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?
- Forward planning is fine; formation of a clique is not!
- 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”.
- You suggested doing this prior to an AGM, not “a considered and widely discussed strategy”.
- 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.
- “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.
- Hang on while I dismount… 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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 is bad decisions or dysfunction by EC members is allowed to fester.
- I reject your ‘mischievous’ comment, 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 topis 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.
- 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.
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?
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.
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.