In one building that I know well, the chairman had more than 50 percent of the vote in proxies at the last two AGMs. Considering this is a large building with over 100 units in it, that’s a massive concentration of power.
A large percentage of the votes would have been offered to him by people who a) thought he was doing a good job and b) couldn’t be bothered to attend. He claims he canvasses his proxy providers on contentious issues so as to properly represent their views (and I have no reason to disbelieve him).
In return for passing on their votes, owners feel that the building is generally well managed and they are happy not to have anyone rock the boat. However, I have witnessed a gradual erosion of the democratic process, including:
- good ideas from other owners being over-ruled because the ruling minority didn’t like the idea or the person suggesting it,
- individuals being replaced on the EC because they consistently challenged the chair’s authority,
- attendances at the AGM steadily decline
- increasing secrecy over issues that owners were entitled to be fully informed
- use of the EC minutes to “spin” contentious issues, cover up serious mistakes and “name and shame” owners who have caused problems for them
- express lift keys being issued to EC members and their cronies so they don’t have to encounter other residents in the lifts
- secrecy over candidates to replace EC members who resign from the committee
- expensive and (as it turned out) unworkable obsessions being pursued to a ridiculous extent when everyone else could see they would never fly
It’s all small potatoes but you can see how an individual or a group can start with the best intentions, but if there is too much power in too few hands the situation can soon degenerate into owners drifting away from the process while the incumbents spend as much time working out how to hang on to power as they do in looking after the building.
In situations like yours, Peter, it would be a pain to not be allowed to take proxies from people who genuinely want to support you for the very best of reasons. I suppose one compromise might be to present a “panel” of candidates, rather than individuals, to whom owners could pass on their votes.
Share the love, in other words.