Cable TV included in Condo Maintenance Fees: Cons?

[sacabeans]

Anything new?

[Cheap Cat]

Thanks again sacabeans for pointing out "substantial change" in the Condo Act. I spoke to our property manager just before the notice was to go out and she was still insisting it was just a 50% +1 bylaw change as per our by-law. This was despite me having sent out an email explaining why it was a substantial change providing the math to support it. It was more than 10% of our budget the first year, let alone over the course of the contract. I told her that I would be challenging it if it was not a 66 2/3% vote and further referred her to the telecommunications agreement section of the act that refers to the substantial change section (s. 97). She conceded that.

The notices have gone out and there is another problem with that, particularly with the proxy. The board had only been shown the Rogers cable proposal that was to be sent out and not the whole package. I specifically asked to see the whole package but the PM said there wasn't any time. I had her re-write the Rogers piece to include the facts as it read too much like an ad. Key facts are still missing like if there are set up fees, something I specifically asked to have clarified.

The big issue now is the proxy. It only gives two options: to vote in favour of a 5 yr term or a 7 yr term but not the option to vote No, against the bulk cable contract. I had pointed out this glaring mistake on the cover sheet outlining the Rogers proposal and she corrected it there but not on the proxy, the key document. In fact, I specifically asked that it state that maintenance fees would be increasing and by how much and to what amount so everyone was clear. My other issue is that throughout the documents the language is not neutral, repeatedly she states that we are voting on the approval of the bulk cable agreement. I thought we were just voting on the bulk cable agreement, whether is approved or rejected is to be decided by the owners.

I am now trying to find out what the legal obligations are regarding this. Any help would be appreciated. I do know that if the cable agreement passes and proxies are used, I will be challenging the outcome. The only way were are going to be able to get a vote in the middle of the summer is with proxies and the proxies are fundamentally flawed.

[manmanny]

Thanks again sacabeans for pointing out "substantial change" in the Condo Act. I spoke to our property manager just before the notice was to go out and she was still insisting it was just a 50% +1 bylaw change as per our by-law. This was despite me having sent out an email explaining why it was a substantial change providing the math to support it. It was more than 10% of our budget the first year, let alone over the course of the contract. I told her that I would be challenging it if it was not a 66 2/3% vote and further referred her to the telecommunications agreement section of the act that refers to the substantial change section (s. 97). She conceded that.

The notices have gone out and there is another problem with that, particularly with the proxy. The board had only been shown the Rogers cable proposal that was to be sent out and not the whole package. I specifically asked to see the whole package but the PM said there wasn't any time. I had her re-write the Rogers piece to include the facts as it read too much like an ad. Key facts are still missing like if there are set up fees, something I specifically asked to have clarified.

The big issue now is the proxy. It only gives two options: to vote in favour of a 5 yr term or a 7 yr term but not the option to vote No, against the bulk cable contract. I had pointed out this glaring mistake on the cover sheet outlining the Rogers proposal and she corrected it there but not on the proxy, the key document. In fact, I specifically asked that it state that maintenance fees would be increasing and by how much and to what amount so everyone was clear. My other issue is that throughout the documents the language is not neutral, repeatedly she states that we are voting on the approval of the bulk cable agreement. I thought we were just voting on the bulk cable agreement, whether is approved or rejected is to be decided by the owners.

I am now trying to find out what the legal obligations are regarding this. Any help would be appreciated. I do know that if the cable agreement passes and proxies are used, I will be challenging the outcome. The only way were are going to be able to get a vote in the middle of the summer is with proxies and the proxies are fundamentally flawed.

I heard so much about condo boards and rules that I hate it. And OP this is how condo board and Rogers works.
Trust me you are stuck with it.

[Cheap Cat]

I heard so much about condo boards and rules that I hate it. And OP this is how condo board and Rogers works.
Trust me you are stuck with it.

Well, as long as I am on the board and I am an owner, I will continue to fight against it. My home is my single biggest investment and I'll be damned if I am going to let people destroy it. It is people feeling that there is nothing they can do, that leads to these problems. At the very least, if people are going to approve something like this, I want to make such that they know exactly what they are voting on and given the option to vote against it.

[manmanny]

Best luck OP. I mean it. I hope you succeed.

[sacabeans]

Sorry, I do not know much about the legalities of the proxy, but your Management company should have a better understanding and should be able to give you an answer. It does sound flawed as it does not allow you, an opponent of the change, to obtain proxies for that vote.


Gerry Hyman covered this topic in the Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/652128

It is also covered here:
http://www.cci.ca/rooftopnew2/viewre...=11557#nowhere

The downside mentioned the in above article is that the cable fee's need to charged proportional to your condo size. So Cheap Cat, would could add insult to injury if you own a larger unit is that not only will you be paying to get other people cheaper cable, you will may also be paying more of it than them.

I think you need to walk around to peoples homes and explain the downside of this whole agreement.

Also, I am not sure if you confirmed but are all your units wired for cable already? If not, and Rogers pays to wire them, does the contract state what will happen if you do not renew?

[manmanny]

Sorry, I do not know much about the legalities of the proxy, but your Management company should have a better understanding and should be able to give you an answer. It does sound flawed as it does not allow you, an opponent of the change, to obtain proxies for that vote.


Gerry Hyman covered this topic in the Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/652128

It is also covered here:
http://www.cci.ca/rooftopnew2/viewre...=11557#nowhere

The downside mentioned the in above article is that the cable fee's need to charged proportional to your condo size. So Cheap Cat, would could add insult to injury if you own a larger unit is that not only will you be paying to get other people cheaper cable, you will may also be paying more of it than them.

I think you need to walk around to peoples homes and explain the downside of this whole agreement.

Also, I am not sure if you confirmed but are all your units wired for cable already? If not, and Rogers pays to wire them, does the contract state what will happen if you do not renew?

I regularly read his columns and that is how I read about these Condo management stories

[Cheap Cat]

Sorry, I do not know much about the legalities of the proxy, but your Management company should have a better understanding and should be able to give you an answer. It does sound flawed as it does not allow you, an opponent of the change, to obtain proxies for that vote.

Based on this and other issues, I am quickly losing all confidence in the management company. There is another issue that they are advising is ok to do something contrary to the act. I have now asked for a legal opinion. If we aren't going to follow the act, then I want an expert to put it in writing so we are covered.

Gerry Hyman covered this topic in the Star:
http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/article/652128

It is also covered here:
http://www.cci.ca/rooftopnew2/viewre...=11557#nowhere

The downside mentioned the in above article is that the cable fee's need to charged proportional to your condo size. So Cheap Cat, would could add insult to injury if you own a larger unit is that not only will you be paying to get other people cheaper cable, you will may also be paying more of it than them.

It just keeps getting worse. We only have to sizes of units and the difference isn't much but of course, I am in the larger unit and the two members pushing it are in the smaller units. So I would have to pay even more than them. Ironically, I live alone, they don't. One of them said that I could survive without cable because I didn't have a family with different viewing habits to please. He needs cable for his family but I have to pay more for it.

We had decided that each unit would just pay the cost per unit as provided by Rogers. That is what we are voting on. So according to the article, it would not be considered part of the common elements expense and couldn't be liened for non payment. In the CCI forum, someone mentions that in the US, with the downturn in the economy, people aren't paying their maintenance fees which results in the condo corporation being on the hook for the cable since they have a contract and you can't lien to recover it. We have about 25% of units in arrears. Not all will be liened but we have a number liened and have had to go power of sale on some. The fact that we do have people having trouble paying their bills concerns me about raising their fees so much. But the fact that this is money can't be recovered through a lien, worries me even more. The last thing I wanted was for the corporation to be paying for people's cable. Ironically, if they are in arrears for 30 days, they can't even vote against it so they could be stuck with the added expense without having a say on it.

I think you need to walk around to peoples homes and explain the downside of this whole agreement.

I'm still trying to figure out how to get proxies with a proxy that doesn't allow no as an option. I don't want them to be challenged as in valid.

Also, I am not sure if you confirmed but are all your units wired for cable already? If not, and Rogers pays to wire them, does the contract state what will happen if you do not renew?

Each unit has a cable box at the door. I'm sure there will be wiring needed both inside and out. My unit is wired but it appears that the previous owner had satellite and did it. I have higher grade cable and cable in every room which of course I am using for my antenna. From what other owners tell me, they are only wired with one outlet and this package includes 4. Of course, no one considered that.

The other big issue is that we don't have a contract. We have a price and no firm details. As I said, this wasn't thought out at all. I have asked the questions but have not received any responses. I will be raising these issues at the owner's meeting. For so many reasons, the only answer is for people to vote no, even if they really want bulk cable. This whole thing is a mess.

[Manatus]

I'm still trying to figure out how to get proxies with a proxy that doesn't allow no as an option. I don't want them to be challenged as in valid.

Wouldn't that solve the problem though? From my understanding the proxy basically says "do you want our cable contract to be 5 years or 7 years?". However that's not what is going to be voted on at the meeting. The vote that will be called should be "do we want a bulk cable contract?". If the question isn't the same then surely none of the proxies can be considered because they are all voting on a different issue. Get a legal opinion though, it's definitely worth it for something like this. Heck, consider inviting the lawyer to the AGM as an outside expert, or at the very least make sure that everyone knows that a lawyer is deeply involved in this whole thing. That should make people think twice... I know if I was a regular owner and I knew that one of the proposals was being examined very closely by a lawyer who sees problems with it, I'd probably stay away from that.

[Cheap Cat]

Wouldn't that solve the problem though? From my understanding the proxy basically says "do you want our cable contract to be 5 years or 7 years?". However that's not what is going to be voted on at the meeting. The vote that will be called should be "do we want a bulk cable contract?". If the question isn't the same then surely none of the proxies can be considered because they are all voting on a different issue. Get a legal opinion though, it's definitely worth it for something like this. Heck, consider inviting the lawyer to the AGM as an outside expert, or at the very least make sure that everyone knows that a lawyer is deeply involved in this whole thing. That should make people think twice... I know if I was a regular owner and I knew that one of the proposals was being examined very closely by a lawyer who sees problems with it, I'd probably stay away from that.

Getting a lawyer involved is a good suggestion but not one that I can afford. Unfortunately, I can't get the corporation's lawyer involved without the approval of the rest of the board and that isn't going to happen. Besides there isn't much time and we don't have a board meeting before the cable meeting. My only chance in that regard is if it goes through, and we get our lawyer involved in drafting the contract, I raise my concerns then.

As for the question not being the same, I guess I'll have to see what is posed at the meeting. Since they need 66 2/3% to approve, do the no votes count other than going to quorum? The proxy reads: To approve the Rogers Deal, choose 1: 5 yr term or 7 year term. The documents all refer to approving the deal. I will challenge the validity of all proxies since there should have been a third option (no). Fortunately, I got language referring to three options put in the cover letter outlining the proposal. Also since they require 66 2/3 % approval and have split the "yes" votes, I would argue that unless they get the required approval for the specified term, it won't succeed. Again, another issue that wasn't considered when the proxy was drafted. The Property Manager did this without input from the board.

Another problem is that we are essentially voting on a new bylaw to add this service. You can't add the service without the bylaw that allows you to do it. The act requires that the bylaw be included in the package so people know what they are voting on, particularly the proxies. Of course, it wasn't included because we haven't drafted a new bylaw. So although people may be approving the deal, they still need to approve a bylaw and it is too late to add it to the meeting as the meeting notice has to be specific.

Also they apparently did not provide sufficient notice which is an issue if someone raises it at the meeting. I am still looking for clarification on this, but apparently the day the notice is sent and the day of the meeting doesn't count so we are short the required 15 days.

I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Do I raise the issues now with the board or wait until the meeting? My fellow board members already have issues with me because I insist on following the Act. I am concerned that if the meeting and vote don't occur because I challenge the above, the issue won't die and it will give the Yes side more time to get votes. We still have an AGM this year. The other issue is that if I challenge all these things, I may be perceived as nitpicking. As I said, the rest of the board already thinks that. I am up for election this year and already feel my seat is in jeopardy due to an issue with the board president. I'm sure he will use this to get votes against me. The bar is much lower for board election so all he needs are those who would benefit from this deal.

[sacabeans]

I found some information on Proxies: http://www.condoinformation.ca/owners-meetings-voting but I doubt it is anything you have not already been reading. This site is actually pretty good, and shows you that you are not the only one going through condo headaches.

[Cheap Cat]

So we had the condo meeting and we didn't get quorum so we couldn't vote. Even with proxies, we only got about half of what we needed to get approval. Ironically it was a great turnout for us. The issue is dead now but some board members told people that if they wanted it, they could go ahead and requisition a meeting and try again.

The ballot again had the same error of only a 5 year or 7 year option without a No option. People did complain about that and someone did request that the proxies be thrown out because of the same error. The property manager stated that she was advised that we didn't need a "No" option because we only need to get the 2/3 approval to pass it. She did get some calls complaining about that and instructed people to add a no and she thought that was sufficient. I pointed out that not everyone would have called. Someone also pointed out that by splitting the Yes vote between 5 and 7 years, that we would never have received the necessary vote. Good to see people were on the ball although others thought we should be able to combine the yes votes and got upset with me when I said that is not how it works.

It was a rather contentious meeting. A few people familiar with these said they had never seen such a contentious one and we didn't even have an official meeting, we just asked a few questions. One of the people who would have been strongly against it was away and didn't even know about the meeting which was one of the problems with having the meeting in the summer and with such short notice.

At least people learned about calling Retentions. Even the Rogers rep admitted that you can get a deal by calling Retentions. So they will be getting alot of calls tomorrow. It is incredible how much some people pay for services they don't even use. One woman told me she is paying $91 a month and doesn't even watch the higher channels (only A&E). She could definitely be on a cheaper package. Some people learned what their neighbours are paying and will be calling tomorrow to find out why they are paying so much. But it was also incredible how close minded some people were about other options and how they felt that they were entitled to this discount. One woman kept yelling at me when I pointed out basic facts saying I was only saying that because I was against. No one seemed interested in OTA and one woman told me I shouldn't have mentioned that because now they will come after me. I pointed out that it was completely legal and reminded her that back in the day that's how we all received tv.

Thanks all for your input and support. I definitely learned quite a bit about the Condo Act and the whole process.

[sacabeans]

Good to hear everything turned out all right. Out of curiosity were all the submitted proxies signed and properly completed prior to the meeting, or were some people waiting to vote with the majority for 5 or 7 year?

[Manatus]

Good news! Apathy and inability to get along with each other with the victory!

[Cheap Cat]

Good to hear everything turned out all right. Out of curiosity were all the submitted proxies signed and properly completed prior to the meeting, or were some people waiting to vote with the majority for 5 or 7 year?

I didn't go through all the proxies but from what I saw they were completed prior to the meeting. Had the vote gone ahead, I was planning on challenging them all because they did not give the "no" option.