Reply To: Strata manager refused poll vote

@Kaindub

Thanks for your feedback.

I am not surprised that there are no penalties for unlawful acts by SMs. I can only assume the SM industry wrote the regulations under which the industry is “regulated”.

In reply to your feedback, please note that this is the second time I asked and the second time I was refused a poll vote.
The first time was a year or so ago when the SM was hired, without the then SC explaining (by email as I asked) why they wanted a particular SM to replace the exiting SM.

Last year I asked for an explanation by email because the General Meeting was done by pre-polling. There was no in-person General Meeting of the OC, so there was no Q&A for such an important decision by the SC on behalf of the OC. With proxies in hand, the SC’s decision was the majority decision of owners.No explanation by email or otherwise was provided.
At the time I was just a member of the OC.

At the following AGM, 6 mths later, I asked the SM again how each lot voted and finally was told who voted which way. I was verbally told, the SM put nothing in writing. I concluded that the SM did not want the minutes to reveal even one dissenting voice to their appointment. (I did not like what I saw in the management contract).

Now I am the Secretary.
And the forthcoming General Meeting I referred to in the post is also to be conducted by pre-poll and not in-person.
I would have thought that as Secretary (with no opposition from other SC members) that if I want a poll vote at the upcoming meeting and all meetings from here on, then the SM must comply and if not then he is acting unlawfully in denying me that. If, as you wrote, that offence is not penalised, is it enough to get NCAT to sack him?

You wrote

If its like most strata managers, the minutes will only say passed or defeated, with no indication of the voting pattern.

I agree that most SM work that way. But our previous SM would if asked – and a few owners always asked – list how each lot voted. Sometimes SC members asked and at times non members of the SC, including me asked. That SM – who I had some problems with – on the issue of recording votes, was fully transparent and compliant with requests by owners.