The following letter is very relevant to Spadina Towers where management and the Board have demonstrated similar behavior to those in each of the three scenerios noted:

Letter: [The following letter is from a former contractor; the highlights have been added for emphasis.] I have just finished reading some of your pages and I think that there is one issue that is missing and that is important to address. I am a [deleted] by trade and have worked for 4 different companies before this. I finished my degree with night courses and have been employed for the past two years by the [X] ministry. What I want to explain to you is that for contractors [for repairs, maintenance, and installation], condos are an inexhaustible source of profits.

The first scenario goes like this: the contractor or one of the workers are related to either the manager, the management company or the superintendent or even a board director. Such an “in” gets a lot more contracts with much less competitive bids because the manager has an interest in seeing that you get work on a regular basis, or likes you personally. Lots of managers come from backgrounds like us and it’s easy to see how this develops and how they “feel” more for us than for their [condo] budget and the owners in a building.

The second scenario goes like this: there is a board that does not care or does not know better so it’s easy when a little something goes wrong, the manager calls you and you find the solution and charge a bit more for the repairs than you would do if the manager or board knew what they were doing, and then you point out that something else is wrong (even if it is not) and you “fix” this as well. A lot of guys [contractors] don’t see anything wrong with this because “If they are so stupid and have so much money to throw around, why shouldn’t we have a piece of the pie, we work hard”.

So when you have a board that is not knowledgeable and especially when they know or think that the condo is aging, it’s real easy to get them to spend, even if these “repairs” could wait a few years or it’s easy to overcharge a bit. And when on top of this the board depends on a manager that is on your [contractor’s]side, well you have it made.

A third scenario is that the manager sorts of rigs the contracts so that you end up getting the best bid and you win. She can do this because she knows who charges too much or more or better she lets us know how much the others propose to charge so we get this right. Or else we provide a real low bid and ask for more money later on during the repairs.

Finally I’ll add that when a board is ineffective and the manager doesn’t like to have too much work, and a contractor is doing a special contract job, the contractor always goes back to ask for more money, either because “something new came up that couldn’t be predicted,” or because “it’s taking much longer than anticipated.” Of course the boards or the managers always approve the increase. That’s why boards and managers should be careful how they word their contracts for a job. They should do it for the job and not for the time spent or other contingencies.

I’d say that nearly all contractors will do it given the opportunity; if your client is stupid or doesn’t care, why not? No harm done and good for job creation. But we don’t do it if a president knows what’s what and runs his ship well.

Unfortunately, the above scenerios describe the conduct of the management and Board at Spadina Towers. Those with qualifying experience in financial accounting and responsible property management, can easily identify this misconduct. Yet those NOT qualified in this regard, choose to vocalize and embarass themselves at General Meetings, where they clearly demonstrate their lack of any qualifying or relevant experience or knowledge.  They blindly and unconditionally accept the position of the Board, with absolutely no interest in supporting any request of accountability from management or the Board. These residents, unqualifed or lacking relevant knowledge, often find it easier to simply “fall in line” with the wishes of management and the Board, and with no self respect for their own interests, simply accept being a “faithfull subject of whom they apparently deem to be their master”.