The Strata Council for SCNW628 is charged with assuring compliance of rules and bylaws of the corporation.
How efficiently has this role been performed?
In the latest notice sent to “members of the corporation”, proposed Resolution#1 states: “Council has not undertaken a review of the Huntly Wynd’s evolving management needs during this time” (referring to the seven year tenure of Bayside as providers of property management services).
Wow, that is a very long time! If there is anything certain, it is that changes everywhere are occurring so fast these days! Why has this very important function (assessment of services performed) been ignored for so long?
Moreover, if there is a need to assess, evaluate, and examine the services of Bayside, shouldn’t the Council submit itself to the same evaluation?
A meticulous review of, and a full understanding, of the complex “inter-dependent” relationship between Council and Bayside should validate the necessity of a “paradigm shift”.
First, let us look at some examples of prickly issues as documented by council minutes
When council receives “a complaint” about an owner, the matter is deliberated at a council meeting and a decision “to confront” the owner or not is made. The matter is then reported in the Council meeting minutes “anonymously” without naming the person(s) concerned.
Subsequently, should the Council “feels” or “believes” that the matter must be officially dealt with, Scott Unger, is asked to “send the owner a letter of compliance”…..or else!
No regard for the delicate dual role of OWNER-CLIENT
Prefacing a letter with “Dear Sir/Madam” does not exempt it from “condescension”. Many letters “of compliance” from Scott Unger have often been questioned for validity, lack of evidence, “hearsay”, and failure to appreciate the intricate dual role of residents – that of being “shareholders” of the corporation, and also “clients/customers” of the corporation.
Certain letters accusing owners of “alleged violations” have been challenged to be frivolous and without basis.
A new owner has been fined repeatedly for non payment of maintenance fees, when in fact, it has been discovered that the owner was never in possession of a “welcome package” and a notice of preauthorization of monthly fees – that the “alleged violation” was in fact a problem of “miscommunication”!
Why would one owner turn against another?
There is no such thing as a “perfect community”. There are too many factors that cause disagreements. It is human nature. However, there are certain tools in human interaction that contribute to tolerance, patience, and understanding.
Leading by example
What if rather than throwing fuel to the fire, it is extinguished before it spreads? Is there really any merit to “grandstanding”? Does it makes sense to announce to the entire community that “Someone was speeding and his ‘distracted driving’ nearly caused injury to a worker”? Or that “Someone is accused of having his grandchild living with him”?
And what about a recognized “leader” being confronted of rules violations himself and then feigning no knowledge of the rule, or some other alibi?
OWNERS and Shareholders are at the top of the organization chart
Bayside, Unger, and the Council are ultimately responsible to the shareholders of the corporation. It is not the other way around.
HOWEVER, shareholders as “clients” of the corporation have a duty to abide by the rules, regulations, and bylaws of the corporation.
If thorny issues exist between the Council and the Owners, or between Unger and the Clients (shareholders), isn’t it about time to consider a much better way of managing the strata? Of finding a friendlier and respectful way to assure compliance? A more skillful and tactful way of resolving issues? A paradigm shift?