Questions: 1. Is the suggested by law “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive”? And presumably, “illegal”.
No, it’s just stupid, unworkable and unnecessary. There is no law requiring committee members to read or respond to correspondence, therefore there is no need for a by-law telling them they don’t have to. The only consequence is that they might not be re-elected at the next AGM.
2. Is the suggested “code of conduct” a violation of a person’s rights and presumably, “illegal”?
What are they going to do? Tie your hands behind your back so you can’t write? Again, it’s unworkable and unnecessary.
Reading between the lines, however, this has the feel of a signalling motion to get people to back off. There’s a fair chance that someone in your scheme has decided that the best way to get what they want is to badger the committee members with emails, letters and phone calls. This can be unproductive and deeply annoying and even distressing for committee members.
In fact, the best way to get what you want is to persuade other owners that you (and likeminded owners) should be elected on to the committee and the easiest way to do that is to persuade them that money is being wasted and their property values are being detrimentally affected.
If a disgruntled owner can’t persuade their neighbours of either of these things, then they have an uphill battle. And be clear, all that constant irritation of people in power does is to make them irritated. It certainly doesn’t make them more inclined to hear others’ points of view.
On the other hand, if owners aren’t prepared to listen to their neighbours, then why are they on the committee in the first place?
So, if you object to these moves to silence owners, put another motion up asking that committee members state whether they are prepared to read and respond to owners’ questions, complaints and suggestions, before the committee elections.
If the motion fails, it means your fellow owners simply don’t care and it’s time to let it go.