I know what you are saying; it was a complete reproduction of material “published” for public use. Copyright is a complex area and a lot of material on the net is not covered by copyright law. I’d be very surprised if the material i posted was covered by copyright. It was general information for public use as far as i could tell. Perhaps i was a little lazy in writing that it was on the net so it should be OK.
I am aware of Jimmy’s understanding of copyright due to some issues he has had from time to time with the other strata forum that he deems the competition, funny they do not see it like that.
Anyway banging on about copyright only divert attention from the point which was that the money does not have to be in the bank. Let us acknowledge that it was incorrect to say the money needs to be in the bank.
This thread is about proxy farming. For those who read the submissions during the submission phase of the reform the problem was farming, it was not how many proxies a person holds although too many people draw the conclusion that a person with a fist full of proxies is a farmer. So the “solution” offered by reform, limiting how many proxies a person can hold, does not address the real problem and now, in certain cases, the “solution” takes away from an owners right to give their proxy to whoever they like.
Proxy reform made little difference in Qld as the serious farmers found ways around the restriction.
Compulsory voting is what strata needs and then we do not need to worry about quorums or proxies or any of the other many issues that arise because the vast majority of owners are apathetic.
I give you the example of a special resolution where 25% (+1), based on unit entitlement, need to vote against a motion to fail the motion.
If the meeting just gets a quorum (and everyone is financial) then one quarter of one quarter (i.e. one sixteenth of unit entitlement) is enough to defeat a motion.
In the same scenario, a common scenario, half of one quarter (+1) is enough to pass or fail an ordinary resolution (i.e. one eight of lot owners). And people wish to carry on about Joe Bloggs having too many votes. Joe (if an owner) has one vote (or his unit entitlement depending on the type of vote) if voting is compulsory and in such a scenario the decision are representative of the whole SP.
I find those who use the fourth tier of Govt analogy a little lost in their rhetoric because voting is compulsory in the other 3 but not in strata.
Without trying to over generalize.
Proxy farming is an issue over exaggerated by a few influential people who feel disenfranchised because the SP is run to their liking.