June 1, 2010 Minutes

These minutes are terrible. Just full of misrepresentations.

10 Jun01 cam

November 30, 2006

In this blog I present one example of council meetings being commandeered by the chair - and the type of misrepresentations and bias and non-existent votes on non-existent resolutions that management arbitrarily inserts into official strata records.

The following posts address the first page or two of the minutes of November 30, 2006. The full 12 pages of these minutes can be viewed by clicking Full Screen and Zoom and then Back to return to this post.

November 30, 2006, Council Meeting

0611 Nov30

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law minutes

Votes on issues raised by us are missing from the minutes and erroneous proclamations and misrepresentations published in substitution and circulated as an official and permanent public record are harmful to us. A review of the minutes recorded by Mr. Mac and Ms. MacD over a certain period reveals a pattern of errors and ommissions that seems to significantly exceed innocent misrepresentation. I believe it's fraudulent.

I don't have what it takes to provide rebuttals to defamatory attacks made repeatedly in the minutes, and even if I did, defending against such misrepresentations is boring, time consuming, traumatic, exhausting, and seemingly futile. Suffice it to say that strata property legislation requires that decisions be made by votes of council - not by arbitrary proclamations by the chair - which is what happens here.

Rebuttal to Page 1 of Minutes

1. The first page of this example can be viewed by clicking on the image below, and then clicking on the back arrow to view the response that follows.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

We left this hearing in a state of shock. The declarations by the chair were so fast-paced that our heads spun. In fact, the sheer volume of addressing in less than 3 hours nearly 70 items on the agenda, many of them major (including a flagrantly biased and blatantly unfair vote to approve an application for an extra deck for another unit) may provide an indication of the lack of deliberation. We cannot recall even one resolution or vote on any of the 18 issues we raised.

I must nevertheless try to respond to the chair's declarations, paragraph by paragraph, to the best of my ability.

4-star Introduction

The framed box published in the center of page 1 of the minutes contains the first misrepresentations:

**** The issues raised by the Owners of Unit #409 will be addressed in these Minutes and no further correspondence will be issued to them.

It says "The issues raised by the Owners of Unit #409 will be addressed in these minutes" but resolutions to decide on said issues, many of which remain outstanding since 2001, were not made, discussed, or voted on by council. In fact, the members of council were not given access to my correspondence or any reasonable opportunity to address the issues contained in it, and our efforts to do so were effectively quashed by an extremely manipulative and overpowering chair.

The next misrepresentation is the claim that "no further correspondence will be issued to them". Such an avoidance policy is not only a probable violation of duty, but oppressive correspondence containing further misrepresentations, which probably should not have been issued to us, was in fact issued.

It is not only the factual misrepresentations that we object to. An introduction of this nature circulated in the official permanent record fits into an insidious pattern that we believe cultivates a false and negative impression of us, one that contributes to a hostile environment for strata living.

Enclosing this kind of negative misrepresentation within a framed box, and adding emphasis with 4 stars, published in the center of the front page, makes it just that much more troubling.

Next 2 sentences:
The guest Owners had 18 items to address with Council; some were old issues that have been dealt with by the previous Council. Many of these items concerned landscaping.

Implying that landscaping matters were "old issues" that had been "dealt with by the previous Council" is the next misrepresentation made in these minutes.

Examination of all of the minutes, as well as the landscaping itself, particularly around unit 409 show that our landscaping issues had not been dealt with by the previous Council. The fact that essential trees were arbitrarily cut down and destroyed without a vote, without authorization, and without need, by a person who said he had the right to take action against others, and the strata manager who prepared these minutes quietly paid the tree cutters and stump grinders and left the common property effectively vandalized, particularly around unit 409, which has been in the most unreasonable state of bare dirt and virulent weeds for more than 4 years and counting, has still not been addressed. With regard to the cost of the damages, I asked at the meeting what would be the price for the tree replacement. Nobody seemed to have the slightest idea, not even the strata management who prepared our strata budgets, and no action was taken to claim compensation for the damages under the strata's directors and officers liability insurance, or otherwise. When I asked the same question of the next council, Trevor Neuman said that he estimated it would cost $15,000 to replace a single mature tree and that mature trees are not always available or viable for transplant. Although all of this was excluded from the minutes, based on the information he provided, the cost could be 2 million dollars higher than it should have been, or than was in the special levy budget; so our landscaping issues have persisted for years and the related damages and crushing costs of reinstatement have still not been addressed. In fact, if our building is an average example of the 17 buildings in the complex, I estimate the number of trees that had to be cut down for the building envelope scaffolding to be only 30 to 50 trees, not over 150. I don't see how this could an "old issue" - particularly when the limitation period for the strata corporation to take remedial action against Mr. Mac and/or Ms. MacD for their actions had not expired, and I don't see how any of these issues could be said to have "been dealt with" at any time.

Item #1 - Landscaping

The minutes claim that:
The Owners wanted to point out their concerns regarding the landscaping and that it be maintained at a “reasonable standard”. The Owners were encouraged to see Trevor Neuman in Unit #223, who has volunteered to oversee the landscaping reinstatement and has been working with the landscape architect. One of the issues raised is their desire to talk directly with the landscape architect and by volunteering to assist the Owner of #223 they would be able to contribute to the planning process. Subject closed.

We think Item #1 contains the 3rd, 4th, and 5th misrepresentations in these minutes. Let's say the 3rd misrepresentation is the statement that we wanted to "point out" our concerns regarding the landscaping - we didn't want to point out our concerns - we had already done that in several previous letters to council, which we had to assume they had read - we wanted resolutions, assumed by the chair if necessary, voted on by council, and the chance to witness and respond to any corresponding discussion or debate during deliberations on the issues we had raised.

The 4th misrepresentation is the statement that we would be "able to contribute to the planning process". I volunteered repeatedly, but was most definitely not allowed to contribute. Owners, including myself, tried to serve on a landscaping committee, but in spite of our efforts, and contrary to the misrepresentations published repeatedly in the minutes, there has effectively been no landscaping committee so far this millennium. My repeated requests, both verbal and written, to schedule a meeting with Trevor were persistently rebuffed and refused as were my repeated requests to participate on a landscaping committee, obtain copies of landscaping documents, or work with any "landscape architect" from 2003 forward. In fact, I was strictly prohibited from having any contact our landscape architect. Naturally I am concerned that just before said landscape architect quit he advised a meeting of owners that strata never informed him of the restrictive covenants that run with the land or of our history of geotechnical issues with the slope.

The 5th misrepresentation is that the subject of landscaping is "closed". I doubt if anyone can believe that. At the time of writing this it is nearly 3 years after the so-called hearing, and our unit is still surrounded with bare dirt and virulent weeds, with no "landscaping reinstatement" of our trees and plants, much less landscaping "maintained at a reasonable standard". Instead, as the cut trees were not replaced and their roots decomposed our unit sank twice, with the common property peppered with patched pavement from suddenly breaking pipes, further damaging our property value and adding to costs.

Item #2 - Structural Damage from 2003

The minutes state that:
The Owners continue to insist that flooding in their unit, due to a burst Crane toilet tank, resulted in structural damage to their unit and the floors are not level and the doors do not close. Morrison Hershfield, Heatherbrae Construction and a restoration company previously investigated these complaints and did not find them valid. No written report was received. The Owners were advised that Council would be willing to consider having a qualified expert that was agreeable to both the Owners and the Strata Council on behalf of the Owners review these concerns and that if their opinion was concurrent with the previous opinions the Owners would agree to close this issue once and for all. The other suggestion was that if the complaints were not considered valid by the expert then the Owners would pay the cost for the expert's site visit and review. The Owners declined and further discussion, and any potential resolution, was tabled; this issue will be deferred until the new Council is elected at the upcoming Annual General Meeting.

As we see it the 6th misrepresentation in these minutes is in the claim that our complaints are not valid. This could be seen to undermine our credibility and cloud the fact that no insurance investigation or reasonable proposal was made to satisfy the strata corporation's duty to repair the water damage to our unit. Furthermore, we have no knowledge as to what advice strata management has requested from experts with regard to our complaints or what investigated and valid are supposed to mean with regard to the structural damage to the floors and doors in our unit.

What we do know is this:

1. When the strata corporation's engineer, Tam London, finally investigated he confirmed in writing that that the warping in unit 409 was consistent with water damage;
2. Water damage was covered for repairs at full replacement value under mandatory strata corporation insurance;
3. The strata manager chairing this meeting did not make an insurance claim for these repairs before the time limit expired;
4. Our complaint is that repairs to our unit were limited to cosmetic surfaces only and excluded water damage to the surrounding structures;
5. The strata corporation has an ongoing duty to repair and maintain the structure of the buildings;
6. The strata corporation has made proposals that would shift its obligations onto us;
7. Any potential resolution to this matter was tabled since 2003;
8. We have been advised that if we tried to sell our unit it would be listed as a "fixer upper" and we would have to sign a disclosure statement to the prospective purchaser confirming the unrepaired water damage.

That's it for page 1.
I will continue with page 2 - paragraph by paragraph - and stop at page 3 - for now.

http://www.elimina.com/insights/

Rebuttal to Page 2

Page 2 of these minutes can be read by clicking on the image below, and then clicking on the back arrow to return to this posting.

Item #3 - Deck Extension:

The minutes claim that:
The Owners wanted to have a tree replaced by their unit that they claim was cut down in order to extend the deck of Unit #407 or, alternatively, be allowed to modify their deck with an equivalent extension. In general, no deck applications are being approved until the Strata Corporation's overall deck issues can be resolved, and a standard specification and bylaw to address decks can be agreed upon by the Ownership by means of a resolution that will require a 3/4 vote of a quorum of Owners at an Annual General Meeting or Special General Meeting.

The 7th misrepresentation in these minutes is the claim that no deck applications are being approved until the Strata Corporation's overall deck issues can be resolved - when we have been making a variety of requests for a remedial deck extension ever since 2001, and with the chair's support at the same meeting Council approved Unit 516's request for an extra deck, without complying with either strata legislation or building codes.

The record shows under Business arising from the Minutes, item #1 Deck Requests: "It was moved, seconded (MathesonlBryson) and carried, with 3 in favour and 1 opposed, to approve the deck request by the Owner of #516, with the provision that this approval is subject to an annual review and, if required by Council, would have to be removed at the Owners expense."

We think the 8th misrepresentation lies in implying that unit 409's request and the strata corporation's deck issues could not have been resolved at that meeting.

All that was required was for council to do their job and pass a resolution to give owners reasonable notice that permission for exclusive use of common property would be not be granted without a 3/4 vote of owners to change the use and appearance of common property from the strata plan and payment of user fees calculated with a similar formula as set out in the strata legislation, and that otherwise permission for exclusive use would be cancelled and any deck addition not in full compliance would be removed from the common property and the tree and landscaping reinstated pursuant to the bylaws.

Item #4 - Compensation. The minutes claim that:

The Owners asked to be compensated for their losses resulting from their reaction to the caulking used in their unit during the window installation. This was an old issue and any compensation was denied.

This item is in regard to damages and personal injury arising from a chemical assault via excessive application inside our home of a sealant intended primarily for exterior use following our request for outside ventilation. We think the claim that it "was an old issue and any compensation was denied" is the 9th misrepresentation made in these minutes. I do not know when "any compensation was denied." Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall seeing such a decision in any previous minutes.

Item #5 - Exterior Taps

The minutes claim that:
A hose bib is required as the exterior tap is more difficult to access since the building envelope repairs. A hose bib was supplied to the Owners, but the Owners want to have their tap adjusted to make it accessible as they aren't happy with the hose bib extension. It was the understanding of Dave Fookes of Morrison Hershfield that this issue had been concluded. The extension of the exterior water taps was done as a time and materials billing and was extra to the contract. To remove the rock work in order to accommodate this request would cost the Strata Corporation a fair amount of money, and the Council previously had indicated that they were satisfied that the hose bib extension resolved this issue. Subject Closed.

The 10th misrepresentation in these minutes is claiming that the hose bib extension of the exterior water taps was done. It was not done, at least not on unit 409.

The 11th misrepresentation is the claim that it was a time and materials billing extra to the contract. Extension of the exterior water taps was specified in the drawings and included when the owners approved the contract and the special levy to pay for it. Depriving selected units of these extensions was unreasonable, unusual, and punitive.

The 12th misrepresentation is that the subject was closed. We think a resolution to close the subject would be out of order and contradict the strata corporation's duty to repair and maintain the common property. We have not been able to screw our hose onto our tap for over 3 years, half the adapter went missing after council tested it, and our request for a replacement has been ignored, for years. This is not a satisfactory solution.

Although we are not construction contractors, we think the claim that, "To remove the rock work in order to accommodate this request would cost the Strata Corporation a fair amount of money" may be the 13th misrepresentation in this series.

Our taps are no longer fit for the purpose for which they are intended. We don't know what "a fair" amount of money is supposed to be, but the strata corporation's 2-year warranty insurance was supposed to cover defective design, labour, and materials. We thought that the strata's directors and officers liability insurance was supposed to provide some sort of protection, especially if the taps were deliberately vandalized.

Item #6 - Hardy Board Damage

The 14th misrepresenatation in the minutes is that: "The Owners claim that the hardy board is "gouged up" around their window." It is plain to see that the hardy board is gouged up, not in our opinion, but in plain fact.

The 15th misrepresentation is the statement that: "If this is a deficiency, Heatherbrae will be addressing this during their site visits." This is, by definition, a deficiency. Heatherbrae has, in fact, not addressed this.

The 16th misrepresentation is: "Some of the deficiencies in the past by these Owners were not deemed deficiencies by the engineer, and will therefore not be addressed or investigated further."

You don't have to be an engineer to see some of these deficiencies when pictures of them are posted on the world wide web. Therefore I have addressed them in my blog on the building envelope project and am content to allow the facts to speak for themselves as to credibility and further investigation.

The 17th misrepresentation is: "7. Compensation for Tree Removal: The Owners are asking to be compensated for the trees that were removed around their unit." What we were really asking for was that the trees not be cut down, that they be replaced after they were cut down, and that the damages be recognized and remedied, through insurance or other means.

The 18th misrepresentation is: "Tree removal was done in conjunction with the City of Coquitlam's arborist"

Tree removal around our unit and elsewhere in the complex was done after the City of Coquitlam prohibited it and before the City of Coquitlam's arborist was involved.

The 19th misrepresentation is that "Tree removal was done in conjunction with ... an arborist hired by the Strata Corporation to remove dead trees or trees that were too close to the building."

Trees removed around our unit were not dead. One of them had been just been pruned to remove a small branch that was broken during the building envelope project. Trees were removed around our unit that were not too close the building either. They were still standing when the building envelope repair scaffolding was removed. According to the minutes the decision of the strata corporation to hire an arborist was not made until about a year after the trees that were too close to buildings had been removed, when those that were spared suddenly started dying.

The 20th misrepresentation is that "the Owners were advised to volunteer with the Owner of 223 to work with the landscape architect, and eventually the landscape contractor."

I had already volunteered to serve on the landscaping committee and the chair prevented me from doing so by withholding and destroying reports, emailing insults, and failing to call or report on meetings. I was ordered not to contact the landscape architect, the Owner of 223 refused my requests to meet, prevented me from obtaining a copy of the landscape drawings, and emailed derogatory and defamatory comments behind my back.

The 21st misrepresentation is: "Overall, landscaping is being worked on"

Pictures prove that landscaping around unit 409 has not been worked on for over 4 years, and annual budgets, as well as the condition of the complex overall, further refute these claims.

The 22nd misrepresentation is that "as the landscaping is on common property, no compensation would be warranted."

We believe that the destructive removal of trees from the common property, which would cost thousands, and possibly millions of dollars to replace, was done in conjunction with the chair of this meeting, who paid for unauthorized tree removal around our unit with funds from the strata corporation's trust account, when there was no meeting, no vote, and no minutes to authorize either removal or payment. We further believe that "no compensation would be warranted" by the strata's insurance only if the strata corporation failed to sue the parties responsible for the damage.

The minutes go on and on - paragraph by paragraph - but it is too exhausting for me to continue defending against them.

Suffice it to say that a trend of misrepresentations continuing for years has escalated into false and malicious accusations of assault, and complaints of vandalism, which we have no way of knowing whether they are true or not. We feel villifyied to the point of cultivating what feels like discriminatory little hate groups - where new people I introduce myself to promptly ask if I broke a gate that I did not even know was broken.


http://www.elimina.com/insights/