Open Letter to PCLS Board Re 2015 AGM

Dear Parkdale Community Legal Services (PCLS) Board:

We understand that PCLS will be holding this year’s Annual General Meeting on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 (a copy of the notice to members is available here). We write to raise three concerns regarding the AGM:

1. The AGM structure blocks community-nominated members from joining the board.
2. PCLS is not advising its clients of how to become PCLS members.
3. The AGM should address recent budgetary issues regarding litigation fees and staff turnover.

We explain our concerns in more detail below.

1. The structure you have proposed for the AGM prohibits Parkdale community members from joining the board.

As indicated in the notice, there is only one vacancy on the Board and the Board intends to present a recommended candidate for election. The notice states that this Board-nominated candidate is “to be presented to the members of the Annual General Meeting before any other nominations and is elected by a positive vote for the motion.”

Therefore, not only will the Board’s slate be presented first, but, as the Board stated at last year’s AGM (see one community member’s account of the 2014 AGM here), that member will be elected so long as they receive a single vote.

In other words, there is only one vacancy on the PCLS Board and it will be filled by the Board-nominated candidate. Even though PCLS members are empowered to present their own candidates, the structure you have proposed would mean that by the time a member-nominee is considered at the AGM, the one vacancy on the Board will have already been filled by the Board-nominee.

In both process and result, this proposed system is unfair. Based on the notice, members may invest time and energy into running for the Board and completing the procedural requirements for candidacy. Yet the reality is that no community-nominated member can in fact be elected to the Board. The proposed system wholly blocks community-nominated members from joining the Board.

Importantly, the letter implies that this nomination system is set out “according to the Bylaws of Parkdale Community Legal Services.” Yet there are no provisions in the PCLS Bylaws (available here) for differentiated voting between Board and member nominees.

In fact, we would like to remind the Board that section 19 of the Bylaws provides that the Membership Committee “will develop a recommended slate of candidates for presentation” at the AGM (emphasis added). We do not believe that the “positive vote” system outlined in the Board’s letter reflects the intention of the Bylaws that the Board’s slate be a recommendation (rather than a direction) to voting members in their choice between all nominees.

As a result, there are serious issues with (i) the fact that the Board’s motion occurs before member nominations and (ii) the fact that  Board-nominations require a single vote and member-nominations require elections.

Together, this system prevents community membership in the Board, and thus disregards the intentions and goals of the PCLS Bylaws.This raises a number of serious questions:

1. Who is on the Membership Committee, which the notice states has been tasked with selecting new Board Members? Does this Committee reflect Parkdale’s low-income and racialised demographics? Is this Committee recruiting Board Members who reflect Parkdale’s low-income and racialised demographics?
2. What measures is the Board taking to fulfil section 15 of the PCLS Bylaws, which provides that Board Members “shall reflect the diversity which characterizes the neighbourhoods of Parkdale and Swansea Mews”?
3. When closing files, PCLS students are instructed to note in their closing records whether clients would be a good match for PCLS Board membership. Who is collecting this information, and what is being done with it? Does PCLS invite those clients to join the Board?

2. PCLS is not advising its clients on how to become PCLS members.

We understand that PCLS has not been advising clients — whether new, recurring, or ongoing — of the processes by which they may become members of PCLS. We ask that this be rectified immediately. A yearly notice to existing members is insufficient for ensuring PCLS, in its membership and its operations, reflects the demographics and the needs of the Parkdale neighbourhood.

The apparent failure to recruit new member violates the Bylaws. Section 51 of the PCLS Bylaws provide for the establishment of a Membership and Community Participation Committee, which is meant “to communicate with the residents of the corporation’s service area about the corporation, to recruit members, to serve as a nominating committee for board elections and board committees.”

In light of this disjuncture, we ask:

1. What actions has this Committee taken over the past 12 months to increase community and client membership, and to communicate regularly and transparently with Parkdale residents about changes and activities at PCLS?

3. The proposed AGM would not appear to address critical budgetary issues.

In 2014, the Board hired lawyers from Hansell LLP to represent them in their interactions with community.  Hansell lawyers Brian Calalang, Frédéric Duguay, and Karl Bjurström attended the contested AGM of November 17, 2014.

The last year also also saw significant staff changes at the clinic: we understand that PCLS ended the employment of two full-time staff members in 2014.

These matters raises crucial budgetary issues:

1. How much did it cost to retain Hansell LLP? Out of which budget were the Hansell LLP lawyers paid?
2. Whose decision was it to retain Hansell LLP and why?
3. Is Hansell LLP still retained? If so, for what purpose?
4. Has PCLS ever retained lawyers in the past? If so, for what purpose?
5. How much did ending the contracts of the two staff members cost (including any severance/notice, litigation, or other fees)? Does PCLS intend to replace these positions?  If so, how, when, and with whom?

If an answer to these questions is not possible in advance of the AGM, please confirm that they will be addressed at the AGM itself.

Sincerely,
Concerned Parkdale

Open Letter to PCLS re Vision Report Vote

Dear Parkdale Community Legal Services (PCLS) Board:

We understand the PCLS Board has until February 2015 to vote on the GTA Legal Clinics Transformation Project’s Vision Report, which proposes closing Toronto’s existing legal clinics and replacing them with 3 mega centres (page 28).

We write to update you about community calls to reject the Report.

As you know, Ontario’s community legal clinic system is unique in Canada, representing over forty years of reflection, relationship building, and dedication to access to justice. PCLS has been at the forefront of this work, such that clinic users, PCLS members, Parkdale residents, PCLS staff, PCLS students, and supporters are now raising their voices to protect Toronto’s clinics from the threat of closures.

In particular, in October 2014, we delivered to you 45 support letters from Parkdale residents. As well, 250 people have signed an online petition asking you to reject the Report. We encourage you to read the supporters’ comments. Several comments detail the importance of localized clinics like PCLS, including:

I have seen first hand the good work a legal clinic can do. Losing a community legal clinic will force many people to travel far from their homes to access services from people who will not retain the same institutional and personal knowledge of the clinics and staff they are replacing, and many who may not be able to even afford the cost of transit or have mobility issues will simply not be able to access the new MegaClinic’s services, leaving them without any assistance whatsoever. This will further increase the gentrification of the neighbourhood I live in, as mammoth corporations like Metcap and Akelius use unscrupulous and illegal tactics to clear out long-term low income tenants.

Petitioners include clinic users, who describe why the Report fails them:

I have used Parkdale Legal, and their services really helped me. I would not have felt comfortable going to a megaclinic. It was nice going to a place that I knew helped people like me, that knew the Parkdale community.

And, simply:

PCLS saves lives!!!

These messages clearly show the importance of community legal clinics in the lives of so many in Parkdale, at Osgoode Hall, and across Ontario. Yet, to date, we have not received a response to these letters. We request confirmation that you are meaningfully considering this and other community input in your deliberations.

PCLS and the clinic system are not perfect. In 1971, PCLS led the way by innovating legal service provision for marginalized communities, and it should continue to do so. Efforts to improve clinics should be led by user needs. This requires comprehensive consultation with clinic users, clinic staff, and community partners. This also requires collecting and examining empirical evidence about the advantages and disadvantages of various clinic models.

Yet the Vision Report demonstrates little evidence, consultation, or innovation. The Report conducts no serious assessment of recent GTA legal clinic mergers, such as those that created Hamilton Community Legal Clinic or Unison Health Community Services.

The Report also leaves a number of issues dangerously unexplored, including:

1. Where will the access points be and who will be facilitating the services?
2. What evidence is there to suggest that efficiencies can be obtained through mergers?
3. What alternatives to mergers exist?
4. What might we lose by merging? What are the advantages to a localized, community-based model

In short, the Report is neither cutting-edge nor sound; it should be rejected accordingly.

We understand that PCLS’s Executive Director, Ms. Nancy Henderson, has resigned from the Transformation Project Working Group. Why did she leave? Can we interpret Ms. Henderson’s departure as demonstrating that PCLS is withdrawing support for the Report?

If not, we would remind you that, as one of the most active clinics in this city, arguably even this country, a decision to endorse clinic closures (even and especially if PCLS itself is somehow saved) would have severe repercussions across the province. The Report, with its preoccupation with “efficiencies”, was introduced under the threat of funding cuts. Yet both the Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Aid Ontario have announced increased funding for legal aid. There is no reason to rush into a move that could devastate access to justice throughout Ontario.

Poverty transcends borders. It forces the dislocation of marginalized people. Thus, while the mandate of the Board binds you to the PCLS community (including PCLS users who live outside Parkdale), the scope of your deliberations should not exclude people living in poverty elsewhere in the GTA; the effect of your decision will certainly not be so isolated.

Parkdale is not an island in Toronto, nor does PCLS stand alone in the clinic system. We urge you to join Kensington Bellwoods Community Legal Services and West Toronto Community Legal Services, who have already voted against the Report.

In the alternative, if you are not comfortable voting against the Report at this time, the Board should defer the vote until  at least February 2016 to ensure you can conduct adequate consultation with the Parkdale community.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Concerned Parkdale

PCLS Resigns from Transformation Project Working Group

We have learned that earlier this month, the Executive Directors of Parkdale Community Legal Services (Nancy Henderson) and South Etobicoke Community Legal Services (Julius Mlynarski) resigned from the Transformation Project Working Group.

According to the Project’s Vision Report, the Working Group comprises a handful of clinic EDs, whose role is to “manage the project as directed by the Transformation Project’s Steering Committee” (page 85). The Report states that the Working Group “meets regularly to discuss details and options at each step of the process, including approaches to transformation and consequences of possible recommendations” (page 33).

With PCLS’s and SECLS’s departures, only 5 clinics remain in the Working Group (page 86 of Report):

1. Christie McQuarrie, Executive Director, West Scarborough Community Legal Services, mcquarrc@lao.on.ca
2. Jack De Klerk, Executive Director, Neighbourhood Legal Services, deklerkj@lao.on.ca
3. Jack Fleming, Executive Director, North Peel and Dufferin Community Legal Services, flemingj@lao.on.ca
4. Marjorie Hiley, Executive Director, Flemingdon Community Legal Services, hileym@lao.on.ca
5. Stewart Cruikshank, Executive Director, East Toronto Community Legal Services, cruikshs@lao.on.ca

No reasons have been provided for Ms. Henderson’s and Mr. Mlynarski’s resignations, nor have their resignations been formally announced by the Transformation Project. PCLS also has not yet informed PCLS members about Ms. Henderson’s resignation. Given the lack of information, it is difficult to determine what this change means.

However, it certainly suggests that Ms. Henderson and Mr. Mlynarski, under direction from their respective Boards, determined that active participation in the Transformation Project did not represent the interests of their clinics. We welcome this as an important step forward and a reflection of the mounting opposition to clinic closures within the clinic system and within the Transformation Project itself.

Yet we note that PCLS has still not openly rejected the Vision Report’s proposal to close PCLS and/or other clinics. We continue to call on Transformation Project members to heed the growing public pressure to re-think the Transformation’s “vision” and to find ways to improve access to justice in Toronto. In particular, we look forward to PCLS rejecting the Vision Report, following the lead of clinics like West Toronto Community Legal Services and Kensington-Bellwoods Community Legal Services.

Concerned Parkdale Welcomes New Board Members

PCLS had its Annual General Meeting (AGM) on November 17, 2014. This is our reportback from that meeting.

At the meeting, PCLS members elected the following four member-nominated candidates to the PCLS Board:

1. beth long
2. Gita Madan
3. Joanna Mullen
4. Diane Rajaram

Meanwhile, the PCLS Board (effectively) appointed the following three Board-nominated candidates to the PCLS Board:

1. Noah Aiken-Klar
2. David Gellman
3. Mercedes Perez

Background

As we previously reported, PCLS initially sought to hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM) on October 29, 2014. However, PCLS members noted there was a lack of proper notice for this October meeting. Those members who were able to attend the Oct 29 meeting moved to add four member-nominated candidates to the Board. The meeting concluded with the PCLS Board announcing it was re-scheduling the AGM to November 17, 2014.

Official notice was sent out for the November meeting. Concerned Parkdale also flyered in the area to encourage a mix of people to attend. There was a turn-out of approximately 80 people.

The November AGM did not feel community-oriented. For instance, breaking with PCLS tradition, there was neither food nor translators at the event. This posed a barrier to low-income and non-English speaking members, who comprise the vast majority of PCLS users.

The meeting also opened with a lengthy warning from the Board to be civil or they would conclude the meeting. Given the Board’s dismissive response to PCLS members’ concerns during the last meeting, it seemed that the Board wanted to encourage a chilling effect on the night’s conversations.

This impression was furthered by the fact that the PCLS Board was joined by lawyers whom the PCLS Clinic Director, Nancy Henderson, had retained. At the PCLS Board presenters’ table sat Desiree Warner (Board Chair), Andrea Margles (Board member), and two lawyers from a downtown corporate law firm, Hansell LLP: Brian Calalang and Frédéric Duguay. A third Hansell lawyer attended the AGM, but did not sit at the presenters table: Karl Bjurström.  PCLS members were informed that the Hansell LLP would be providing the Board with advice throughout the night on corporate law and interpretation of the PCLS Bylaws.

Election of New PCLS Board

After the approval of the 2013 AGM minutes and financial statements, Desiree Warner opened the election of the seven open seats on the Board.

PCLS members were given two separate voting cards:

1. the first contained the names of three Board-approved candidates; and
2. the second contained the names of six member-nominated candidates.

(We note that in October, the three people the Board nominated to the Board were Noah Aiken-Klar, Namgyal Dolker, Mercedes Perez. By November, that list had changed to Noah Aiken-Klar, David Gellman, and Mercedes Perez.)

Members were instructed to first vote on the Board-approved nominees. Desiree Warner stated that each Board-approved candidate needed only one vote to be successfully elected.

A long discussion ensued between members and Desiree Warner about election structure and procedure. As Chair, Desiree Warner pronounced all member motions out of order.

The lawyers from Hansell were then invited to speak by Desiree Warner.  The Hansell lawyers asserted that the Chair was correct in stating that:

• only one vote was required to successfully elect a Board member;
• voting was on a ‘yes’ or ‘abstain’ basis (i.e. no ‘no’ option); and
• the Board-approved candidates were to be voted in first, followed by the member-nominated candidates.

The Hansell lawyers relied on the voting provisions in the PCLS Bylaws and election procedure under Ontario’s Corporations Act.  Many members disagreed with the Hansell lawyers’ interpretation.

Despite opposition from PCLS members, the Board ‘elected’ in all three of its nominees, namely:

1. Noah Aiken-Klar
2. David Gellman; and
3. Mercedes Perez.

This left only four seats on the Board for the six member-nominated candidates, namely: beth long, Gita Madan, Joanna Mullen, Dave Nisker,  Diane Rajaram,  and Oriel Varga.

All six candidates spoke. It was a tough choice for all, but the following four member-nominated candidates were successfully elected to the Board:

1. beth long
2. Gita Madan
3. Joanna Mullen
4. Diane Rajaram

Going Forward

The Board’s insistence on using a sequential voting process (i.e. first the Board-approved candidates, followed by the member-nominated candidates) is very concerning, because it demonstrates a refusal by the Board to meaningfully listen to, engage with, or remain accountable to PCLS members and users.

Despite those structural challenges, PCLS members were able to ensure that several excellent PCLS community members and supporters were able to join the Board. And so, Concerned Parkdale is excited about these new Board members. We are hopeful that this new Board will spark new collaborations and positive changes.

Moreover, the new Board has until February 2015 to decide whether or not to endorse the GTA Legal Clinic’s Transformation Project Vision Report.  We look forward to working with the Board over the coming months to ensure strong community involvement in the process.  We wish all the new Board members the best during their 2-year tenure as PCLS Directors.

Reminder: AGM on Mon, Nov 17 at Bonar-Parkdale Church

Update: You can download here a copy of the notice that PCLS members began receiving today about next Monday’s AGM.

PCLS will be having its AGM on Monday, Nov 17 at 7PM at  Bonar-Parkdale Presbyterian Church.

If you aren’t already a member, make sure you submit your membership application by Tues, Nov 11 if you want to vote at the AGM. Encourage your friends and neighbours to become PCLS members too!

If you don’t know if you’re a member or not or if you’ve not yet received notice from PCLS about the AGM, contact Robert Routh at PCLS: 416-531-2411 x 224 / routhr@lao.on.ca

On Monday, we will confirm the election of the following member-nominated Directors:

1. Diane Rajaram
2. Joanna Mullen
3. Dave Nisker
4. Oriel Varga

We will also confirm the election of the following Board-nominated Directors:

1. Noah Aiken-Klar
2. Namgyal Dolker
3. Mercedes Perez

Right now, this is the PCLS Board:

1. Andrea Margles: amargles@krmc-law.com
2. Amar Bhatia: abhatia@osgoode.yorku.ca
3. David Gellman: David@davidgellman.com
4. Desiree Warner: desmwarner@gmail.com
5. Faisal Bhabha: fbhabha@osgoode.yorku.ca
6. Jen Danch: jen.danch@gmail.com
7. Mercedes Perez: mperez@swadron.com
8. Noah Aiken-Klar: naikenklar@otf.ca
9. Richard Haigh: rhaigh@osgoode.yorku.ca
10. Shelley Gavigan: gavigan@osgoode.yorku.ca
11. Two PCLS staff – non-voting
12. One Osgoode/PCLS student – non-voting

We were glad to learn on Friday that the PCLS Board has postponed its vote on the Transformation Project from late 2014 until February 2015 (exact date and process to be announced by PCLS). This is a great win! We look forward to continuing the dialogue about how to ensure clinic users and community members guide conversations about the provision of legal aid services. Only your presence and contributions can ensure we have meaningful community consultation.

See you Monday!

PCLS Board Will Not Vote on Transformation Project until February 2015

Update: You can download here a copy of the notice confirming the new date for the Transformation vote.

Great news! The PCLS Board has announced that it will be postponing its decision on the GTA Transformation’s Vision Report (i.e. whether or not to close 16 Toronto community legal clinics and replace them with 3 mega centres) until February 2015!

We look forward to working with the PCLS Board in the intervening months to ensure that the perspectives of clinic users and community members guide conversations about how their legal aid clinics should provide legal aid services. This adjournment represents an opportunity to hold meaningful, accessible, and transparent consultations with community members about the how legal aid clinics can best serve users.

Stay tuned for updates on how this postponement is affecting other GTA clinics!