Reply To: Victoria – OC dispute about committee formation

Jimmy T and Austman – thank you very much for your responses.

The ironic thing is that, in my capacity as Secretary, I called an SGM for 1 September to attempt to resolve the matter once and for all (for a decision on both the committee and the Manager). On the day of the SGM the teleconference provider advised that the meeting ID had been changed so I had to cancel the meeting. Talk about a twist of fate… both the Chair (P) and the Manager are, unsurprisingly yet frustratingly, in no hurry to convene the AGM yet happy to have a ‘committee’ meeting. It makes no sense.

The scary thing is that I have already mentioned most of what Jimmy T outlined below to both the Manager and the Chair and it hasn’t had any impact whatsoever. The situation has become somewhat uncomfortable and there’s seemingly not much that can be done about it.<span class=”Apple-converted-space”> </span>

The Manager has confirmed that R did not submit a proxy form for the AGM. There is no doubt that R was not present (either in person or via proxy) and did not nominate for the committee. I have pressed the Manager previously regarding how it’s possible that R was appointed a committee member per s.103(4) and (5) yet the Manager refuses to answer the question directly, simply stating that it’s what was agreed to at the meeting.<span class=”Apple-converted-space”> </span>

R has been somewhat absent in general. We have asked R to confirm whether they feel they are a committee member – no response. They have confirmed they’ll attend the ‘committee’ meeting though.

I have mentioned s.122 to the Manager and repeatedly asked for clarification about the committee membership (amongst other things). The responses I’ve received have instead targeted my character and not once addressed the questions at hand. The Manager cannot be reasoned with so unfortunately it’s well past the point of a quiet word!

In my opinion the Chair (P) is a key contributor to the mess we’re in and there are serious question marks about whether P has met their obligations per s.117 of the Act. You would think that the Chair should’ve been clear on which members formed the committee when providing the Manager with our instructions between November 2019 and June 2020. P seems to understand the gripes that K and I have with the Manager yet objects to their termination for no apparent reason.

P has conceded that it’s difficult to see how R was validly elected to the committee at the AGM. P has, however, argued that there is doubt as to whether K was actually elected. This ‘doubt’ arises from the conflicting accounts of the meeting (ie. in that myself and K attest that K was elected, and that P’s proxy J and the Manager attest that K was not elected).<span class=”Apple-converted-space”> </span>

I would have thought that if a majority of owners present at a meeting attest to the accuracy of a particular resolution that it would trump the views of the minority (and definitely the Manager as an administrator only). What are your thoughts on that more broadly? I imagine there are other situations where an important resolution is disputed – how are they resolved?

I would happily take this matter to VCAT but with the AGM in late October there’s no way I’d get a hearing in time. I am concerned that the Manager will get ‘in the ear’ of the long standing, absent owners (like R) to shut down the termination at the AGM and perhaps even boot me off the committee. Desperate to find a way to fix this prior to then!