I recently had a similar issue with my committee who love to “name and shame” anyone who suggests anything they don’t agree with.
You know how it goes – you make a suggestion which is addressed in one line as a topic and the response in the minutes is chapter and verse of all the arguments against and none for, making you look like an idiot for suggesting it. Of course, this deters people from making suggestions, especially any radically different changes to the way the scheme operates.
Surprise, surprise, my suggestion that correspondents be referred to by their Lot number, apart from situations where their identity was relevant to the discussion, was rejected by the committee on the grounds that it could lead to “discrimination”. What? In the grand parade of lame excuses, that would have to be right up at the front, beating the big bass drum of stupidity. I still can’t see how that could possible be a concern.
Back to the original question, this is something you need to bring up at committee and if need be, at your next AGM.
If the committee and strata manager are instructed to only refer to correspondents by their lot number, they will still have to show the correspondence to owners if requested, but at least it prevents the wide broadcast of people’s names and this subtly pernicious form of bullying that is all too prevalent in our strata schemes.
Oh, and the people you would complain to are Fair Trading – who are pretty much a complete waste of time in issues like this.