The following is just general comment on EC communication, not a reflection on the original post.
99% of the time an EC should welcome communication from owners. I can understand that an EC might like to standardise that communication to keep track of it, like, for example, requesting that it go through the secretary or the managing agent or some other means.
Where I am, we had a tradition of always trying to get an EC member from each of the 5 sections of our site. This has advantages since owners are more likely to already know (or can more easily get to know) the EC member who lives close by. Owners often direct comments and requests through their ‘local member’. If it is sent to the managing agent, we expect that to be forwarded to us, whether for action or a decision or just noting.
We do occasionally have individual owners who become a bit over-communicative, sometimes to the point of being vexatious. They tend to pick on one EC member who seems most receptive. Imposing some formality about channels of communication can help in those circumstances, but we would not shut them out.
The flip-side of the over-communicative minority is the larger number of people who we wish would communicate more to us. In spite of regularly inviting comment and feedback, some are reluctant to bother us with matters they see as minor. However, these are often things we would easily have fixed or otherwise addressed if only we had known about them.
“Poor communication” is a common catch-all complaint in my experience. In one highly ironic situation, an owner complained about the poor communication from the EC while attending the special meeting we had called so that owners could ask questions directly of the legal expert who had given the legal advice that we had circulated to owners with an invitation to attend the meeting so that owners could hear it explained further if necessary.