Dirty tactics
There is a number of tactics that the incumbents, with a little bit of
help from the hired help, can use to make sure that they stay in power.
Unfair advantages
Board members may do owners certain favours such as allowing a second
vehicle to park in the Visitor’s Parking for a period of time, help a
disabled person get a better parking spot or improved access to the
building. A “No Pets” rule could be ignored for an “invisible cat” or
if someone is babysitting a relative’s dog for a couple of weeks.
Perhaps an owner will have a Party Room rental fee wavered or will be
given permission to use an elevator to move an appliance during
irregular hours.
Having access to the owners’ e-mail addresses gives the board the
opportunity to send election material prior to the Annual General
Meetings and to solicit proxies from the absentee owners.
The board has another huge advantage. The manager and the lawyer may
actively help the incumbents get reelected.
The board members, the
management company employees, the superintendent and the security
guards may be pressed into telephoning owners requesting proxies. The
corporation pays for all of this, including the long-distance telephone
charges. The lawyer chairs the AGM and vets the proxies. (Little wonder
a new board may replace all of these contractors as soon as they win
office.)
Access to the voters
Most buildings have a no-solicitation rule that they impose on
unwelcome candidates. Nowhere in
the Act does it state that candidates running for condo elections, and
their supporters, are to be
given access for election campaigning.
Candidates that go door-to-door seeking support will find that some
owners resent their presence. Some support the incumbents and others do
not want anyone to bother them for any reason so they may complain to
the manager or to security.
The building superintendent or the security guards may challenge
canvassers, demanding that they stop. The police may be called in to
threaten the candidates or their supporters with trespassing charges.
(The police presence is just an intimidation tactic as you are an owner
of the common elements as well as your private unit.)
The manager and the incumbents claim that the opposition canvassers are
“interfering with the owners’ quiet enjoyment of their units and being
disruptive and even harassing or frightening the owners.
The board’s opponents may receive a lawyer’s letter saying that they
are disturbing the owner’s quiet enjoyment of their units and in are in
breach of the rules. The canvassers may find that they are being billed
$650 or more for the cost of the letter with a threat that if the bill
isn’t paid within 12 days, the corporation will put a lien on their
unit.
Yet the board members and their supporters may go knocking on doors as
anything they do is “board business” and is acceptable.
At some condos, the incumbents will run a phone bank using the
corporation’s records to telephone all the owners to request proxies.
This is when the owners are reminded of the “favours” they have been
granted. Then they just have to go to the units and pick them up.
Access to the
records
An owner who is a declared candidate for position on the board has the
right to examine the list of owners and their contact information. This
list cannot be legally withheld from the candidate. Yet some boards
ignore the request. Other boards give an outdated list or only the
names and addresses but withhold the phone numbers.
Yet, far too often, the managers/board refuse to give the challenging
candidates a copy of the register. Yet, the incumbents and their
supporters freely use the owners register to help them collect proxies
by knocking on doors, to phone and to e-mail the absentee owners.
Discouraging democracy
That is why many owners run for election only once. One unfair election
is enough to turn most candidates off.
Election fraud
I have written four full chapters on condo election
fraud. It is far more common that I ever expected
top
contents
chapter
previous
next