Stevecro said:
… there is no provision for ‘Proxy Forms’ for EC meetings. I really don’t know where people get that idea from. There is no prescribed proxy form for EC meetings, if the Act allowed for proxies for EC meetings there would be a prescribed proxy form to go with it (I guess).
I’m afraid you guess wrong. This is not a matter of interpretation- it’s a matter of fact. The word proxy is not used but this is what the Schedule 3 Regulations say about owners sitting in for absent EC members as well as EC members voting on absent members’ behalf. These are proxies, by any other name – no forms required:
3 Acting members of the executive committee
(1) A member of the executive committee may, with the consent of the executive committee, appoint an owner or company nominee of a corporation which is an owner to act in his or her place as a member at any meeting of the executive committee.
(2) The owner or company nominee so appointed is, while so acting as a member, taken to be a member.
(3) An owner or company nominee of a corporation may be so appointed whether or not he or she is a member of the executive committee already.
(4) If a person so appointed is a member of the executive committee the person may, at any meeting of the executive committee, separately vote in the person’s capacity as such a member and on behalf of the member in whose place the person has been appointed to act.
Also, this is what the Fair Trading fact sheet on executive committees says on the subject:
Non‑attendance at meetings
An executive committee member can appoint another owner or company nominee, whether or not they are a member of the executive committee already, to vote for them at an executive committee meeting. This must be approved by the executive committee.
Regarding whether or not the EC can elect new members, you are not in a position to know what the intention of the Act was. You can have an opinion but yours is not borne out by any experience with which I am familiar and I’ve been writing about this stuff for 12 years now.
The Act clearly states that decisions of the EC are to be taken as decisions of the Owners Corporation. Or, in other words, the EC can make decisions on behalf of the owners corp.
For instance Executive Committees can decide to replace gym equipment, provided they get two quotes and there is no restriction on their spending imposed by the Owners Corp at an AGM.
EC’s can also decide to issue Notices To Comply, and it says so on the form, provided that power has not been removed by the owners at a general meeting.
In both cases, the Act describes these decisions as being made by the Owners Corporation.
In fact, there is a standard motion that must be put on the agenda of every AGM, asking if the owners corp wants to instruct the EC not to consider certain issues during the coming year. This could be used to tell the EC to hold a full election for and empty seat, if that’s what the owners wanted. Usually, however, it’s to prevent one or two EC members continually presenting the same proposals only for them to be rejected when they don’t get the numbers.
Nowhere in the Act does it specify that retired EC members must be replaced by a vote of owners at a general meeting, or that it has to be by a special resolution (which would require a general meeting).
There are specific decision that the EC can’t make – and these are listed in the Act and Schedule 3 Regulations. Replacing an EC member is not one of them.
I would “guess” the intention of the Act was to avoid having general meetings every time an EC member fell sick, moved house, got bored or got too busy at work.