had to contend with the behaviour of members at general meetings. As someone for whom English is not her first language, she has found it difficult having to compete with other members to have her views heard. This is of course not how co-operative meetings should be conducted. In the document defending the decision not to agree to transfer properties, the co-op states that ‘unfortunately there will at times be unavoidable conflict’ at meetings. While nobody wishes to deny this, the document makes no admission whatsoever about the enormous degree of conflict that has existed in this particular co-op for a number of years, resulting in largely futile attempts to mediate or resolve the situation by SACHA and CHC. A great number of women have left the co-op due to stress or dissatisfaction with co-op members’ behaviour, and it is very clear from the omissions and distortions in the co-op’s submission to this appeal that the co-op, or those entrenched members responsible for the terrible state the co-op is in (and they would no doubt have been responsible for preparing this submission) have no intention of changing their practices or acknowledging the damage they have done and the suffering they have caused. To illustrate this point, an attempt was made to organise training and conflict resolution sessions with Karen Burns to get the co-op back on track. Anna attended the first session but it was poorly attended by other members and the sessions had to be abandoned.