[Ruffs]

Thank you all. Your feedback is appreciated.

[Ruffs]

Thank you. To answer your questions, no the committee did not approve the reimbursement, there was not motion nor voting on this. The treasurer paid the bill without seeking approval from the SC. The Treasurer has not been delegated to authorise spending without the SC approval. None of this was approved or authorised by the SC. Can I raise a motion at the next AGM to ask that this money be reimbursed as the meeting with the lawyer was not on behalf of the OC, not approved by the SC and the payment was not approved by the SC?

[Ruffs]

Thank you for your reply. Just for clarity, there were initial authorised meetings with the solicitor which involved a number of owners (always 3-5 and most included this office bearer), then the appointment of the solicitor (selection between 3) went to a SC Meeting and said solicitor was appointed, following this the costs proposal went to an EGM and was voted on and agreed to. This cost proposal did not include any private meetings between an owner and the solicitor. At this EGM the solicitor gave an overview of the proposed development process. Post the EGM the person concerned engaged and met with the solicitor independently to ask further questions about the development process and also seek ways to overturn by-laws that had been voted in at previous meetings. This person was an office bearer and subsequently had the treasurer pay the bill for the meeting even though they had never been directed to meet with the lawyer nor was this authorised/approved by the SC. 

Following the meeting an email was sent to all owners detailing the meeting. If a meeting was to be held with the lawyer, it should have been set up by the SC and all owners invited to attend. 

My question is what is the law around a SC Office bearer spending money from the OC funds on an independent unauthorised meeting for their own purposes? How can we retrieve the money – is there a section in the legislation to quote? How can we prevent this happening again? I suspect the treasurer is also at fault by paying the invoice out of OC funds without SC approval. Is this correct? 

[Author]

Replies