@PMC2 said:
Hi Jimmy,I am actually very surprised by your advice because somebody on the flat-chat forum has ‘alleged’ a resident as ‘vexacious’. After everything the Hon Mr. Anthony Roberts discussed regarding proxy votes etc. I cannot applaud the inference that 1 person can “decide the number of people you want on your executive committee” by issuing a “ticket”!
This is a democratic system you are detailing but correct me if I am wrong, have you just outlined a way for somebody to control a strata scheme using a pre-meditated solution?
OK, let me stop you right there. What is the problem with doing a little forward planning to deal with a recurring problem? And it’s not one person deciding – but somebody has to put the suggestion on the table for others to consider and agree upon (or otherwise). I merely recommended that anyone in this situation seeks the support of their co-owners – including the other people on the ticket, of course – to deal with a problem that is causing distress and dysfunction in their committee.
We are not talking about “blind” proxies here. We are talking about a considered and widely discussed strategy that can only be achieved by the consensus of the a majority of owners.
The reason you restrict the number of seats to the people on the ticket is so that the disruptive member doesn’t get on the committee by default – if the number of candidates equals the number of seats then there is no election and your vaunted democratic principles evaporate. It’s all too easy for people who don’t have to deal with people like this to give them a sympathy vote, so you have to be organised about this.
You have clearly never had to endure a year of executive committee meetings disrupted by one person who thinks that whenever their view doesn’t prevail they are entitled to rant and rave and act in a way that is anything but democratic.
Of course, the open and honest way to deal with this would be for each of the people who have suffered at the hand of this person to stand up at the AGM and describe this person’s behaviour in detail, asking people not to vote for them. In the meantime you have pretty much destroyed their credibility in the community (not to mention the social and psychological effects that might have).
If you could just step off your high horse for a second, I’d love to hear your suggestions for a solution that actually works when you have a person who dominates meetings regardless of the effect that has on the other owners in his or her community, or indeed, the community itself.
And as for wrapping yourself in the Australian flag and sticking up for the “rights of citizens”, what about the rights of the majority to decide how they want the business of their community to be conducted – e.g. in a civil and constructive manner? There is no fraud on the minority when an informed majority decided its had enough of the shenanigans of one owner.
PMC2 said
‘nugalbags’, if this resident has done anything illegal, you can apply to CTTT to have them removed as an executive committee member. I advise against plotting to remove them. It can only end up costing the Owners Corporation if you get found out… especially if a Compulsory Strata Manager is installed.
This is misleading nonsense. You don’t have to be a criminal to disrupt the workings of an owners corporation. And where in the Act does it allow an adjudicator to dismiss an EC member for their behaviour? Even if there were such a provision, can you imagine the extended disruption to community life while evidence was gathered and argued to and fro.
This whole statement is factually incorrect and, I suspect, mischievous in its intent. This is about individual behaviour and its consequences and there is nothing to be ‘found out’ about anyone taking what is a somewhat political but, in the circumstances, very pragmatic course of action.
This is exactly the kind of action that senior people in Fair Trading have (privately) suggested in the past as a way of dealing with disruptive committee members. There is nothing illegal, immoral or actionable about it.
In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies – sometimes the “citizens” have to be a bit smarter than imagining that all the have to do is raise an objection at the CTTT and their problems will be magically resolved. Anyone who has ever taken even a watertight case to the CTTT will testify to naivety of that belief.
In fact, the strictly correct way to remove a member of an EC is to hold a general meeting and pass a special resolution to declare their seat vacant. How much easier is it to take the opportunity afforded by the AGM and get the majority of people to agree beforehand that one person’s proven unacceptable behaviour is intolerable and save everyone – including the miscreant – the personal grief and extended agony of either being publicly humiliated or trying to get a 75 percent vote at another time.
The chances of a widely agreed and perfectly legitimate pre-emptive strike against a disruptive EC member leading to the statutory appointment of a strata manager are less than zero. Do you have any knowledge or experience of strata law at all? This smacks of scaremongering.
By the way, common law has nothing to do with this – it only applies when there are no other laws covering an issue. I suggested nothing that isn’t adequately covered by strata law.
So, please, next time, actually read what I have written before you come on here and attack me personally. And get your facts right before you start issuing advice about what people should do and the consequences of their actions.
By all means, cite one case – just one – that proves you are right and I am wrong and I will publish it here along with an apology and a retraction.