[scapegoat]

Hi JT – thanks for the info. Quite happy to do the leg-work. I’ll make the request for an update, then proceed to doing an inspection. Cheers.

[scapegoat]

Lady Penelope – wow! That sounds pretty clear cut. Our building does have a strata manager, so I will raise the issue and see what happens. Thanks again.

[scapegoat]

Lady Penelope – again, thanks for your help. But can I be sure that owner contact details are available?

[scapegoat]

Dear Cosmo – thanks for making a very good point, which I note JT echoes. And I can see problems with the suggestion I make: as you say, so often it’s really hard to get people to be involved, so I do take the point that you and JT make. Thank you both.

But in “rusted-on control freak” situation, it’s so hard to move them on simply because their imperative is to CONTROL. Maybe something like I’m suggesting could be made specific to situations where owners are being actively excluded from being involved. Quite how to determine that and how to specify such a rule is difficult, I admit. 

However, I’m also very struck by how common my problem is! Whenever I talk about this, I get the “there’s one in every building” response.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[scapegoat]

Dear Lady Penelope

Thanks for your reply, which I only just saw after I replied to JT. As you can see, for the first time this year, the motion on honorariums did not appear on the AGM agenda, but was instead agreed by the EC only, in the presence of the recipient. She is, in fact, the Treasurer and has been in the position for some 40 years now. (She has also consistently argued that the accounts Not be audited. The motion always passes because everyone knows that she becomes impossible if challenged).

No explanatory information has ever appeared with the motion when it did appear on the AGM agenda. Getting any information about the how the AGM agenda is compiled is almost impossible – the Treasurer appears to have complete control of that process – the minutes to the AGM held most recently does not even include a date for the next AGM. This has been included in the past. 

Given that this year, this decision was made by the EC only, is it a valid decision? If it isn’t, can I appeal?

Thanks

PS: “unseemly” doesn’t even come close . . . ‘incompetent’ is closer, but taking the motion off the AGM agenda now strikes me as very underhand (at the very least) in light of your advice. Thanks again.

[scapegoat]

@JimmyT said:

@scapegoat said:
She refuses to even speak to anyone who challenges her, but nevertheless accepts a free strata levy payment per year – because of all the work she does.

Thanks for your reply pointing out that ‘levy holidays’ can constitute a breach. In our case, the AGM agenda has consistently included a motion on honorariums which specifies that it be awarded for work done in the previous year. So, it is retrospective. But at every opportunity, I have argued that any kind of payment is inappropriate in our case as there are resident owners willing to participate in the sound management of the building and to exercise their responsibilities as owners in the complex. (BTW, it’s a building of 22 units in NSW). I did not attend our 2017 AGM having been so abused at the 2016 meeting, I had my own safety to consider. But I note that the 2017 AGM agenda is the first AGM agenda I have every seen without a motion on honorariums. By removing that item from the AGM agenda, the Owners Corporation members can no longer participate in determining that motion. But, following the 2017 AGM, the just elected executive committee met, as per due procedure. This time, the said ‘levy holiday’ was resolved under General Discussion by the EC members: “An Honorarium be afforded to [NAME] to the effect of one quarter levies for the services rendered to building matters.” That decision was made with the recipient present (having once again been elected as Treasurer – going on 40 years now). As the above minute doesn’t include any further detail, it is impossible to determine whether a vested interest was declared. Should an interest have been declared at the time by the recipient and should it have been minuted, and is it an appropriate decision for the EC? One further question: I’m brand new to this site so not very familiar with how it all works, but would like to know how to set this thread up as a new thread specifically about EC member payments. Thanks again for your reply.

Well, I would start right there – if she is being give a levy holiday agreed in advance at the AGM, the Owners Corp is breaking the law.  If she is getting one retrospectively, I would flag the idea that this should be reviewed more closely as it seems to be a salary rather than an ex gratia payment (so again it is breaking the law).

Literally tens of  thousands of people do a lot of work for their committees with no thought of payment.  What’s so special about your scheme?  If she doesn’t want to do it for free, let her stop.

Regarding your plan to limit terms, I can see the appeal for dealing with rusted-on control freaks, but it would also wipe out the limited supply of committed and experienced committee members.  

Better to deal with the problem head on – propose that you cut the payments on the basis that the committee is breaking the law and then call for a new chair when she blows up.   

[Author]

Replies