Friday, August 27, 2010

911 Emergency Ambulance

UPDATE:9 September 2010. I was able to finally find out who the gent was that I helped. He lives upstairs in my building and I did know who him. When I went to St. Pauls he told me that no one from the building or anyone else had contacted him. I was the only one. The downtown eastside is awash with money to make sure that its residents are community but when someone goes missing for two weeks he vanishes into cyberspace and nothing.

On Wednesday I had the occasion to come across a gent who was in medical distress. I saw him from two blocks away trying to get someone's attention that he needed help. I ran up to him and it was obvious that he was in need of medical help. He was very disoriented. I had Kenny the manager of the building next door phone 911. No one came. I paniced and I ran upstairs to phone 911 and again report the incident. No one came. On the third try the operator admitted that no ambulance was sent as they had to data entry a form so that she could decide which of the three types of emergency vehicles she should dispatch. The man was a stranger. I did not know his name, address, or his medical history. I am fed up with who comes up with these policies which in effect seems to give 911 operators the right to kill someone by insisting on information which I kept telling her I did not know. I have been trying to find out what happened to this gent and all I get is the round around. Try to find the non-emergency number for ambulance service. There is no non-emergency number for ambulance. The closest thing is its administration number who just directs you to its website. Well I didn't have access to a computer what would I do then. The admin number said they would not tell me about anything considering I was a third party and my problem was I should have demanded this information from the ambulance attendees as they transported the gent to the unknown. I do not understand how the confidentiality of a patient in this situation would be illegal. All this stuff about confidentiality is so that we become desensitized to what is happening to others around us. Why would I ever want to help anyone in the future. Those that want confidentiality should have a sign on their foreheads saying do not save me as confidentiality is more important than humanity.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

EOI for the DERAH towers re competition/members

I apologize for taking so long to finish my rant on the EOI but as one ages time passes quickly.

I do not understand why the condition inserted re letter of committal that says

Records can be withheld if their disclosure would be harmful to the business interest of the provincial body or the party with which it is doing business.

is there.

Since a non-profit is not a for-profit what $harm could full disclosure disclosure. It seems to be a gag order without anyone questioning it. I remember Kim Kerr saying to me that all documents are only to be seen by him and BC Housing so he must have been told by BC Housing that that is the way it is. When I did ask BC Housing about Kim's statement, BC Housing did not answer my email.

Also there is no mention of any condition on number of members. I do not consider a society with only directors to be in the public interest. The purpose of members is to question what the directors and management are doing as well as participating. To start all directors meetings should be open to members or anyone who is interested in knowing what the society is about (to attract potential directors). In the proposed new Society Act for 2012 it is recommended that there only be one director who is also its only member and those that are lobbying for this say that is all that is necessary to protect the public interest. And who paid these lobbyists to come up with that conclusion. I suspect it is a bunch of highpaid highprofile lawyers.

Also I do not believe it is sufficient for the President alone to sign a statutory declaration re conflict of interest. Every director should sign it as well as all paid employees and volunteers as they come on stream.

Also it should be made clear to the proponents that if any breach of governance happens the Society will be fined $10,000 for the first offense and thereafter the operating agreement voided. You can't have the E/D and a select number of directors do what they want without any penalty considering the Society Act provides no easy remedy to enforce the Act.

This is all I am going to say about the EOI.

I still haven't heard whether or not Deloitte will continue with its forensic audit. It must finish otherwise "secrecy agreements" will be used to protect the guilty at the expensive of the public. The only thing I remember from taking a criminolgoy course at SFU many many years ago is that crime pays and white collar crime pays extremely well.

I am tired of hearing, forgot what happens, moveon. No we can't forget what happens. Justice has not been seen to be done re DERAH and it must be seen for the public interest.
.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

ERO for DERA buildings

I have been spending a lot of time at the hospital but I intend to finish my rant about the EOI.

I never did get a reply from Brit or Strath communities centres as to how much federal government money they got from DERA to the kids need help now program. This money is federal, the housing money was provincial, and because the community centres are involved the child care money is municipal. All three levels of government without accountability.

I will be starting a new project: change the RTA (Residential Tenancy Act)so renters can have pets. See: http://araizapets.blogspot.com

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

EOI

I still have more comments on the EOI but I haven't been feeling well, mostly exhausted, and the last thing I want to do right now is a post. It can waituntil Wednes Thursday.

Last weekend a project has been started to amend the RTA so renters can have domestic pets. If anyone has comments let me know: audreylaferriere@yahoo.ca

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Araiza

Test to see if post goes through

Friday, August 6, 2010

EOI for the DERAH towers re Resolutions

One thing I do not understand and that is the need for Resolutions for the EOIs. BC Housng wants Resolutions signed by the President. Does that mean the President signs a REsolutions without the majority approval of all the directors. This isn't what happened when DERAH decided to cave to the demands of BC Housing for the good of the residents of the DERAH buildings and signed a secret agreement terminating DERAH's interest in the buildings as there was no Resolution of the directors giving any power to the President of DERAHS to do this and not all the directors knew or even signed anything except for the President. I was in the court all that day and I was a legal director of DERAH and I did not know of the terms of the secret agreement and other directors were not there. Even if I wasn't a director nothing should be secret when the money comes from the public purse. A President's only power is to vote in case of a tie with the directors. She doesn't have any power to sign a resolution unless all the directors are aware of it. The President can't just chose a few directors in favour of a motion. I still maintain that the secret agreement signed by Sister Elizabeth Kellihier, who was the President at the court on May 18, 2010, was illegal. How BC Housing has been able to get away with it is beyond me. For expediency Broughton and Company twist/broke the law and the judge who was not interested in reading the mountain of pleadings as he instructed the parties to go out in the hall and settle the matter as this litigation is not in the public interest. I beg to differ, this litigation is in the best interest of the public. $billions are spent on social housing and yet the process is flawed.

Speaking of public interest: two weeks ago for a period of three days the elevators in the Tellier Tower were closed do lack of repairs. One of the argument by BC Housng was that the antiquated elevators had to be replaced as soon as possible
and short leave i.e. get the order of the receiver manager signed as soon as possible because it was necessary to replace the elevators with new ones. This is not true. BC Housing knew for years that the elevators had to be replaced and yet did nothing except to say that DERAH had to pay for them when in fact BC Housing knew that the reserve monies were not there. BC Housing has a lot of money for safety. This year BC Housing had a budget of $100 billion so BC Housing could have replaced the elevators and worried about what happened to the reserves later. Only one elevator is in working condition. BC Housing has put all the tenants of the ten story Tellier at risk (most are elderly and disabled) for years and still the elevators have not been replaced. BC Housing used the courts to press for the receiver-manager Order by a court short leave so that the elevators could be installed and yet the elevators have not been replaced and the tenants have not been advised if and when BC Housing will ever replace them.

I am very disappointed with the media as none of them have shown any interest in what happened to DERAH. This story isn't about DERAH alone, it is also about BC Housing and its tactics, and the failure of the Society Act.

And of course there is CUPE and it knew about the elevators being defective and it did nothing except tell their members not to walk up the ten flight of stairs to assist the elderly. Something in their Union contract not to walk up more than two stories without an elevator...and not being allowed to physically assist tenants but union members can verbally assault and threaten tenants, directors and specific employees. The entertainment one gets from reading a collective union agreement.
.

.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

EOI for the DERAH towers re CUPE

One of the things I do not understand and that is the constant reference to survivorship of CUPE's contract with DERA and DERAH. I attended each time the application to add CUPE as an intervenor to the BC Housing's application to appoint an receiver manager and at no time in the applications was it mentioned that CUPE had survivor status.

I was also told by CUPE that the contract was made with the Board and CUPE. It was not made with the Board, BC Housing and CUPE. So why the instruction that the collective agreement is to continue.

As far as I am concerned CUPE is the majority reason why DERAH was foreclosed upon. From the very beginning of Kim Kerr's ascention to the position of Executor Director, from the very first day in 2004, he fired or constructively dismissed all the original employees of DERA and DERAH. And what does CUPE do. Relativelt nothing as it is bound by unwritten protocol. It should have advised the directors of what was happening years ago when CUPE realized that its members were being fired for just cause and no reason given. CUPE's reasoning that it only deals with the executive director only goes to show CUPE's ignorance of the law and its failure to look after its members. There is nothing in the law that says they cannot communicate with the directors. How are the directors to learn what is happening with employees if the Union only dealt with Kim Kerr and Kim Kerr made the decision that all staffing is private and confidential and this decree extended to all the directors as well. Through the years all CUPE had to do was send a copy of any dispute to all the directors: it is very simple -- use email. CUPE should have taken it upon itself to educate the directors. I assure you from talking to past board members there would have been directors who would have taken action before Kim had them constructively impeached. One employee as dismissed in November 2009 and it took CUPE to finally get her rehired through the receiver manager eight months later. Most employees that were constructively dismissed by Kim Kerr did not want a prolonged fight with the Union and took a small $severance conditional on a confidentiality agreement. None of the employees are very happy with the Union.

One of the issues I raised besides the Kim's prevailing "you are fired with just cause and he would refuse to give the just cause" while I attended the board meetings was that I wanted all employees including the Executive to submit to random drug testing. The Union was 110% opposed to this. Of course it would be as most of its members were doing weed or other substances. I also wanted all the directors, the accountant, and Kim Kerr to submit to random drug test including Sister Elizabeth Kellihier, the President. Now I would expand that to testing the auditor as well.

I learned only on Saturday that there is a resident movement in the DERAH towers to not want CUPE to be part of the new operating agreements. The residents are not happy with the attitude of the CUPE employees nor the quality of their work. They asked CUPE and BC Housing for a copy of its contract with DERA/DERAH to determine if there is survivorship and CUPE and the Receiver-Manager has refused to give it to them. The tenants group has asked Union and BC Housing for a copy of the collective agreement. No agreement was given to them.

I also asked for it via a court application this spring and CUPE hired a prestigious law firm to represent them and not give it to me. I can't remember exactly but this prestigious law firm threatened me for interference with the employees. I am a director and I can't talk to an employee. So who do the employees work for: the union or the non-profit. The way CUPE acts is that any work done in the buildings is contracting out the work to CUPE and if anyone talks to one of its members the person faces legal threats. I find this absolutely distaseful.

The order for the receiver-manager contains the following clause respecting CUPE:

23. A THIS COURT ORDERS that the Receiver is authorized to deal with the Canadian Union of Public Employees (the "Union") on labour relations matters of the Defendant Society as follows: this Order, including but not limited to paragraphs 6, 7 and 12, shall not infringe on the Union's Collective Agreement and/or statutory rights and remedies, nor shall the Order abrogate the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board.

From this wording my understanding and what was said in the court is that the receiver manager deals with CUPE only during the term of the Order of Mr. Justice Sigurdson granted on May 18th, 2010. It does not extend beyond that time period.

I suggest to any of the proponents for the DERA towers to get a copy of the CUPE Operating Agreement as well as the history of disputes with DERAH and try its best to get rid of CUPE. Do your due diligence. Do not trust BC Housing as I doubt that it has ever read the Operating Agreement. There must be two operating agreements: one for DERA and one for DERAH or maybe the collective agreement was only for DERA and there never was one for DERAH. If the operating agreement includes both of them then most probably the operating agreement will be invalid as each are legally separate entities. The employees of the towers do not need the union to protect their rights. We are only talking about three or four employees per building and the Board should be dealing directly with all employee disputes. CUPE has been only a hinderance to the best interests of the public i.e. you the taxpayers in your support of the social housing in the DERAH towers. Unions are a huge expense and not necessary for small organizations.

The Operating Agreements for the three towers do not mention CUPE so I question BC Housings instruction to assume the Union. The Operating Agreements were never amended.

more to come ....

... if my understanding of what I believe is incorrect (see above), please let me know.
.

Blog Archive