› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Strata Committees › Missappropriation of funds by the E. C. › Current Page
dech said:
…… With a view to getting some attention from the docile members among the owners is it reasonable and non-defamatory to refer to this as mis-appropriation of funds?
An addition question is – could the secretary refuse to include an agenda item for the AGM to the effect that EC nominees should demonstrate that they understand at least three of the basic functions/limitations of an EC ……
FROM: https://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/misappropriation.htm
(n) Misappropriation is the wrong application or utilization of funds allocated for any specific purposes, by illegally diverting the money, forging the documents or otherwise misleading the beneficiaries and owners of the fund. Misappropriation is a felony crime punishable by imprisonment.
In a cetrain context the term misappropriate is applicable but it is not a recommended term as people get a little touchy once such terms start getting thrown about. Perhaps using a phrase such as “wrong application or utilization of funds that were allocated for another specific purpose” is better wording; it means the same thing but does not compromise an individuals character as the harshness of saying misappropriate.
Clause 36 of Schedule 2 of the SSMA relaters to requesting motions be put on an agenda.
cl 36 (2) The secretary must give effect to the requirement of the notice.
In English; if you make a requisition for a motion to be included then the motion gets included – and i believe that means regardless of the content of the motion unless the motion has the potential to see the OC sued.
If the motion has defects or issues then it becomes a matter for the Chair to deal with on the day of the meeting and it is would be up to the Chair of the meeting to determine if the motion gets put to the meeting.
Our AGM agendas often get used as a opportunity to make a statement by people who include such motions as having a minutes silence for the apathetic who do not come to AGMs. Most of these “statement motions” are withdrawn when they come up but they get included because they are required to be included.
The motion you elude to should be on the agenda if you request it but would be one that possibly should not be put to the meeting. The Act sets out the requirements to become an EC member and showing an understanding of any strata knowledge is not one of the requirements.
I do not believe you could deny a person a nomination for an EC position, or an EC position, because they can't answer the “riddles three”.
I would add to the above that no one should expect CTTT to put their house in order if things are not as they should be. I'm not saying do not use CTTT but if you do use CTTT then do not have any expectation of the Act being applied or an outcome that corrects poor management practices. CTTT are not the strata police.