#54664
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    Hi Kaindub,

    You ask:

    If you are in a block of 5, why are you not on the committee? its unlikely that if you  nominated that you would not get a seat. You then have front row access to all correspondence between the strata manager and the committee.

    I was on the committee as was everyone years ago, when it was self managed. One day I proved that Mr Secretary/Treasurer mixed his funds with the OC’s funds and that he behaved in a questionable manner. For instance, he used OC funds to buy a stove for another lot, claiming stoves were the responsibility of the OC. In fact the Chairman (who still is Chairman) also smelled something fishy and had a colleague inspect the books which proved me right and then it was decided unanimously that we hire a managing agent.

    I  remained on the committee for a short while as was everyone else, with a managing agent in place. We met at times as the SC and at times as the OC, after all 5 lots, 5 votes all attending meetings.

    But I was impeded in rejoining the committee after I disagreed with Mr Secretary/Treasurer with his move to allow one lot to have two people (being two votes) on each committee ie on the SC and OC. I made clear that on the OC if a lot owner wants two representatives, then they can have half a vote each, not one vote each. Mr Secretary/Treasurer has decades of strata experience and knew his motion was wrong in law when he made it yet he persisted, thinking I can be intimidated like others. When I pointed out that I will ask the CTTT (at the time) to rule on this motion if it is carried, he withdrew it.
    When I tried again to join the committee, Mr Secretary/Treasurer threatened others in the block that he could not work with me and would not sit on a committee if I was elected. When you consider he was talking to one owner, a senior with memory issues and another owner, also a senior who like many seniors is easily influenced by domineering personalities, both elderly folk folded like a pack of cards.

    Given my experience, which I am sure is not unique, perhaps a useful reform of SSMA is to consider all owners of small schemes automatically as members of the SC unless they themselves choose to opt out of the SC. That should improve situations like I have experienced, by ensuring I am on the SC if I want to be and those not wanting to be on the SC, can choose not to be. I think it imperative when, as in my case, the same person with a questionable history has held virtually the same position on the SC for nearly thirty years.