CMHC Project Client Visit and Report to Police

This page is hyper-linked with additional information. It should be noted that some information is currently under review and some links may be broken at this point in-time.

 

Some noted excerpts from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) correspondences addressed to Ken Hummel, Member, Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc.      It should be noted that some information may have been withheld out of view by Ken Hummel.

 

 

 

                                                          CMHC   SCHL

 

 

 

April 5, 2004

 

Dear Mr. Hummel:

 

We received your letter of April 5, 2004. It is a correct way to report to the Police if you have evidence for fraud and drug activities at Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc. I am writing to reply to your requests:

 

1. A CMHC client visit at the Co-op on April 20 and 21, 2004 has been confirmed.

 

2. After the client visit, a letter with recommendations based on findings from CMHC will be sent to the Co-op's Board of Directors. Please request a copy of the letter directly from the Board if you or other members would like to know the detail of CMHC's recommendations.

 

3. It is a normal practice that a representative from the Co-op's auditor attends the Annual Member Meeting. CMHC is not in the position to instruct the Board to do so. Please contact the Board to arrange it.

 

Yours truly

 

Brian Zhang

Portfolio Management Officer

 

 

 

                                                          CMHC   SCHL

 

 

 

June 24, 2004

 

Dear Mr. Hummel:

 

We received your letter of June 17, 2004.

 

Please quote what you wrote in your letter of March 20, 2003 with regards to "Issue 13".           You raised a number of issues in the letter and it is hard to identify what you referred as "investigation and audits as stated in the Act".

 

CMHC's letter of May 6, 2004 to the Co-op's Board of Directors has clearly summarized our findings and recommendations of the client visit on April 20 and 21, 2004. We don't give out other report to the Co-op or members.

 

The last CMHC client visit prior to 2004 was conducted in 1996.

 

Yours truly

 

Brian Zhang

Portfolio Management Officer

 

 

 

 

Some noted excerpts from a CMHC correspondence addressed to the Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS). It should be noted that some information in parts of this communication...may have been redacted by CMHC and/or some information withheld out of view by Ken Hummel, Member, Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc.

                                                           CMHC   SCHL

May 20, 2004                                                                       PROTECTED                                               

                                                                                              Our File:          

                                                                                            Your File:

Chief of Police

Durham Regional Police Service

Attn: D/Cst. Alistair / Major Crime Unit

RE: Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc.

      Fraud allegations reported by co-op member

Your correspondence dated 19 April 2004 and subsequent telephone conversation with our investigator, Mr. Mario Parent, refers.

As previously mentioned, a client visit was completed at the Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc. (Co-op) in Whitby, Ontario on April 20 & 21, 2004. Portfolio officers from the Toronto Business Centre and from CMHC's Sudbury office conducted the on site review.

In addition to the Scheduled client visit, a copy of the correspondence as received from your office was made available to our officers during the visit. This document dated 13 February 2004, referred to a number of fraudulent allegations made by Mr. Ken Hummel a member of the Co-op. It was further requested that the information be reviewed in an attempt to support or refute the reported allegations. While the allegations in the letter are extensive, many appear to be based on speculation where factual evidence was not provided.

The results of the client visit did not appear to support the allegations reported by this member of the Co-op. A copy of the report submitted by our Portfolio officer is enclosed for your information. As requested, we are also enclosing the documents which formed part of your initial request for assistance.

Should new information be made available during the course of your investigation that warrant CMHC's assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our investigator, Mr. Mario Parent, at

Regards,

David A. Leslie

Manager,

Security & Risk Management

Attachments

May 6, 2004

To: Kathy Campbell

      Mario Parent

From Brian Zhang

Re: Athol Green Co-op - Mr. Ken Hummel

I have reviewed the Portfolio Management files (Volume 7-11, 1995-2004) with regards to three of the allegations Mr. Hummel made in his letter of February 13, 2004. Mr. Hummel's other allegations can't be investigated by analyzing Portfolio Management files.

1. Investment in Mutual Funds

No problem was found based on our review of the audited financial statements and the auditor's management letters (fiscal 1994/1995 - 2000/2001). It is not clear what evidence Mr. Hummel has for his claim that $568,528 was misappropriated and illegal income was not reported to the members or auditor.

Fiscal 1994/1995

* Unqualified audit opinion

*

* No management letter on file

Fiscal 1995/1996

*Unqualified audit opinion

*

* No management letter on file

Fiscal 1996/1997

* Unqualified audit opinion

*

The auditor encouraged the Co-op to ensure their investments are in accordance with operating agreement - investment should be made in what is insured by Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

*

*

Fiscal 1997/1998

*Unqualified audit opinion

*

*Auditor's Management Letter - No major issue

Fiscal 1998/1999

* Unqualified audit opinion

*

*Auditor's Management Letter - No major issue

Fiscal 1999/2000

*Unqualified audit opinion

*

*Auditor's Management Letter - No major issue

The Co-op stopped investing in mutual funds in fiscal 2000/2001.

Investment in Mutual Funds (1994/1995-1999/2000)

l                  l 1994/1995 l 1996/1996 l 1997/1998 l 1998/1999 l 1999/2000 l

Investment  l                                                                                                    l

Without reviewing the statement of mutual fund investment, we can't determine the exact amount of gain or loss from the investment. A request has been made to the Co-op for the copies of statements. An analysis will be done once we receive the statements.

2. Theft of Laundry Room Funds

Mr. Hummel is right about the theft of laundry room funds. However, it has been reported to the Police and resolved two years ago. There was a theft of laundry room funds and it was caught by the Co-ordinator and the Board of Directors in 2002, As a result,

was evicted. According to the current Co-ordinator, the police decided not to charge that person as they didn't think the evidence was sufficient. The Co-op's management estimated that $3,000 was stolen, much less than Mr. Hummel's amount of $15,095.

A letter from Mr. Hummel to CMHC in February 2000 is on file. No written response to Mr. Hummel from CMHC. According to Mr. Hmmel' letters to CMHC in 2004, he had telephone conversations with Donna Scotts, CMHC's Portfolio Management Officer.

A client visit was conducted on My 6 & 7, 1996. For unknown reason, it hasn't been recorded on PMSH system. It is considered to be a regular client visit as no special reason was documented on file. The client visit letter of July 10, 1996 doesn't show major issue/concern.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some noted excerpt's from a CMHC Client Visit Summary dated April 23, 2004.

It should be noted that some information in parts of this Housing Co-op Client Visit Summary may have been redacted by CMHC and/or some information withheld from view, by Ken Hummel, Member, Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Client Visit Summary

Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc.

Whitby, ON

April 23, 2004                                                                                    09 104 084

A client visit was completed at the Athol Green Co-operative Homes in Whitby, on April 20 & 21, 2004. Brian Zhang, portfolio officer and Sharon Dinnes met with

at the beginning of the client visit to discuss the monitoring protocol and at the end of our review for a verbal report on the findings.

The Client visit protocol was discussed and information was verified by reviewing the board minutes, insurance policy, financial and maintenance reports as well as member files. The period of review dated back to January 2002 for some of the financial transactions.

The previous client visit was completed in May 1996, the date of the client visit was not entered in the PMSH system, but a copy of the client visit was found in the file. The client visit summary did not indicate any major concerns at that time. Prior to this client visit CMHC had received a number of letters from one of the members with several concerns about the administration of this co-op during the period 1995 to 2000. It was not in the scope of this review to deal with records from that period but instead to ensure that the current administration is adhering to the operating agreement with CMHC.

The co-op was funded under the Section 34.18 Co-op program with an IAD of November 1978. The project consist of twin buildings with 24-stacked units in each building. There appears to be a discrepancy in the PMSH Unit Profile data and this will have to be clarified by the Portfolio Officer. Apparently one of the previous Portfolio Officers has changed the bedroom sizes with the co-op but has not changed the unit profile on PMSH or amended the operating agreement. According to the current housing charges units are classified as 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms whereas the operating agreement and PMSH indicates 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units.

ORGANIZATION

Board meetings are held every two weeks with a break in the summer months. These meetings are open to all members except during the in-camera sessions. The board minutes were reviewed and the timing of meetings was verified.

The board keeps two sets of minutes and each set was verified to ensure that information was consistent. It was recommended that if the board were to use in-camera sections to the minutes there would not be a need for the two sets. In fact the only difference between to the two sets is the removal of the confidential part of the meeting. It was discussed with the coordinator and the board president that in fact they should not be typing edited minutes but instead should be noting in the regular minutes the discussion has gone In-camera. This should assist with the concern from members that the minutes are in fact edited. Minutes were not signed by the board but we were told that minutes are signed before the audit each year. A recommendation will be made that the minutes are signed when approved at board meetings.

Our review of the Minutes revealed that the Board is involved with all necessary aspects of administration. Attached to the minutes were copies of all correspondence, coordinators report, financial statements (monthly) and internal notices. As well evidence that the board reviews contracts or large purchases was noted. The board handles all member complaints appropriately All documentation re member complaints is filed with the minutes as well as in the member files.

General Membership meetings are held at least twice per year, once when the audited financial statements are presented to the membership and once for budget approval. Attendance at the AGMs appeared to be acceptable with quorum reached at 25% of the units being represented. In January the GMM was held to approve the audit and 29 of the 59 members were in attendance. The auditor was supposed to attend the meeting but could not make it. The budget was approved in July 2003 with 27 of the 61 members in attendance.

The co-op has one employee, the coordinator who is responsible for the day-to-day operations. A copy of her employment agreement was provided at the time of this client visit.

The maintenance work is completed by an independent contractor on an hourly basis, as required. There is no contract in place for this position. The financial input and monthly reports are completed by the bookkeeping service, a copy of the terms of engagement were received for the purposes of this review.

The co-op does have an arrears policy in place but have had challenges in actually collecting these arrears. This was discussed in length with the representative of the co-op at the time of this client visit. The auditors have also commented on the arrears in the management letter. The administration has attempted a late fee payment schedule in order to encourage members to pay housing charges on time. This did not seem to have a significant impact on members so the board is reviewing this policy. As of March 31, 2004 the arrears report indicated housing charges were outstanding. These all had payment plans in place and were being monitored or notices to appear before the board had been issued. This included one member that has just moved out and is actually going to be charged with fraud over This member may also be charged by Social Services as well for not declaring income. Arrears for ex-members have been sent to a collection agency but there does not appear to be any actions on these collections. It is recommended that the co-op should consider another collection agency and that it would be beneficial to check with the other co-ops in the area to see which collection agency they are using and results they have had.

The occupancy agreement in place is the standard adopted from CHF. The selection process included review of all applications, and as they are received the credit check is performed. Prospective members must attend an orientation session and those interested in membership are interviewed by selection committee. The final approval is made by the board

Member complaints are usually handled by the coordinator and are submitted in writing. The group's lawyer has been involved in the response to some of the letters and documents received. These are all filed with the minutes as well as in the member file.

The insurance policy in place for the period of January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005 was reviewed and applicable coverage appears to be in place, including replacement coverage

The coordinator and finance committee uses historical information in the preparation of the draft budget. Unit inspections are completed in November and these are used in the budget forecast. A draft budget is presented to the board in May and approved by the membership in July.

Prentice, Yates and Clark are the auditors and have been in place for over 24 years. An annual engagement letter is on file. The financial statements have been submitted to CMHC on time. A recommendation was made at the time of this client visit that a tendering process should be completed for the annual audit every few years to ensure that the current auditor is competitive in their costs for the audit.

MAINTENANCE

The group completed a replacement reserve study in 1997, work from that study has now been completed and the group is considering a second study to ensure a realistic study is in place. At the completion of this review they will consider the actual allocation to the reserve required to ensure the RRF remains viable. They have used over in the last couple of years but have replaced the roofs, windows, alarm system and some flooring. These expenditures were reviewed at the time of this client visit to ensure that tender process followed approved guidelines.

The annual inspections are completed each fall and filed in the unit files. As well the inventory list was updated in November 2003 and includes the office equipment as well. A complete listing of landscaping materials and equipment was given to us at the time of the client visit.

The co-op also has security cameras in several locations, which has helped cut down in maintenance costs, as those causing damage to the co-op have had to pay.

The most recent CMHC inspection was completed in August 1999 at which time the roofs, windows and doors were identified. The service contracts in place are for fire alarms, heating and exterminators. All contracts appeared to have been reviewed by the board and appropriately approved.

Members initiate maintenance request and submit them to the coordinator. A listing is left for the maintenance worker to complete, if it is beyond the scope of his abilities a trades person is contacted. Completed work orders are returned to the office. Not all work orders should be filed. Currently minor work orders for leaky taps etc are not kept.

The board of directors approves all expenditures for maintenance work. Members pay a $200 maintenance guarantee at the time of occupancy.

Five units were inspected. Generally, the units are in good condition. New windows have been installed. Most members use their dens as bedroom. It was noted that the fence is in poor condition. The Co-op had a playground and it was demolished for safety reason. A new one is needed given the fact that there are a number of families with kids living at the Co-op.

The records of three major capital replacements, fire system retrofit; roofing and windows/patio doors were reviewed.

1. Fire System Retrofit

Two requests were signed by Board director and approved by CMHC in October 1999 and April 2000. The contracts were awarded to Shield Fire Protection Inc. with the amount of

plus GST and        respectively (total amount of          ). Total paid by the co-op was    

The work was to be completed in 8 weeks, but it actually took 18 months to complete.

2. Roofing

CMS is the consultant for the project. In September 2002, the contract was approved by CMHC and the contract was awarded to

Later, second bidding was conducted as the Co-op thought better pricing and material would be obtained. The contract was finally awarded to Foran's Roofing for the total amount of

plus GST. The Co-ordinator told us that the Co-op had verbal approval from CMHC. No written approval was found on file. The roofing now has been completed. There was additional charge on charge orders. Consultant fee is

Total amount paid by the Co-op for the roofing including consulting fee is

3. Windows & Patio Doors

The request was approved first by the Board and general membership and later by CMHC on July 24, 2002. The contract was awarded to Durham Windows & Doors with the amount of

GST included. The work has been completed and the total amount paid by the Co-op was

The payments that the Co-op made to the contractors were reviewed with the replacement reserve expenditures shown in the financial statements. In general, the amounts match accordingly.

MEMBERS/OCCUPANCY FILES

The Co-op has 48 units in the project with    of these units receiving subsidy from the CSHP program. Prior to 2000 only     of members received a housing subsidy. It appears that there is no control or agreement in place to monitor the number of units receiving subsidy. They submit an annual reconciliation for subsidy required.

Occupancy Agreements are in place and a sample copy was provided for our files. Our review of member files indicated that all copies of Occupancy Agreements in the files appeared to be original signed copies. Occupancy Agreements in use are subject to the Occupancy By-Law and appeared to contain all clauses recommended by CMHC.

A total of 6 member files were examined, which included a random sampling of RGI, a Board member, and market, including members in arrears. Files were found to be well organized and detailed, containing copies of member profiles, applications, income verification's & housing charge calculations for subsidized units, and various correspondence such as arrears notices, annual housing charge increase notices, and some member complaints with responses from the Board.

Verification of income and notices of revised housing charge appear to be efficiently handled. Copies of income verification's are retained on separate subsidy files along with the calculation of subsidy, which appeared to be accurate for the purposes of this review. Copies of the notices sent to members advising of the revised housing charge were also reviewed in the files.

FINANCE

The financial records are maintained by a bookkeeping service that comes to the office as required to maintain computer accounting records including receipts, individual member payment ledgers, accounts receivable and payable, disbursements, and bank reconciliation. These are handled through use of New Views computer accounting software. A sampling of financial data including receipts, payment cards, disbursements, and bank statements was reviewed. The test sample appeared to be satisfactory for our purposes.

Bank statements are reconciled by the bookkeeper, initialed by the coordinator and approved by the Treasurer. Monthly the financial reports are submitted at the board meetings for the directors to approve.

Investment reports and statements were reviewed quite extensively and all transactions were found to be satisfactory for the purposes of this review.

The records are clear and show no problem.

The majority of housing charge payments are received in the form of postdated cheques. Cash payments are discouraged but if member pays in cash a numbered receipt is issued. As well if a member has made a cash payment they are advised to return to the office on the day that the bookkeeper is there to verify the amount posted to their account.

The Coordinator is responsible for bank deposits, with the main deposit on the first of the month, and others as required during the month. All cash payments are deposited when they are received. Deposits are tracked on a deposit sheet for the bookkeeper to process. The deposit sheet outlines the various housing charges paid by the members, laundry funds, and other monies received by the co-op. The deposit book was verified to these deposit reports and found to be satisfactory for the purposes of this review.

A review of disbursement procedures and records (September 2002 - April 2004) indicated invoices received are verified and cheque requisitions are prepared by the Co-ordinator. Two Board of Directors approve and sign each cheque requisition. A random sampling verified that cheques are signed by two officers with signing authority. Invoices are paid when received and stamped paid. It was noted that there were some cheque payments to the Co-ordinator. For example, there were three payments paid to the Co-ordinator  for the purpose of purchasing fridges and stoves from the Brick.

It was noted that a payment of              was made to Drycon Building Services. The payment was for the renovation at a couple of units. CMHC approval for this work was not requested by the co-op.

The Co-op has credit accounts with Home Depot, Canadian Tire and Staples for maintenance and office supplies. The credit limits are           respectively. Maintenance committee chair and one Board director have purchasing authority to use the first two accounts. The Co-ordinator has authority for at least one.

E.D.P. SYSTEMS

The Co-op currently has one computer in the office used by the coordinator and the bookkeeper. The computer is password protected with the auditor also having the password. The computer has New Views and Office 2000. The coordinator does have internet access. The computer system is backed up after each update by the bookkeeper and 3 sets are kept. One in the office, one at the coordinators and one with the bookkeeper.

CONCLUSION

The Board of Directors of Athol Green Co-operative Homes appears to appropriately manage the Co-operative. Necessary controls are in place and the accounting system appears to be satisfactory. It appears that the overall administration of this project is satisfactory for the purposes of this review.

______________________                            ________________________

Sharon Dinnes                                                Brian Zhang

Portfolio Management Officer                      Portfolio Management officer

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Ken Hummel (Ken) reviewed the letter dated May 20, 2004 with attachment sent by CMHC to the DRPS, and then compared that letter with attachments for Ken's review of the CMHC Client Visit Summary dated April 23, 2004 sent to Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc. That formed Ken's views and opinions in the comment section that can be noted. Some supplementary information can be accessed by clicking hyper-links.

COMMENT'S

CMHC Client Visit on April 20 &21, 2004.

In Ken's view, Brian Zhang stated the client visit protocol  was discussed and information was verified by reviewing the board minutes, insurance policy, financial and maintenance reports as well as member files. The period of review dated back to January 2002 for some of the financial transactions.

In Ken's view, Mr. Zhang stated prior to this client visit CMHC had received a number of letters from one of the members with several concerns about the administration of this co-op during the period 1995 to 2000. 

 

In Ken's opinion, that unnamed member was Ken Hummel.

 

In Ken's view, Mr. Zhang stated it was not in the scope of this review to deal with records from that period but instead to ensure that the current administration is adhering to the operating agreement with CMHC. 

 

In Ken's opinion, Brian Zhang and others dismissed all of Ken's allegations and accusations because it was the CMHC decision not to investigate Ken's claims.

After Ken's additional review of the CMHC letter dated May 20, 2004 sent to DRPS, Ken formed the opinion that CMHC with the cooperation of Athol Green Co-op representatives engaged in a cover-up and swept Ken's allegations and accusations stated in his letter dated February 13, 2004 under the rug in order to protect the individuals named in Ken's Feb. 13, 2004 letter, and the co-op housing project.

Ken responds to some of the claims made by CMHC in their letter dated May 20, 2004 with attachment.

In Ken's view, Mr. David A. Leslie stated this document dated 13 February 2004, referred to a number of fraudulent allegations made by Mr. Ken Hummel a member of the Co-op. While the allegations in this letter are extensive, many appear to be based on speculation where factual evidence was not provided. The results of this client visit did not appear to support the allegations reported by this member of the Co-op.

In Ken's response to David Leslie's claims, it was not in the scope of this client visit review to deal with records during the period 1995 to 2000. The period of review dated back to January 2002 for some of the financial transactions, and in Ken's view, this investigation by CMHC was to sweep alleged theft and fraud...under the rug. Some of the CMHC and Mr. Leslie's claims can be discredited by reviewing Co-op board od directors, and membership meeting minutes prior to 2000 and after 2000.

In Ken's view, Brian Zhang stated I reviewed the Portfolio Management files (Volume 7-11, 1995-2004) with regards to three of the allegations Mr. Ken Hummel made in his letter of February 13, 2004. Mr. Hummel's other allegations can't be investigated by analyzing Portfolio Management files....

In Ken's opinion, Mr. Zhang only investigated three of Ken's allegations and did not state what those allegations were about. It appears that Mr. Zhang was not diligent in this investigation as it appears cross referencing other co-op records was not done that may have supported these allegations.

In Ken's view, Mr. Zhang stated that no problem was found based on our review of the audited financial statements and auditor's management letters (fiscal 1994/1995-2000/2001. It is not clear what evidence Mr. Hummel has for his claim that $568, 528 was misappropriated and illegal income was not reported to the members or auditor.

In Ken's response to Brian Zhang's claims -

In Ken's opinion the audit is not designed to detect theft and fraud with an unqualified audit opinion. Mr. Zhang stated that there was no auditor's management letter on file for fiscal 1994/1995, and 1995/1996. in the letter to DRPS.

 

In Ken's view, Mr. Zhang stated in the client visit review, Prentice, Yates and Clark are the auditors and have been in place for over 24 years. An annual engagement letter is on file. 

 

In Ken's opinion, the auditors would have the two management letters CMHC claim were not on file at the Co-op for fiscal 1994/1995, and 1995/1996.

Ken stated the figure $568, 528 as reported in the co-op audited financial statements. Ken used the term or word misappropriated, to be used in context that applies to investing funds without proper authorization.  This appears clear to Ken, but not to Mr. Zhang. CLICK HERE to review co-op audited financial statements

In Ken's view, the auditor's encouraged the co-op to ensure their investments be in accordance with the operating agreement - investment should be make in what is insured by Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. The co-op stopped investing in mutual funds in fiscal 2000/2001.

In Ken's view, Mr. Zhang stated without reviewing the statement of mutual fund investment, we can't determine the exact amount or gain or loss from the investment. A request has been made to the Co-op for copies of statements. An analysis will be done once we receive the statements.

In Ken's opinion, Mr. Zhang was not diligent in this investigation because it appears that he failed to take the opportunity to review other co-op financial statements that should have reported gain or loss from investments reported in the co-op balance sheet's and operating statement's with budget comparisons accounting records that should have been on file at the Co-op prepared by the co-op bookkeeper that he or she would have kept a set of these records off the co-op property.

In Ken's view, it appears this investigation seems to neglect contacting the co-op bookkeeper and auditor's for this information that could have supported Ken's allegations of fraud and theft as stated in the CMHC letter dated May 20, 2004 that was sent to the Durham Regional Police Service. 

 

In Ken's view, CMHC claims that Co-op financial records were not found inside the Co-op Corporate Office for their investigation. 

 

In Ken's opinion, this investigation should have been turned back over to DRPS to investigate, as removing these type of records from the Co-op Corporate Office is a criminal act.

In Ken's opinion, the Co-op auditor's have refused to answer most of Ken's current and previous Co-op audit inquires dating back to a least 2004. CLICK HERE, CLICK HERE And CLICK HERE

In Ken's view, Mr. Zhang stated Mr. Hummel is right about the theft of laundry room funds. However, it has been reported to the police and resolved two years ago. There was a theft of laundry room funds and it was caught by the Co-ordinator and Board of Directors in 2002. In the May 20, 2004 letter to the DRPS    

 

In Ken's view, CMHC and Brian Zhang failed to investigate claims of theft from the co-op laundry room washer's and dryer's prior to September 2000. Ken estimated the alleged theft may have amounted up to $15, 095.00 from 1995 to 2000. CLICK HERE to review the the spreadsheet created by Ken with figures stated from the Co-op audited financial statements between 1981-2003 and CLICK HERE to review Ken's points of information at the Co-op 2016 AGM about laundry room income reported in the audited financial statements.

Ken contacted the DRPS to conduct this investigation in 2004. DRPS contacted Ken and said they would conduct an extensive investigation. Ken later contacted DRPS for an update on their investigation. DRPS contacted Ken and said DRPS had turned their investigation over to an Agency. 

 

In Ken's opinion, CMHC may had requested the Durham Regional Police Service to turn this investigation over to this Agency.  Ken's disappointment is very understated to say the least about this investigation being turned over and mishandled by CMHC.  Ken shares his disappointment on February 26, 2013 CLICK HERE

 

Ken is strongly opposed to CMHC and other Co-op housing Stakeholder's investigation into illegal activities under the Canadian Criminal Code. Ken offers his strong condemnation to all these Stakeholder's who investigate or withhold/hide information from Co-op Stakeholder's that include Ken, and the General Public-At-Large about fraud & theft suspected and/or reported in the Canadian Co-op Housing Sector as reported in Annual Report's To CMHC in Co-op Housing Portfolio Performance Review's CLICK HERE  

 

Athol Green Co-op - A True Life Co-op Housing Horror Story CLICK HERE Associative difficulties exist in the Co-op Housing Sector that result in Crisis Situations CLICK HERE  and HERE and CLICK HERE

 

Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc Page CLICK HERE 

 

  CMHC contracted the Agency for Co-operative Housing to monitor weather Co-op's are in compliance with Operating Agreement's, the Agency is the sole partner of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada .

 

 

CONCLUSION  

 

In Ken's view, I must reiterate by stating in part that the investigation conducted by CMHC is a classic example of sweeping fraud & illegal acts 'under the rug' with the full cooperation of Athol Green Co-operative Homes Incorporated, board of directors, and the staff coordinator in regards to Ken's many accusations, and allegations that include fraud allegations. 

 

Non-profit zero equity housing cooperatives are vulnerable to embezzlement by their very nature, as there are no **owners** watching every nickel & dime of their money. For most co-op housing stakeholder's, the potential impact of having a fraud or theft become known to its housing volunteer member's and the general public-at-large is of great concern that such occurrences are frequently swept under the carpet.   

 

In Ken's view, CMHC, the Agency for Co-operative Housing, and CHF Canada...form a relationship with the Board of Director's and Management Staff at Non-profit Zero Equity Housing Co-operative's across Canada that has created a Fraud & Illegal Acts Friendly Culture!  CLICK HERE

 

In Ken's view or IMHO, I'm surrounded by Predator's, Predatory-Creep Protector's (PCP), and those who fit into both those Categories with major Co-op Housing Stakeholder's that include CMHC, the Co-op Membership, Staff Coordinator/Manager, CHF Canada, and its Member Federation's, and the Co-op Auditor's that pander to the Co-op Board of Director's that are engaged and continue to demonstrate what Ken views, as their nonsense ("BS") as at 2017, at Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc.  

 

A link to a CMHC Co-op Client visit conducted in 1996 CLICK HERE

 

 

The interaction and experience with various co-op housing stakeholder's has had a profound  effect on Ken since 1999 and I'm not impressed to say the least. 

 

@newman_goodmoon shares a link to this page in a tweet !!

Information may be revised, added or removed without prior notification

Ken Hummel, Member, Athol Green Co-operative Homes Inc.