If you make EC members undertake training what is there to guarantee they will enact what they learn – i can guarantee that if my EC did training it would all be forgotten the minute the course was over and it would be back to business as usual. We did a mediation where the current Secretary and the ex-secretary both went into shock when the mediation unit strata specialist explained the EC could not just introduce matters to the EC meeting. A year and a half later the EC still do it – you cannot train some people because they do not care about what they are supposed to be doing.
The solution is to train them and make them accountable – fine EC members for their failures if they wish to continue to not act properly or use proper procedure – weed out the “mini Mussolini's” and have bad habits dealt with by personal penalty.
To go even further some people are suggesting that EC members have a duty of care and the same level of accountability as real corporate directors. There are people behind the management of my EC who be banned from being directors if it were a real corporation.
Strata living can no longer operate on the assumed good will and assumed good intention of people because that is not a statistically sound assumption.
The Act needs to be written to target the lowest common denominator, the dirt bags who infest EC's and run them as their own little kingdoms for the benefit of themselves and their friends. You do not infringe on the good operators by having legislation that targets the bad operators. By assuming people are good willed you leave the door open for bad people to waltz in and take advantage of the misplaced assumption. The door is currently open and many people have walked in – close the door by targeting the lowest common denominator.
I also find the concept of handing power to the EC to fine people a very dangerous move. This forum is littered with story after story of biased and “corrupt” EC's and EC members. Not until EC's are under a set of enforcable rules that requires professional, unbiased management would i even think of letting EC's loose with any power to fine people.
As far as proxies go – put a limit on them and then wait for all the posts about how people find a way around it. Tell me how does a limit on proxies improve participation- it sounds like it reduces participation and then next thing you know people are at adjourned meetings and then find decisions are being made by a handful of people at the reconvened meeting.
Just make GM voting compulsory in person or by vote on paper (Qld style) – proxies are for exceptional circumstances. Please, someone, tell how limiting proxies is a better idea that mandatory voting. Someone tell me any easier way to improve participation and tell me any other way to get rid of the ridiculous notion that a quorum of 25% is democratic.
Compel EC's to pursue debt over 90 days old and remove the need to be financial to vote. Now everybody votes.
RESULT: Almost 100% participation across all NSW strata. If you think limiting proxies can get even close to such a result then i do not understand how it will do that.
The question 4 concept should be explored for matters beyond by-law breaches.
1961, 1973, 1996 – the Act does not get rewritten often – you ask “too much or too little?” I feel it is way to little unless you want to spend another 15 years listening to problems that might be resolvable now.