Sentry Page Protection

general meeting

An Interpretation of the March 2 General Meeting and a Response to Members' Letters

Sumitted by Yvonne Sabraw

The letters written after the March 2nd meeting deserve a response. An apology, for sure, from one of the people who was perceived as dominating the meeting and clearly upsetting many people. Last year, when we headed into the June 7th meeting, Richard quoted me in his opening statement to the meeting. It was a piece of a letter I had intended to send to the whole membership regarding what I feared was about to happen at that particular meeting, and asking newer members who might not be familiar with co-op practices to be aware that this was going to be an unusual meeting. Perhaps I should have prepared some kind of preamble for the March 2nd one as well.

What would it have said? What follows here is a mix of what could have been a preamble and my interpretation of the March 2nd meeting.

Preamble:

That people should know that they were going into a meeting that had no motions, and therefore, following Robert’s Rules, unless they asked for it, there would be no forum for discussion. Reports would be submitted, and it is standard to simply note that these were received, only discussing them if there is a recommendation that requires a motion that comes out of them.

That whether they agreed with Richard’s essay’s conclusion or not, they might want to take exception to any single member in our co-op stating that they have just given the final word on how our community documents its meetings. We could all appreciate the work that Richard put into this effort. And thank him for it. It is valuable to bring this research and thought to the discussion. Nevertheless , no one person has that special position or power in our co-op and we should not set such a precedent. Which is why I asked him to make a motion that the membership accept his proposal and this would give us all a voice. And if we agreed with him, the conclusions would be our membership’s word, not just Richard’s.

If there were argument on this, I would have had to go a bit further and say I was disappointed to read assertions in Richard’s essay that “almost a year of discussion” had taken place on minutes. It is a perennial discussion. But besides the challenges over the documentation of the June 7th meeting, there hasn’t actually been a forum for ANY community discussion. I would have welcomed that forum - as an opportunity to educate ourselves and as a chance for every member to think hard about what works for us.

That I hoped somebody other than me would point out that our Board had gone directly against co-op policy when it had failed to promptly provide minutes of our meetings to the membership. That even Robert’s Rules makes a statement about minutes having to be presented in a timely manner. There was no justification for holding back the minutes of P&D general meetings from Sept and December. Or the special meeting requested by Grounds on July 28 for that matter.

I wish someone had raised their hand and asked what a “Consent agenda” is. And why no one has ever presented a consent agenda at a meeting this way before. And what was the purpose this time around.

I wish someone else had pointed out the errors in the minutes that were being presented. Members at the meeting should know that in these minutes there were items contrary to what we had just said we wanted from our minutes. Truly, folks, I waited for others to speak on this. No one raised these points. Our July 28 minutes would have passed with an obvious error if we’d all just raised our hands and said “aye” for the consent agenda.

That a “committee of the whole” is more or less what we do every year when we discuss the proposed budget - for members to make recommendations before it comes back to another meeting for a vote. But there are no examples on the internet of a “Committee of the Whole” being the title of the facilitated/mediated group therapy session like the one we had on June 7th.

And - after reading the letters in the special edition, I want to thank people who commented on how we use Robert’s Rules. You have confirmed that we do still need dialogue and thought in this.

Okay - fun part of my letter:

True or false: a member who was not at the meeting for which minutes are being read and approved can not vote to approve them (actually - this is False! You don’t have to have been at a meeting to approve the minutes... this is apparently a common fallacy!)

True or false - the names of the person making the motion and the person seconding it should be recorded in the minutes? (Also false! The person making the motion can be named, the seconder should not. There should be no assumption that the seconder supports the motion - only that they believe it has merit in being discussed!)

A final word. I’m glad that the newsletter might now be a forum for discussion.


Clarification on Minutes Review Report at March 2 Meeting

Submitted by Brenda Willman

CLARIFICATION ON MY MARCH 2, 2021 REPORT ON MINUTES DEFICIENCES AND APPEAL TO MEMBERSHIP ON RETIREMENT FROM COOP LIFE – FROM BRENDA WILLMAN

Fellow coopers: It was revealed to me on March 12, 2021 that the set of minutes I spent time reviewing was not a complete set of minutes from 2008 – 2021, thus my findings were incorrect.

I was not aware that I had not been provided all of the minutes I had asked for, having repeatedly commented that I needed to see all of the minutes from 2008 and going forward to be thorough. I put that in writing.

Had the fact that I was working with an incomplete set of minutes been pointed out to me at the March 2, 2021 meeting, I would have been sufficiently chagrined, and embarrassed as well, so as to have withdrawn the findings and gone back to the drawing board with a full complement of minutes. I will admit to my own shortcoming that I would have been put off as well, as I don’t like to present incomplete findings due to no fault of my own.

I received a comment, at the same time I learned that the minutes were a subset of the total, that it had been my intention to point out that people “were wrong” on March 2. I know why I introduced my findings - because of my genuine desire to alert my fellow members to what I thought was a severe deficiency – and I wanted to alert you all prior to commencing any discussion about minutes and prior to commencing any discussion about the ESSAY ON MINUTES penned by our Chair. At no time did I infer that the present board or anyone else caused the deficiencies. I was not personally involved in a finger-pointing exercise, and if anyone read that into my making the point of information, I cannot help that. I cannot comprehend why anyone would believe that I would deliberately blame the present board for missing minutes which were recorded (or not) well before their time. It is not logical, and if I am anything, I am logical and extremely detail oriented when doing that kind of work. (15 missing sets of minutes for sure, plus all of 2011, part of 2020 and all of 2021 is a lot of missing minutes, and at least 18 sets of minutes maybe not subsequently approved – THAT is what I wanted the membership to hear and act upon).

I have decided to completely withdraw from participating in any future coop life. I have asked the present chair (as de facto person to approach) to be excused from volunteering. I am no longer able to shoulder bullying, the frequent misrepresentation of my motives to others and to my face, and the resulting animosity. I also consider that I was part of the entire Newsletter Committee that was replaced, and that recently I was refused participation on the minute review project, so I cannot see how my participation will be suitable or welcome on any project or committee.

I have given much over the course of 31 years, and many of you are not aware of the volume of work I have done. I appeal to the membership at large to not take action against me (termination of membership) for failing to meet any volunteer requirements now and in the future. Thank you.

To Follow up on the March 2 Meeting in Preparation for the Meeting March 14

Submitted by Richard Harrison on behalf of the Board


Dear Members of the Co-op, 

Thank you to all who’ve written for the recent Special Edition of the Sunnyhill Voice, and thank you, too, those of you who’ve spoken or written to me personally since March 2. And thank you to the Board, who had an intense and lengthy conversation in its March 10 meeting to analyze the one on March 2 and craft a response to it. Thank all of you for your comments, and more, for your faith in Sunnyhill and our ability to deal with our current issues in such a way that we not only maintain but enhance our co-operative identity. 

It’s clear that we don’t want what happened in March 2’s meeting to happen again. It is clear, too, that the method to make sure of it isn’t just Robert’s Rules, it’s the will to support and apply them for the good of the whole. I’ve been in this situation before, where a meeting completes its agenda, but misplaces its spirit, the fellowship that makes it the meeting of a community. Over and over, I hear that we can no longer allow individuals to turn the common purpose of the meeting to their own agendas – and do so without appropriate respect for their fellow members of the Co-op. 

It’s widely accepted that each of us ought to have freedom, and at the same time, that the freedom we each have is limited by the freedom of others. But how that almost universally accepted principle works in practice is a political problem that requires constant thought. I think the Co-op itself is a metaphor for the answer: our homes are our own, but our walls belong to each other. 

This is the difference between Co-op living and private ownership. In a stand-alone house, your walls are your own; you can enjoy your home by playing your music louder than you can when you share a wall with someone else. You can raise your voice along with the music. You can tend your garden, or not, as you see fit, without regard to the weeds you might spread to your neighbors. You can put up pictures in the middle of the night. You can let your place fall to ruin. You can refuse to volunteer time or money … you get the idea. In a Co-op all of those individual exercises of freedom are limited by the walls you share with others, giving you your own space, but holding up both your houses. Living in a Co-op means to willingly contract to give up the liberties and privileges that private ownership permits. 

In return, we get community. We all know 10 or 20 or 60 of our neighbors. We share food and games and clean up duties in the common area and a financial future and the making of decisions. I love that. And while many of us might have come here at first attracted by the affordable housing charge and the view and the cedar ceilings, the ones who’ve stayed, I believe, stay here because the kind of love that’s found in a fellowship worth giving up stuff for. 

In meetings, Robert’s Rules are our shared walls. The complete book of them is 716 pages long. It has been in print, revised and reissued since 1876. Its 11th Edition is the result of 130 years of study of the way collective decision-making can best be facilitated as times and technology change what we expect of each other. I’ve acted as Chair in various organizations for decades., and I know I’ve made mistakes with the rules, and I’ve learned that sometimes, in interpreting them within the boundaries that they themselves allow, I have erred on the side of letting unproductive things go too long. I’m sensitive to the accusation that that the chair can become dictatorial. We are all sensitive to the accusation that we aren’t offering respect or are limiting someone else’s freedom of expression – those two are two of the great sins of our age – but certain latitude with the rules here has led to alienation and disrespect. So for a while at least, listening to the voices I’ve heard rise to a chorus over the past few days, as Chair I am going to use Robert’s Rules in the strict sense. 

So here is a quick guide to Robert’s Rules:

  1. The Philosophy of Robert’s Rules

  2. The Mechanics of Robert’s Rules

  3. Robert’s Rules and the Agenda

  4. Robert’s Rules, Civility, and the Mood of the Room

  5. Robert’s Rules and Reading into the Minutes 

  6. Robert’s Rules and the Chat Function 

  1. The Philosophy of Robert's Rules        

A: Robert's Rules are rules in favour of the shyest person in the room. 

Robert’s Rules is a system of discussion that gives everyone their turn and no more than their turn. It appoints a chair trusted by the group to make decisions according to the rules but who also acts in accord with the group as a whole 

B: Robert's Rules recognize that there are two kinds of votes. 

Robert’s holds to the idea that some decisions require more "buy-in" than others. In some cases, a simple majority (half those who vote plus one) is enough to assure the group that the decision in question is supported enough to warrant their support. Things for us like whether we support the Rooftops initiative or what the Housing Charge will be are such decisions. In meetings, these proposals for action are debated under Ordinary Resolutions.

But there are matters -- like bylaws and constitutions -- that do effects on the way things are done that can outlast the participatory lives of the people who make decisions about them. For those decisions, Robert's argues, those motions express Special Resolutions which require a 2/3 majority vote.

C: Robert's Rules are only rules. 

They're not laws, and they don't try to be. Admittedly, any group has its moments where the will of the majority, either expressly by vote or by extension through people voted into positions of authority, is imposed on everyone. In democratic institutions, there are protections against abuse of power, but such protections often take time to work. 

But Robert's Rules are constantly in front of us while we are in a meeting. In a sense, they are the procedures for free decision-making, which, to my mind, is decision-making that can explain itself. They do allow for variations on themselves with consent of the meeting -- things like allowing the maker of a motion to answer a question during the discussion, or the raising of "Points of Information" and "Points of Order" that both break the flow of a discussion when they are invoked and reconnect when they're done. 

It should be noted that Robert’s does allow a group to tailor things to their own needs, so even a consistent reference to Robert’s Rules will produce different results depending on how strictly or loosely the community chooses to use them. 

2. The Mechanics of Robert’s Rules 

Under Robert’s Rules, discussion is guided by a Resolution, which is expressed as a Motion. A motion is a statement about what the group should do. It is made by a member in the form of “I move that …..” . Once it is made, it needs to be seconded by another member in order to be discussed. If no one seconds a motion, it is dropped. 

For seconded motions, the order of the discussion is this: The person making the motion speaks in favour of it. 

Then the Chair opens the discussion to the members who signal their intention to speak. The Chair calls on each in turn. Each speaker can speak only once until the speaker’s list is finished; only then can someone who has spoken speak again. Each speaker must speak only about the resolution under debate. The Chair’s responsibility is to make sure that happens. No speaker can speak longer than 5 minutes/time they get to speak.

When the speakers have finished, the maker of the motion gets a chance to reply if they wish to. 

Then a vote is called. Motions for Ordinary Resolutions require a simple majority vote to pass; for Special Resolutions it is a 2/3 majority.

Everything in Robert’s Rules stems from this core. It’s orderly, and if followed, efficient. 

That said, there are variations on this theme that can complicate it and, if not checked, derail it and the meeting.

During debate, members can Move to Amend a motion. The motion they are proposing to amend is then known as the Main Motion. The amendment they make (if it is seconded), is considered a Subsidiary Motion and debated and voted on. If successful, it changes the wording of the main motion, if not, the main motion is unchanged. 

There are several other motions that can also be made once a main motion is under discussion (or, as Robert’s calls it “on the table”).  These are called Incidental Motions. The most-often used of these is Point of Order through which a member can raise a matter of procedure during a debate. The member can raise this point at any time during the discussion. However, the point of order must actually be a point about rules and procedure. Members cannot use it to add information or make arguments about the content of a motion or presentation under consideration. 

The other is a Point of Information. Like the Point of Order, this can be raised any time during a discussion, but can only be used to request information the member making the request sees as knowledge essential to the discussion at hand. 

When the debate about a motion is finished, the Chair, or a member can Call the Question. This is the call to vote on the motion.  

These are the most commonly used subsidiary and incidental motions. You can go through a whole meeting without needing much more than these. The rest are fine points of procedure, and the Chair will do their best, in future meetings – and in future writing on the subject – to familiarize the membership with these. 

3. Robert’s Rules and the Agenda 

We’ve had some recent difficulties with the agenda that need addressing. The Agenda is a proposal. The Chair puts it forward for the membership to approve the content and order of the items to be discussed. 

Since it is a proposal, the membership can modify it at the beginning of the meeting. However, it should be noted that every such modification, should, strictly speaking, require a vote by the membership in favour of including it before it is added. Likewise with items suggested for removal. Addition of items to the agenda may be spoken to by the member proposing them, but they are not debatable since debating them would automatically be putting them on the agenda. 

4. Robert’s Rules, Civility, and the Mood of the Room 

One of the reasons Robert’s Rules become loosely applied is that the Rules themselves acknowledge that people get used to each other, and that it is possible to read a room. So often things that technically require votes, usually procedural things, are dealt with without the cumbersome making of motions and voting on them. For the near future, in order to preserve the decorum of the meeting from the outset, the Chair will go by the book on all such matters. 

Robert’s also assumes that, once accepting of the rules, people will not speak over one another or break the decorum of the discussion. However, as noted below in the section on The Philosophy of Robert’s Rules, the Rules, from Henry Robert’s first writing of them in 1876 on, knows that it is those who can be shouted down who most need protecting by them. 

So the Chair has certain responsibilities to maintain order and a dialogue of respect. If a member speaks more than their time, uses language outside the bounds of parliamentary respect, becomes antagonistic towards another member, or behave in a way that disrupts the meeting, the Chair can cite that member as Out of Order and ask them to desist. If the Chair names the member, the naming of the member and the reason for it is recorded in the minutes; likewise if an apology is offered, and if a withdrawable remark withdrawn. 

Also, if the Chair does not reprimand a member behaving in such a manner by name, another member can ask for that member to be called out of order. 

If the behaviour persists, the Chair alone does not have the authority to reprimand a member further. That lies with the members at the meeting. The Chair can ask that a member move that the offending member be censured. Such a censure may be a demand for an apology or removal from the meeting. The motion to censure is not debatable, and it can be passed by a majority, voting, given the sensitivity of the case, by ballot. Those who have pointed out in their articles in the Newsletter are in line with and find support in this aspect of Robert’s Rules: the decorum of the meeting the responsibility of the meeting itself. 

5. Robert’s Rules and Reading into the Minutes 

Until these past issues with minutes, it’s been customary here for the Chair and recording secretary to add to the minutes anything a member requests be added. However, this, too, is a loose interpretation of Robert’s on the matter. 

According to a strict interpretation of the rules, which will be followed for the next while at least, only additions to the minutes requested by a member and voted by the membership to be accepted as additions to the minutes will be included. 

6. Robert’s Rules and the Chat Function 

Remember when passing notes in class got you in trouble? Now it’s not only allowed, Chat encourages it. We’re still getting into trouble, only this time it’s the notes themselves that often cause the grief. There is no specific mention of Chat in the 11th Edition of Robert’s Rules, but online updates to Robert’s extend the Rules’ warnings against sidebar conversations within meetings. They divide the attention of the room, and with Chat, they can set up their own parallel, un-chaired and un-minuted meeting within the meeting. 

As long as Chat remains incidental, and private between members as they share information about matters at hand, it can be useful. However, in the case where a Chat thread becomes diversionary or its language unparliamentary, it will need to be restrained. The Chair of the meeting cannot consistently follow two meetings at once. It will be up to members to monitor Chat, and if it becomes a detriment to the meeting, to draw the Chair’s attention to it. The Chair can call members to order and return to the main meeting, or, if the membership finds that the Chat is harming the decorum or purpose of the meeting, it can be disabled for a period of time. 

Member Letter About the General Meeting on March 2

Submitted by Debbie Willis

Dear fellow members of Sunnyhill Co-op,

I've been thinking about our meeting on March 2nd, where we witnessed a lot of hurt and frustration within our membership. I believe that most of the membership (many of whom were not directly involved in this current constellation of conflicts and may not even be aware of the specifics) will soon be ready to formally close this chapter and move forward. I personally look forward to hearing the policy changes that the board will suggest to help the co-op deal with future, similar challenges. The co-op has spent a huge amount of money, and the board and those involved in the investigation have given enormous amounts of time to this conflict, and I hope we won't allow it to go on forever. It would be best if we could move towards healing these rifts, and though I'm not sure how that will be possible in this specific case, I am optimistic that we will move beyond our current situation.

To that end, I had one idea that could perhaps help us in the future: Sunnyhill could pay to train a small team of volunteer mediators among our membership, people who could be called upon to help deal with interpersonal issues. Many Indigenous cultures have traditions of healing circles, and perhaps a similar, small-scale initiative could help us deal with interpersonal conflicts as they come up. I think this group could respond based on our shared values, which I hope we’ll soon define, and could take as their mission to ensure fair, generous-hearted dialogue at the co-op.

We live in a complex time, dealing with the pandemic and a climate-crisis that will continue to get more and more severe. As a co-op, we are also looking towards the challenge of organizing and implementing an ambitious and exciting Deep-Green Retrofit. We must have strategies to work together and to remain cooperative in spirit.

Thank you,

Debbie Willis

Member Letter Concerning the March 2 General Meeting

Submitted by Kris Wenzel

I would like to voice my chagrin as it relates to the March 2 General Meeting.

Strong opinions and passion are the lifeblood of any community, but I venture to suggest that no matter how strongly one may feel on any topic concerning the welfare of the Co-op, it does not justify dominating the agenda and monopolizing speaking time to the extent we witnessed on March 2.

There are dozens of members with equal stake and interest in the Co-op who were not heard while louder and more insistent voices prevailed, repetitive in content and adversarial in tone. Newer members like myself who are interested in becoming more engaged at Sunnyhill left that meeting feeling browbeaten and alienated.

I do not dismiss the concerns of any speaker. All feelings have merit and must be addressed, but in the context of an online, ‘general’ meeting involving dozens of potential participants, there should be a limit on the sheer amount of time any one member can speak. Or in lieu of that being mandated, perhaps we can remind ourselves that allowing for more and varied opinions to be heard is simple courtesy.

Clearly there are disagreements on meetings procedure and broader issues of trust to address, but the meeting March 2 had the qualities of a U.S. Senate filibuster, in that the majority of Co-op members were continually being diverted from actually confronting the issues at hand by a strident minority, and were left feeling confused and disrespected.

The pandemic is wearing us down and the world of Zoom meetings is hardly satisfying, which is all the more reason why our discourse needs to be as polite and as inclusive as possible.

Thank you,

Kris Wenzel

 

Letter from Member Regarding the General Meeting, March 2

Submitted by Sherry Kozak

The most recent SHC meeting was monopolized by a few members who were discussing items not on the agenda. In order to avoid this in the future, I suggest we return to a stricter use of Roberts Rules which we have used in the past.

1. The person making a motion may speak to explain the motion, then members can ask questions relevant to that item when recognized by the chair and may speak for a maximum of 5 minutes each. They may not address the issue twice. The mover of the motion may summarize the motion prior to the vote.

2. Due to lack of familiarity with Robert’s Rules, all meetings should be conducted with the basic Robert’s Rules (how to make a motion, second a motion, amend a motion, etc) but should not allow use of Point of Order, Point of Procedure, etc as these have been used improperly by members to interrupt proceedings and expound on other matters.

3. The summary pages of Robert’s Rules should be redistributed on paper to each unit as well as posted on the website.


Member Letter About March 2 Meeting

Submitted by Cindy Schnee

I feel trepidation about attending the next co-op meeting on March 14 because the last meeting on March 2 left a bad taste in my mouth. There were negative feelings and mistrust conveyed by some individuals, a feeling I do not share and resent having to participate in. I am frustrated that this kind of behaviour can dominate meetings, especially as attending meetings is an opportunity for members to participate in the co-op. Opinions are important and need to be heard, but there is a need for balance by other voices. It is also concerning that the meeting was unnecessarily long because some members were intent on advancing their own agendas. I left that meeting feeling flabbergasted that it happened the way it did. I don’t like that a meeting can devolve to a point where individual members need to decry uncooperative behaviour. It doesn’t feel good to have to write this type of note after a meeting and I am hoping that we can find a way to prevent uncooperative agendas from overtaking meetings. Despite my apprenhension I will attend the next co-op meeting, because participation is important to our governance and community.

Member Letter Regarding March 2 General Meeting

Submitted by Bonnie Robinson

We wanted to express our frustrations with the general meeting we had Tuesday March 2. We had to leave early but in the hour and 15 minutes that we were there, we didn’t even get beyond the agenda. We are still unclear of the catalyst of all the drama ( and quite frankly we don’t really need to know) but it feels like personal issues are being dragged up and general meetings are not the place to do so. James and I just wish we could move on because at this point, it feels like things are worsening. Both of us woke up the next morning still feeling gross about that meeting. We love this community and just want us to pull through. We are hoping that voicing our feelings can in the smallest way contribute to healing as a co-op.

-James and Bonnie #740

Open Letter to the Board and Membership

Submitted by Eric Moschopedis

Dear Board and fellow Members,

I want to thank the Board for all of  it’s diligence, kindness, and thoughtfulness over the last many months. I believe that the work you have done will lay the foundation for some positive change in the future. So thank you. You deserve and have earned my trust and respect—and in my opinion, that of the Membership. 

The March 2nd meeting left me, and others who have reached out, feeling sad, bruised, and disappointed. Having the meeting dominated by personal, as opposed to collaborative agendas, wasn’t productive or fair to the rest of the membership. We are a community with a multiplicity of voices, but to be healthy we need to hear them. This means creating safe, fair, and equitable spaces for exchange. Roberts Rules provides a framework for engagement, but it cannot demand respect and kindness, only we, the Membership can. 

I am happy that the Membership was able to come together to pass the motion regarding minutes and that the report about the investigation was presented. But I don’t think that we—the Membership—can ignore what happened at the meeting or we will see this behaviour repeated. As a Membership we need to firmly state that “enough is enough” and not put all of the onus on the Board to curb inappropriate behaviour.

A tremendous amount of time, hard work, and money has been dedicated to the physical infrastructure at Sunnyhill, but without proper intervention (think acupuncture) into the body politic of Sunnyhill, we risk an unhealthy community. Sunnyhill is a courageous idea populated by individuals, but only through kindness, generosity, and honest dialogue can we be a heterogeneous community.

The Board and the Membership have created momentum to affect change. I encourage us to use this momentum to create the conditions for healing and the space to be imaginative about who we want to be. 

Much respect,

Eric

Member Letter Regarding Recent General Meeting

Submitted by Dorrie Derbowka

Dear Members of the Board and Sunnyhill members:

I am writing to express my feelings regarding the last general meeting, and to acknowledge the community concerns this meeting raised. The meeting was difficult to witness, in that the voices of a minority of members dominated the conversation, and that these voices were at times adversarial, inappropriate and disrespectful. This behaviour is concerning as it not only directly impacted the meeting in a negative way, it has also had a ripple effect whereby the negative behaviour of any member in a general forum inadvertently permeates our entire community.

Acting from an individual mindset and agenda, and forgetting the big picture of community and cooperative behaviour results in an outcome like what we saw at the March 2nd meeting. Although the acrimonious tone of the meeting was disheartening, the beauty of membership at Sunnyhill is that members have a voice. A voice to say that we will not allow this behaviour to dominate our co-op. A voice to say that these actions do not define Sunnyhill, and that we do not want them to be allowed to continue to impact our community. It is not the board’s responsibility to create the community for us. It is up to us as members to take responsibility for creating the kind of community we want to live in.

The creation of a diverse, fair and welcoming community involves holding ourselves and each other accountable to the standards and values we agree to abide by when we sign the membership agreement. Cooperative living involves valuing the opinions of other members as much as we value our own, and doing our utmost to ensure that our individual wants do not usurp the wants and needs of other members, or of our community as a whole. It also involves listening to each other, and ensuring that all voices have the opportunity to be heard equitably. I hope the membership can hold on to these values as we attempt to move forward in a positive way.

I would like to thank the Board for all they are doing to make Sunnyhill a vibrant, cooperative community for all of us. Your efforts are noticed and are deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

Dorrie Derbowka

Unit #24

Zoom Meeting Preparations

Submitted by Mia Rushton on behalf of Communications Committee

Our first virtual co-op meeting is fast approaching. The meeting will be hosted on Zoom- an online video conferencing service. Zoom also supports phone-in participation for anyone who doesn’t have access to the internet. If you’d prefer to call in to the meeting, contact Andrea for the phone number. 

If you haven’t used Zoom before, there are a few steps to take in order to join a meeting for the first time. We recommend getting set up a few days before the meeting to make sure that everything works. 

To join a meeting for the first time, open the meeting link. Zoom will open in a new browser window and you’ll be prompted to download Zoom. The meeting link is in the Budget Vote Meeting Package email sent by the office on April 16th. You can click on this link at any time before the meeting to get set up. 

There are lots of tutorials on YouTube with instructions for using Zoom for the first time. Search for ‘Zoom tutorial for beginners’. I found one called ‘Joining a Zoom Call for the First Time; Fun and Easy Online Connection’ that is short, clear and concise. See it here: https://youtu.be/9isp3qPeQ0E

On the day of the meeting, we suggest joining the meeting 15 minutes early to avoid/mitigate any technical problems.

Grounds Policy

Submitted by Bob Bott for the Grounds Committee

Enforcement of Grounds Policies

Members of the co-op are expected to follow the policies in their binders. That’s what they agreed when they joined. There used to be a more prescriptive grounds policy, which even specified the height of grass. The policy was revised in 2005 after considerable discussion and approved by members at a general meeting. There have been many reminders about the policy provisions in newsletters since then, but a significant number of yards continued to have unmowed grass, weeds, junk, and/or dog feces contrary to the policy.

We received complaints in the spring about certain yards and decided further action was needed (as provided in the policy). In order to be fair, we did a walk-around and identified all the instances of non-compliance. Many of these were minor, and some stemmed from ignorance (e.g., not knowing how to identify noxious weeds). We wrote notices for all the non-compliant units and gave them time to address the problems. We helped a number of units find solutions to their issues. Some of the co-op youth got mowing jobs.  Members of the committee did a lot of weeding, and provided weed instruction to members, during our walk-arounds. In the end, no unit had to pay for an outside contractor to do the work, and the yards have never looked better.

At the time of the notices, only one member suggested that we were being a little too harsh in our tone and approach. On the contrary, many members thanked us for the “wake-up call.”

It was only much later that we heard complaints about the committee’s “mean” and “un-neighbourly” actions. These concerns seem to have arisen after we tried to deal with a related issue: the large number of personal items being left in the common area—toys, dishes, clothes, etc. These items are not only unsightly and sometimes safety hazards, they also interfere with the ability of our contractors to work on the site and add to the costs of maintenance. We have received complaints from both members and the contractor about the amount of “stuff” left in the common area.

Some members took offence when we suggested collecting the left items and putting them in the dumpster. We would welcome suggestions for alternatives. Would it work to have some sort of enclosure where items could be placed when not in use?

If members object to the grounds policy itself, they are welcome to propose amendments and bring them forward at a general meeting. Otherwise, we intend to continue carrying out the existing policy in a way that is both neighbourly and effective.

We expect that this issue will be discussed at the Nov. 5 general meeting. In preparation, we suggest members review the grounds policy. Some members may also want to look at the co-op’s pet and wildlife policies.

City By-laws

The City of Calgary also has by-laws relating to property issues. One reason we had to take action last summer was a serious infestation of creeping bellflower, a noxious weed, which would have resulted in by-law enforcement action. Other by-laws deal with matters such as pets, wildlife, and yards. For example, the yard by-law states:

  • Loose garbage, yard waste, bottles, cans, boxes, household furniture, packaging materials, parts of machinery, equipment, appliances, and automobile parts must be stored so that they are not visible from outside of the property.

  • Accumulation of offensive material is prohibited. This includes animal remains, animal feces, and materials that create unpleasant odours or are likely to attract pests.

According to the Responsible Pet Ownership By-law, cat owners must ensure their cats:

  •  Have a City of Calgary licence.

  • Remain on the owner’s property.

  • Do not disturb the peace by howling or crying.

  • Do not damage others’ property.

  • Do not scatter garbage.

  • Do not chase, threaten, or attack a person or an animal.

Fines for failing to comply with the Responsible Pet Ownership By-law range from $25 to $1,500.

Member Login
Welcome, (First Name)!
Forgot? Show
Log In
Enter Member Area
My Profile Not a member? Sign up. Log Out