[Gloucester19]

I should add that the chief concerns for me (owner motions, attendance at committee meetings and plain old conflict of interest such as developer companies as managers) were not covered in Expert Panel’s terms of reference, and thus no recommendations were made. That means those matters can be pursued separately. But the panel did have some comments on these concerns, such as: “Meetings and agendas, often driven by the OC committee or manager, sometimes exclude general discussion or motions submitted by lot owners, eroding democratic participation.”

[Gloucester19]

Plus the government’s response: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download/document/46605

[Gloucester19]

THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED AS IT WAS A WORD FOR WORD REPETITION OF A COMMENT POSTED ELSEWHERE ON THE FORUM – Pick a lane … JimmyT

[Gloucester19]

Well, Terrace1, I just got the same bureaucrat’s email, on May 5! Same wording except Staikos was cited as the former minister, as he is now. There are not many “coming months” left before the election. Meanwhile, it’s been nine weeks since my VCAT decision was reserved. I understand with governance issues it can take 12 weeks. Victoria is the scandal of the nation’s strata governance, at least for the big four states.

[Gloucester19]

Thank you very much Mr T for this guide.

[Gloucester19]

Thank you Mr T. I’m trying to get a motion on the next AGM agenda that, if passed, would instruct the committee to invite all owners.

[Gloucester19]

I wonder. AI says: “In Victoria, Owners, regardless of whether they are committee members, can attend strata committee meetings.”

But I can’t find any mention in the Act or regulations, and as has been noted, only committee members have to be told, and then only three biz days ahead.

[Gloucester19]

Thank you both for your explanations, and I’m of clearer understanding as a result. The Committee is refusing mediation of an urgent matter on the grounds the Owners Corp has no internal mediation process, and must adopt a formal process at a general or annual meeting before the Committee has the power to arrange it, or so it’s claimed. That would take even longer than Fair Trading mediation via the FT Secretary, which can take months. I’ll contact the NCAT registrar to see if mediation is necessary in this matter, as compromise is a “half-pregnant” possibility.

[Gloucester19]

Thanks for this and let me please raise the point that the Regulation (14 of SSMR) seems badly drafted, regarding motion voting for AGMs and (E)GMs in some instances.

As below, it would seem to allow a poorly attended physical meeting on the EGM date to effectively stymie a greater number of Owners voting by pre-meeting email, unless the motion stated that voting on it would only be by pre-meeting email.

For example, with voting by both pre-meeting email and at the meeting itself, say 40 Owners could all vote for a motion and 10 other Owners at the AGM itself, opposed to the motion but knowing they could not defeat it, could simply amend it in a way to negate it. In other words, 10 could outvote 40. Then the motion’s supporters would be faced with trying to requisition a GM and turn up at it to get the motion through? No?

If yes, why does the regulation allow that in the first place. Also I note the regulation’s stipulation that such amendments must not change the “subject” is very vague.

I refer you to:

(b) (i) the relevant motion may be amended by a further motion given at the meeting after the pre-meeting electronic voting takes place, and
(ii) consequently, the pre-meeting vote may have no effect.

 

14A Pre-meeting electronic voting
For the Act, Schedule 1, clause 28(3) and Schedule 2, clause 10(3), the following applies in relation to voting by pre-meeting electronic voting—
(a) an election must not be determined by pre-meeting electronic voting,
(b) for a matter that may be determined partly by pre-meeting electronic voting—the notice of the meeting must include a statement that—
(i) the relevant motion may be amended by a further motion given at the meeting after the pre-meeting electronic voting takes place, and
(ii) consequently, the pre-meeting vote may have no effect,
(c) a motion that is to be determined wholly by pre-meeting electronic voting must not be amended at the meeting for which the pre-meeting electronic voting was conducted,
(d) a motion that is to be determined partly by pre-meeting electronic voting may be amended at the meeting for which the pre-meeting electronic voting was conducted but only if the amendment does not change the subject matter of the motion,
(e) if a motion that is to be determined partly by pre-meeting electronic voting is amended at the meeting for which the pre-meeting electronic voting has been conducted—the minutes of the meeting distributed to owners must be accompanied by—
(i) notice of the change, and
(ii) a statement setting out the power to make a qualified request for a further meeting under the Act, section 19.

[Gloucester19]

Understood and thank you very much, Jimmy.

[Author]

Replies