#52728
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    Thanks for the feedback Jimmy.

    As I read your replies, the two avenues proposed by the SC:

    1. May be unnecessary or unworkable;

    2. Do not offer the SC anything new under the sun, because the SSMA itself does not require them to read/reply to correspondence if they don’t want to; and

    3. May be the SC’s (genuine) attempt to deter a chronic trouble maker.

    If so, then I see no reason to oppose this change by the SC.

    Two final questions:

    a) Assuming  the By-Law is carried at a general meeting, will any owner who supports it find herself looking stupid in front of NCAT if in time she seeks Mediation after a legitimate email from her (say about a neighbour keeping a dog that disturbs her right to peaceful enjoyment) was ignored by the SC, as the By-Law allows? And

    b) Flowing from that, would you as an owner but not SC member, support or abstain from voting on such a motion?

    Thanks again.