@PMC2 said:
Hi jimmy,There are obviously two sides to this discussion. My concerns are due to the ‘Judge Judy’ style finger pointing… Can you be certain that “nugalbags” isn’t the troublemaker?
No, but I chose to work on that assumption. Let’s just say my advice was for ECs who find themselves with a troublemaker in their midst and want to get rid of him or her.
Forward planning is fine; formation of a clique is not!
I can’t think of any level of politics that doesn’t involve a group of people who have similar aims working together to achieve them. It becomes a clique when the sole collective aim is maintaining their power and influence, rather than trying to achieve something for the greater good.
You stated “tell the meeting that the entire EC ticket will withdraw their nomination because the EC will be totally dysfunctional otherwise” asserting a dictatorship, not a suggestion to seek “support of their co-owners”.
Dictatorship is one person acting alone with no regard for the opinions of others. This is a group of people saying, when their move has been challenged or rejected, you can elect who you like but if you think the committee should have to put up with this person’s behaviour, then you do the job because we don’t need it. I call it collective bargaining.
You suggested doing this prior to an AGM, not “a considered and widely discussed strategy”.
Well it depends what you mean by ‘prior’. I meant days and weeks. If I had mean immediately prior I would have said so.
I have too many years with “disruptive members” on committees by default… “rusted on”, as cited in Mr Anthony Robert’s Strata Reforms articles. I endured meetings disrupted by the chairperson, secretary and treasurer whose actions are anything but democratic, approving expenditure without consulting the other EC members and even sanctioning spending required to be done by the Owners Corporation.
Yes, and those are things you can either take to a general meeting or refer to the CTTT. A bullying chairperson is bad enough – and the EC always has the opportunity to sack them from the office (though not the committee). But someone doing what you have described, according to your last posting, can easily be dealt with by the CTTT because it is illegal (although i would reiterate that it is far from that easy).
“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”… Again, could this lead to a defamation claim.
Members of the owners corporation are allowed considerable “privilege” under defamation laws and the allegedly defamed person would have to prove malice as well as that the comments were not relevant to the discussions at hand (the election of committee members). However that doesn’t mean that legal action can’t be threatened or attempted – which is why it is better to do all this the way I described.
I am of the opinion committee members should only be allowed to make decisions on minor issues (colour of paint, finishes, cleaners, etc.) with everything else set out as mandatory and performed immediately by the Strata Manager (who should be held accountable) without any interference of committee members. Autocratic owners should not be allowed hold other residents to ransom, EVER! It’s not a perfect system, hence why strata reforms are currently happening.
These specific opinions are interesting but they are hardly relevant within the bounds of this discussion. A reasonable analysis of the proposed changes to the laws will reveal the general thrust is to give people more power to run their own lives the way they want … or, at least, that’s what the Minister said to me on the phone this morning. I think you’ll find there are fewer restrictions and more transparency in the finalised proposals.
Dare I say you have witnessed EC penny pinchers or the members who freely disregard by-laws at the detriment of others, yet demand everyone else abide by them?
Correct. And i have seen them turfed out on their ears using exactly the method I described here.
Your argument rests on the majority being ‘correctly’ informed, who’s to say the shenanigans are not from autocratic owners wanting to dictate or rort the system?
Evil prospers when good men (and women) do nothing. People have to be allowed to make their own choices and, sadly, one of those choices all too frequently employed in strata is to do nothing because the status quo always feels safer than the great unknown. But let’s stick to the question we have before us and work on the assumption that there is a disruptive person in a committee and how do you get them out in the most effective way
Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 – Sect 162, relates to the appointment of a Compulsory Strata Manager. This is hard to prove, but is an option if bad decisions or dysfunction by EC members is allowed to fester.
Hard to prove? Impossible unless that single disruptive person has caused the prime functions of the Owners Corporation – i.e. its legal obligations – to be neglected. The only occasions when I have seen that avenue explored in the case of a single disruptive person has been when the person concerned is the chair and they have led the owners Corp to be in breach of the Act. That’s not what we are talking about here.
I reject your ‘mischievous’ comment…
Withdrawn, with apologies …
… it is usually the individual behaviour of committee members not doing what’s required of the act that causes Supreme Court claims. Look at your forum topics to see highlighted issues such as illegal spending, notices, breaches of duties which have all been committed by rouge Strata managers, Executive Committee Members and even Building Managers.
In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies –”citizens” shouldn’t have to be smarter, the laws should disincentive wrongdoing in the first place. I have had many watertight cases at CTTT, they all ended up at the District Court.
Two points – we’re not talking about what should and shouldn’t happen, we’re referring to real life, right now under the current laws and by-laws. Oh, and at the risk of sounding facetious, if you had watertight cases, then they wouldn’t have gone to the District Court. Even so, that supports my argument that the CTTT is not a magic wand that cures all ills. You have to take responsibility for your own community and the way it works. There are no StrataCops to come and enforce the law.
How about Strata Cases on Austlii are for claims under negligence? Even breaches of section 62 constitute negligence when all three clauses are breached. The latest Dr Thoo case asserts this well.
I don’t understand this reference. There are no cases that I know of where an Owners Corp has suffered the statutory appointment of a strata manager because they formed a voting bloc to exclude someone from an executive committee using entirely legal means to do so. Oh, and Dr Thoo lost his claim to have the common property upgraded so I don’t see the relevance of that either.
Lastly, I did not attack you, I merely suggested that your advice could be construed by disruptive committee members. My opinion was that bullying someone off a committee, who we only have one person’s word that they are ‘disruptive’, can also be committed on the ‘good people’ can it not?
Attack? Criticise? Censure? There was a sense of outrage that I would be telling the good people of StrataLand how to quickly, quietly and efficiently get rid of disruptive elements. And yes, it can be used to get rid of good people too – in which case the owners, by supporting that, will get the EC they deserve … as they inevitably discover.
I believe there are many successful applications for a Compulsory Strata Management appointed by CTTT Adjudicators. The Owners – Strata Plan 5709 v Andrews [2009] NSWCA 189, Hatzvy v Grossbard and Owners Corporation SP13671 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2010] NSWCTTT 477.
Yes but these were not for forming a voting bloc to remove a disruptive member – which is the whole point of this discussion. These were for other issues entirely, as you well know.
If I offended you, I sincerely apologise, but I would like to reiterate I was merely suggesting that your response (well respected by Flat-Chat followers) could be used in a very bad light, and I am still of the opinion that it is more than likely a ‘bad’ element of Strata Society that would do just that.
As I said below, I have had it done to me so I know how it feels. However, in a case where there is a persistently disruptive member of an EC, you have yet to offer a solution that is more effective and less disruptive to the community as a whole than what I recommended.
Seriously, working on the assumption that there are disruptive members of ECs who manage to get themselves elected by default or other means, what is your proposal for removing them with the minimum pain and fuss?
Failing that, let’s agree to differ because I’m sure this discussion is becoming a tad tedious for other readers of this website.