[StrataLiver]

Schedule 2, part 3, clause 7, point 4 can’t be used at a general meeting, rather it’s the use of their UE being >25% that means they can single handedly vote against the special resolution and cause the motion to vacate the secretary role to not be carried.

 

[StrataLiver]

Back to this topic again for an update. So we now have come to a Special General Meeting of the Community Association. We want to put up a motion to vacate the secretary role and elect a new secretary, which we were unable to do at committee meeting by the member invoking schedule 2, part 3, clause 7, point 4 of the CLMA objecting to the decision being made.

The removal of an office holder at general meeting requires a special resolution, and yet again this member has advised via his managing agent if we put a motion up to vacate him from the secretary role at general meeting that he will vote his buildings 40% UE against the motion, once again blocking the majority from removing him as secretary.

The removal of a committee member also requires a special resolution, and this member has also said through his managing agent if we attempt to remove him from the committee he will also vote his buildings 40% UE against the motion also blocking it.

So people are left asking what is the point of having a community association and what about the principle of majority rules when one member with a minority UE can override or block the majority from making decisions they want to make.

 

[StrataLiver]

The reality is getting legal advice and or getting NCAT involved takes significant time and often times money. Like many other issues, 50% of the lawyers will likely argue the clause can’t be used, and the other 50% will argue it can be.

The solution that has been provided is to call a special general meeting and put the motion to vacate the secretary via a vote there. This clause obviously can’t be used at a general meeting and the democratic process will work as intended, with the decision determined by majority vote.

We have also been advised that we should no longer hold association committee meetings in future and that all meetings should be held as special general meetings to ensure this tactic can’t be used again.

Even if this part of the act can technically be used in the way it has been, there is a strong argument that it shouldn’t be. It’s not in the spirit of strata / community living to use these sort of tactics and it certainly could be strongly argued that any member attempting to block the democratic process for their own benefit is not acting in the best interests of the community association.

Let’s say we wanted to send a strong message that attempts to block the democratic process by any member for no good reason (or for self interest reasons) will not be tolerated.

We could put a motion on the special general meeting agenda to vacate this members position.

The vacating of a committee member requires a special resolution, and once again this person could use their 45% UE vote to oppose the motion to remove them.

It makes for an interesting case study as to how protection mechanisms in the act can be used in ways other than they were likely intended to be used…

[StrataLiver]

Strata Plan A unit entitlement in community association 45%.  StrataPlan B unit entitlement in community association 25%. Strata Plan C unit entitlement in community association 15 %. Strata Plan C unit entitlement in community association 15%

The 4 community association committee members are also the primary proxy holders for the strata plans so they can also vote on behalf of their strata plan at community association general meetings.

The current secretary of the CA represents Strata Plan A. They are using the 45% unit entitlement of strata plan A (on the basis they are the duly nominated proxy) to object to the CA making a decision to vacate them from the secretary role.

We can only assume either the strata managing agent for building A (which is a different company to the one managing the community association) or a strata lawyer who they may have consulted has provided them with the advice on how to use this part of the act to seek their desired outcome. The secretary claims they are acting on behalf of  their strata committee (building A) by making the objection to a decision being made by the CA to remove them as secretary.

I have asked numerous strata managers whom I know for their opinion on this clause, and it certainly appears to be open to the interpretation in which it has been used in this situation.

[StrataLiver]

Thanks Jimmy.

This member building has appointed the same person as their candidate for nomination to the community association committee (thus why they are on the committee and at the moment secretary of the CA) and as their proxy to vote at CA general meetings. This person is also the chairman of building A strata committee.

The community managing agent did ask them for minutes and they said they are not obliged to provide the CA with any minutes other than minutes to confirm who their candidate for election to the community association committee is and who their proxy is.

This member holds 40% of the CA unit entitlement. As this person who the CA wanted to remove as secretary is the proxy for that member building, they are effectively using the 40% unit entitlement of that member to object to the basis and saying the strata committee of that member has made this decision.

 

[Author]

Replies