@JimmyT said:
I think my method for removing the chairman – a simple motion to declare the office vacant (or declare the office vacant and seek nominations for a new chair) – is possibly more correct and less open to challenge. Once the office is vacant, the Secretary is entitled to take nominations and vote on a replacement which can be done without having to name the replacement in the minutes. Since the first rule of politics is to never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer, the replacement chairman or woman would already have been identified and the votes lined up.
I subscribe to the process outlined in Horsley’s Meetings (textbook) or the process outlined by Ilkin (strata lawyer).
The Chair is running the meeting and the Chair puts motions to the meeting so if you vacate the Chair, via a motion, then you have no Chair and therefore nobody is running the meeting, that makes anything that follows open to challenge because do you even have a meeting?
The strata act does allow for the office bearers to be elected in the absence of any office bearers at the first meeting of the new EC (s18) but once you have office bearers common law standards apply because the Act is then silent except for clauses 5 & 8 of Schedule 3.
It is not the role of the Secretary to take nominations and submit motions to the meeting to elect the new Chair if the old Chair has just been deposed by a motion.
Horsley is very clear if one wants to have a motion to vacate the Chair then the motion should include that “Joe Bloggs” assumes the Chair; a very understandable proposition. Such a process makes a smooth transition.
A motion to simply vacate the Chair has issues if you read Horsley’s Meetings so it is not a good option.
Ilkin on the other hand proposes the idea that a motion to appoint another person “removes” the old person if the motion is successful. A bit like the newest proxy is the valid proxy if there are multiple proxy forms from the same owner. The newest resolution of who is Chair determines the Chair – see clause 5 of Sch 3.
I feel either of the above is a far more solid than what JT suggests and i would ask why JT feels the Secretary is entitled to take over the meeting in the absence of a Chair given the Chair precised if present or another EC member is made Chair in the absence of the elected Chair see clause 8 of Sch 3.This clause (cl 8) is about what to do if the Chair does not show up; it is not about what to do if there is no Chairperson
It seems pretty clear the meeting needs a Chair and both the Horsley or Ilkin method never leave the meeting without a Chair, they both just instantaneously change the Chair.
I would never recommend to an SP to just vacate the Chair position and have no Chair given the two options i outline but i will say that if you take JTs advice then i seriously doubt CTTT would make an order if someone kicked up a stink – but a real court who are strict on process might not be so relaxed.
The vacate and fill motion is somewhat bullet proof if Horsley is any guide; and it is.
Pass a new Chair motion seems to meet the requirement of the Act.
Depose the Chair and proceed without a Chair to get a new Chair .. i have no reference source that claims it is a valid method.