Considering the response from ‘isydowner’ (14/02/2016 – 9:02 am) to my last post it might be useful to others if I explain my philosophy on the relationship between the secretary and owners and that gives me strength to continue.
When I first started the job of secretary I thought that I was secretary to the owners. But, inevitably, I ended up opposing some owners who had broken by-laws or who had done unauthorised alterations to the common property. etc. That caused me a philosophical conflict. To get it clear in my head as to where the boundaries lie, I worked out (by reading the Strata Schemes Management Act) that I was secretary to the owners corporation and I did not work for the owners. That is, the owners corporation and the owners are two separate entities.
To expand the point that the owners corporation and the owners are two separate entities, consider the following. The owners corporation is a nebulous thing that does not have the power of thought, hearing, thinking or speaking. So there are people who are “entitled to vote” at a meeting who are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of the owners corporation. The people at a meeting will typically be a small minority of owners, some (who might not be owners) holding proxies, and some owners who can’t vote due to unpaid levies. Even then, it is only the majority of that small group who decide what the owners corporation will do. In a 20 lot scheme it could be as little as 3 people who agree and carry a meeting motion.
So, logically and legally, the owners corporation is not the owners but is most often represented by a small mixed group of people at a meeting. This clarity of boundaries between owners corporation and owners has helped me retain my sanity when dealing with all owners, particularly the difficult.
For me and as secretary it is clear that I take instructions from owners corporation via the minutes of a meeting; nothing more. I do not take instructions from owners. If an owner wants something done then he/she has to persuade (via a general meeting) the owners corporation and have that requested agenda item judged by his/her peers. And that process cuts the secretary out of any aggravated debate with a difficult owner. Note that if I feel that an owner wants to do the right thing by the owners corporation I do all that I can to help him/her. Conversely, if I think an owner is only self interested and shows little regard for the owners corporation, then I either ignore, or strongly oppose, him/her.
Even if I wanted to promote an issue, I have limited legal powers. Outside of an executive committee meeting (ECM) the secretary may decide to call, or not to call, an ECM (there are some caveats). Within an ECM, the secretary may decide to vote a particular way. That’s the sum total of what I can decide on behalf of the owners corporation; nothing more.
Note that the Office of Fair Trading Strata Living booklet states: “No individual executive committee member can make a decision for the owners corporation”. To expand that statement; outside of an ECM an executive committee does not exist. Outside an ECM, all you have are individual executive committee members who are legally powerless to make decisions. I know that’s not the way many secretaries and executive committees function, and that’s a big part of the problem.
But what about the powers of owners? (this next bit is important to understand)
Outside of an ECM, each and every owner has the same rights and responsibilities as any executive committee member. Outside of an ECM an owner has access to the same resources, the same rights to put an agenda item on a general meeting, and the same general meeting voting rights as any elected executive committee member. That is, if an owner is complaining that something is not being done, or should be done, then he/she is equally responsible. And if the agenda item is defeated, then that’s democracy.
Again, because it’s important and it needs clarity. Outside of an ECM and considering the legal authority of the players; in effect what is often the case is there is an abusive owner demanding that another owner (the secretary) work hard to fix the abusive owner’s problem. As the other owner, why would you tolerate that?
On the positive side and wherever possible I try to foster owner involvement. I get the owners to put their ‘wants’ on the next AGM agenda and I help them to provide the supporting detail (the owner talks to suppliers, gets quotes, and the like). Some will assist and others will retort (in effect); “I don’t have time for that” and said as though I (the volunteer secretary) have nothing better to do. I also make it clear to owners that if an item is put on the agenda and is not represented by them at the meeting then I will say “the owner is not here to give justification to the item” and I will oppose it. That is “no participate; no get” principle.
An example is in play as I write this;
Ryde Council recently changed how council cleanups are organised. Now strata has to work with the council cleanup contractor to book in times, send notices to units, chase up the cleanup contractor, etc. Not a trivial task.
About 6 months ago a difficult owner came to me wanting me to organise a council cleanup. I asked her to assist with organising the cleanup but she came back saying (in effect) “It’s all too hard” so I ignored the request. Last week I had a tenant asking for the same thing, and I asked her if she would like to assist. “Glad to help in any way” she replied. The tenant will get the council cleanup, the owner did not.
All of the above approaches and philosophy has helped me to maintain the moral strength to weather the rubbish that some owners dish out, and all of the above is supported by the Strata Schemes Management Act.
To conclude; you have the right to say to a difficult owner “I am secretary to the owners corporation. I am not your secretary. Sort your own problems out.”. And to those who want to argue that “You are a representative of the owners”, then it’s like any political appointment. You get to choose who and what you support.