Continuity Planning & Social Fabric Development Survey Results

Submitted by Rachel Rose, James Jordan, Meghan Synnott & Eric Moschopedis

The Continuity Planning & Social Fabric Development subcommittee is pleased to invite you to join us in our next steps. Participate in the following ways:

1. Take a few moments to read through the survey results from last Spring. 

We recognize that some of the results may feel challenging to read or conflict with, your own experience in Sunnyhill. Take note of your reactions, thoughts, feelings, or even ideas that come to mind?

2. Share your initial reactions in the short survey at the end. 

It has been a while since we first asked these questions and things may have shifted or changed for you. We hope that these 3 simple questions will give us a sense as to what the current “temperature” is in the co-op as we move forward to the next steps. 

3. Plan to participate in an open house.

We want to welcome everyone to participate in an open house where we can safely talk about what this all means for Sunnyhill and gather your specific feedback about the priority areas outlined in the survey (i.e., Relationships & Trust, Education & Training of Co-op Members, Constructive Communication etc.) Specifically, we will be facilitating conversation that asks the following questions: 

“What would be different?”

“What does this look like?

Take some time to think about these questions in advance. We are asking members to RSVP for the open house so that we can prepare & plan. Our intention is to hold these outside (weather & COVID restrictions permitting) the dates will be: 

Watch for the dates and an RSVP link to be sent in the next few weeks!

Thanks to everyone who already offered their thoughts and ideas through this survey. We look forward to cooperatively determining what the next step of this process should be as thoughtfully collaborate, share & create ways to meaningfully advance this work. 

Cooperatively yours, 

Rachel Rose, James Jordan, Meghan Synnott & Eric Moschopedis 

---

Continuity Planning & Social Fabric Development Survey Results

Spring 2021 - Total Number of Respondents: 50 

Questions #1-3 Final Results of Priority Rankings 

First Priority: Relationships & Trust

Second Priority: Education & Training of Co-op Members

Third Priority: Constructive Communication

*This is a summary of the data. Full results for each priority are listed in the P & D files on the website. 

Question #4

In your opinion what is the best way for the co-op to best heal and work together towards a vibrant future?

*Please see Sheet 2 in the P& D files for the full data. Each response was assigned a theme, the themes were then ranked in order of their frequency mentioned

Question #5 

What single word would you use to describe how you feel about Sunnyhill Co-op in March 2021?

*The largest words appeared with the greatest frequency. 

---

Share your initial reactions…

Meet & Greet with Ward 7 Candidate July 19

Submitted by Bob Bott

Erin Waite, one of the more progressive-sounding Ward 7 councillor candidates, would like to have a “meet and greet” with interested Sunnyhill members. She said she’s available Monday evening, July 19, so I suggested we gather around 7:30 by the Little Library and chat for a while or walk over to the picnic tables. Please spread the word among the members.

Several other candidates sound like they might be supportive of our values and aspirations, and it would be good to get to know them before the October 18 municipal election. Here’s the current list of those running in Ward 7, in alphabetical order, with links to their websites:

Ward 7

Incumbent: Druh Farrell

Daria Bogdanov

Bogdanov is an executive council member of the Progressive Group for Independent Business, the right-wing advocacy group that created Take Back City Hall. She is the Take Back City Hall candidate for Ward 7. Originally from Russia, Bogdanov touts her extensive business background—including marketing for Samsung and sales for a medical equipment company.

Matt Lalonde

Lalonde has a master's degree in city planning from the University of Calgary, which he says gives him the ability to provide hands-on policy and design solutions for the city. Lalonde wants to provide incentives to encourage small businesses, to strike a balance between inner-city redevelopment and preserving community character, and to promote "freedom of choice" for transportation.

Heather McRae

McRae is running a campaign calling for more civility at city hall. Having previously done communications work for Cenovus and Encana, she currently works at Decide Campaigns, which is run by her husband, Stephen Carter. In 2013, McRae worked as the campaign manager for incumbent Druh Farrell.

Marilyn North Peigan

Peigan, a member of the Piikani Nation who was appointed to the Calgary Police Commission in 2017, announced her candidacy on the day of the Women’s Memorial March honouring missing and murdered Indigenous women. She says she wants to enhance diversity at the city and help establish a "sustainable approach" to municipal governance.

Erin Waite

Waite has worked the past decade as the director of Connections, a counselling and consulting organization for those with disabilities, and prior to that worked in corporate communications and investment relations at Principal. She wants to find new uses for empty downtown office buildings and partner with various stakeholders on downtown revitalization.

Derek Williams

Williams supports downtown revitalization, the Green Line and the new arena, and wants to expand the city's cost-cutting programs, such as SAVE, as well as affordable housing. He's also the founder of a business that sells designer medical scrubs, and the sales manager for a janitorial services contractor.

Terry Wong

Wong has served as the executive director of the Calgary Business Improvement Area and is currently the president of the Hounsfield Heights Briar Hill Community Association. He has also been critical of the Guidebook for Great Communities. Wong says council needs to do a better job balancing its municipal infrastructure projects and broader planning goals.

Webinar Series: Board Governance for Not-or-Profit Organizations

Submitted by Brenda Willman

I offer this piece of information to the coop, noting that the full link is available at https://www.lesaonline.org/product/webinar-on-demand-board-governance-for-not-for-profit-organizations-4-day-series/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DMMar22_WOD

I believe one may need to be with a legal firm to access LESA material, but if so, that's something we could ask 'our lawyer' to set up for our Board (which they should be able to do for a minimal fee, if any at all). Perhaps the Day 1 and 3 webinars might prove most useful to an actual person serving on a Board (as opposed to being useful only to counsel serving a Not-for-Profit Organization).

Please consider this in the thoughtful and knowledgeable way in which it was intended. I have worked in the legal profession for 25+ years and know there are resources out there that lay people can understand without the benefit of a Law Degree. I shouldn't have to say so, but this is not a finger-pointing exercise. Many people took to these pages to opine on how/why we should move forward. I am suggesting that our Board could get a start on managing their own dysfunction, and that can dovetail into managing dysfunction within the coop at large. We have to start somewhere...

Finding a Path Forward Through Conflict

Submitted by David Broadhead

Dear neighbours,

In response to Phil’s note about the investigation that the Board reported on recently, I tapped out a few thoughts. This note is meant to engage ideas and push pull and tug at them. Let’s see where they land.

I can’t know where the investigation started and stopped. It was confidential and needs to stay that way. That honours the folks who contributed, believing in that confidentiality.

Let me quote a chunk here:

“Where we have difficult interactions across the membership that are traceable to personal styles and convictions and not malicious intent…,”

In this statement I find assertions that lack support. They need to be filled out. Are these conclusions of the investigation or the judgement of a member or members?

If these are conclusions from the investigation, they can’t be discussed. There is necessary context that members cannot know. Conclusions like these would be a stab in the dark.

Should these judgements be the opinion of a member or members, where does that take us? Most of us have strong feelings about inter-family conflict. Much of the time we don’t understand the full story. With respect, the stabbing here is in the same darkness.

And thus the next question – are we equipped to deal with tough conflict in our community?

I experienced difficult conflict last year, in fact I know I contributed to the conflict. At times I turned the heat up rather than dowsing the flame. However we describe that time, it did not feel like “personal styles and preferences”. I can’t know if others were acting out of “malicious intent”. Hopefully malicious intent was absent from all of our words.

What’s the point? It’s this – we can’t go back and redo or undo the investigation. Nor can we journey rearward and do a better job of handling old conflict with our neighbours. This is a one way street.

Many of us think that we were unprepared for community life over the past couple of years. The careful writing and lots of it on this page shows that. Members speaking. There are strong, deliberated ideas here. Hear the calls for us all to be better.

Let’s all contribute to the questions about Continuity Planning. We are hungry for courage and compassion. The whole is wiser than any one or group of us.

I have to work Roberts Rules in somehow. Here is my attempt:

I am a fan. That is, I am a fan of any operating policy that helps the shyest among us find equality with the brashest. That making way for others is a beautiful thing. Without waiting for survey results or construction grants, I can do exactly that now.

The question of what to do about past pain is too much for this note. People hurt, the community must acknowledge it in some way. We need wisdom and big soft hearts.

When I arrived at Sunnyhill I soon heard about Vision 2020. Didn’t know much about it, but it was the first time I associated Phil with anything. Since then he has constantly looked to the future and at times I get to work with him. Let’s keep our future in focus and head that way together.

Using Legal Interventions to Resolve Sunnyhill Co-op Member Issues

Submitted by Phil Cox

If a member wrecks their unit, causes a disturbance or falls into arrears, and if they then disregard internal processes of sanction, then engaging legal services seems a viable option as a last resort.

Where we have difficult interactions across the membership that are traceable to personal styles and convictions and not malicious intent, there is no place for a legal intervention, ever. It is for us as a community to find a way.

The board initiated a very risky procedure designed to assign fault and make a repair. Confidentiality now is justified to protect the parties, but it has cordoned off what can be talked about and left a few of us feeling just a little less at home. And that is a loss to Sunnyhill.

We can build back from this, to be sure. But please, let’s not hail the use of a private investigator as a tool for making us stronger.

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

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

The Principles and Practice of Being Cooperative

Submitted by Rachel Rose

An invitation to Sunnyhill, 

I have been reflecting on what it means to be cooperative and would like to share my thoughts... 

We often speak about “being cooperative” but in my time here I have seen many behaviours we assume are cooperative despite being in contradiction to one another. 

It seems at times that there is an assumption that since we are part of a co-op that we must be behaving cooperatively, but I don’t believe that’s the case. I think being cooperative is an intentional act that needs to be practiced time and time again. It’s not an arrival but rather an ongoing activity. We can’t declare that we are being cooperative, cooperation needs to be driven by shared ethics and values. 

We rely on our policies, Robert’s Rules, as well as norms to govern how we operate, but in many ways these are incomplete. These are merely tools and it’s the ethic and spirit in which they are utilized that can become cooperative or uncooperative. 

I have been wondering, what are the principles of cooperative behaviour? What does this look like in practice? What behaviours undermine cooperation? 

Over the last year I have observed instances of behaviours that I perceive to be uncooperative including: 

• Making assumptions

• Starting dialogue with accusations and adversarial tones.

• Refusing to communicate or shutting down

• Seeking to be right rather than to be heard

• A refusal to take perspectives

I have also seen behaviours that I believe to be cooperative including: 

• Asking questions with curiosity

• Listening

• Turn taking

• Showing appreciation

• Starting with goodwill

• Trusting in the good faith of others to function on our behalf

In my opinion Sunnyhill is at a pivotal juncture whereby we need to begin to further deliberate what it actually means to be cooperative and hold ourselves accountable to this or we risk division, harm, and fracture. My fear is if we don’t do this, uncooperative behaviours will further silence and marginalize members who we so deeply need engaged. Without this our meetings will be empty and we will find ourselves further apart and falling into disrepair.

I am sincerely interested in exploring the ethics and values of how we cooperate and would love to engage in dialogue and learn about what this means to you in efforts of starting to craft a shared vision. 

All my best, 

Rachel 

#807