- This topic has 2 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Is there any organised lobbying going on to limit the number of proxies that may be held by any one owner at general meetings? I believe that in Queensland it is restricted to two. At a townhouse complex, which we have recently moved from because we could not stand it any longer, one quite unbalanced woman managed to acquire at least seven proxies from people with little command of English. Is there anyone in authority we can write to about this?
Many thanks.
-
Replies
-
I don't know about organised lobbying but there is certainly an awareness of the 'clustering' of proxy votes you described. I was part of a group organised by Clover Moore MP that tried to evolve some policies that she could take to amend strata law in NSW but the strata law here is so deeply flawed that the issue of proxies couldn't be given any more than a cursory nod within the time we had available.
I hadn't heard about the limit in Queensland and I can't find any references to it so it may just be wishful thinking. It would certainly be out of character for that state which still favours developers to a ridiculous extent – it's in the law there, for instance, that the developer can demand a proxy in off-the-plan sales to award a contract for building management (which they then sell and the owners have to finance). Having been instrumental in a successful campaign to make that illegal here, I am no great admirer of strata law north of the border.
The problem with limiting the number of proxies one person holds is that you run the risk of disenfranchising people who can't find a potential proxy holder who hasn't exceeded their limit. But by not limiting it, you allow clustering through either active campaigning such as you describe or 'passive' blind votes passed on to a chair by virtue of the fact that they haven't screwed up recently.
Personally, I would favour a voting form that goes out with the agenda and asks the non-attendees to tick a box on all the agenda items. Sure, there will still be abuses but at least you don't have the situation where one person gets free reign over everything. And it will be hard for counter-arguments to get an airing but it's better than buildings being run solely to benefit one resident and his or her investor mates.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.