#28001
scapegoat
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    @JimmyT said:


    @scapegoat
    said:
    She refuses to even speak to anyone who challenges her, but nevertheless accepts a free strata levy payment per year – because of all the work she does.

    Thanks for your reply pointing out that ‘levy holidays’ can constitute a breach. In our case, the AGM agenda has consistently included a motion on honorariums which specifies that it be awarded for work done in the previous year. So, it is retrospective. But at every opportunity, I have argued that any kind of payment is inappropriate in our case as there are resident owners willing to participate in the sound management of the building and to exercise their responsibilities as owners in the complex. (BTW, it’s a building of 22 units in NSW). I did not attend our 2017 AGM having been so abused at the 2016 meeting, I had my own safety to consider. But I note that the 2017 AGM agenda is the first AGM agenda I have every seen without a motion on honorariums. By removing that item from the AGM agenda, the Owners Corporation members can no longer participate in determining that motion. But, following the 2017 AGM, the just elected executive committee met, as per due procedure. This time, the said ‘levy holiday’ was resolved under General Discussion by the EC members: “An Honorarium be afforded to [NAME] to the effect of one quarter levies for the services rendered to building matters.” That decision was made with the recipient present (having once again been elected as Treasurer – going on 40 years now). As the above minute doesn’t include any further detail, it is impossible to determine whether a vested interest was declared. Should an interest have been declared at the time by the recipient and should it have been minuted, and is it an appropriate decision for the EC? One further question: I’m brand new to this site so not very familiar with how it all works, but would like to know how to set this thread up as a new thread specifically about EC member payments. Thanks again for your reply.

    Well, I would start right there – if she is being give a levy holiday agreed in advance at the AGM, the Owners Corp is breaking the law.  If she is getting one retrospectively, I would flag the idea that this should be reviewed more closely as it seems to be a salary rather than an ex gratia payment (so again it is breaking the law).

    Literally tens of  thousands of people do a lot of work for their committees with no thought of payment.  What’s so special about your scheme?  If she doesn’t want to do it for free, let her stop.

    Regarding your plan to limit terms, I can see the appeal for dealing with rusted-on control freaks, but it would also wipe out the limited supply of committed and experienced committee members.  

    Better to deal with the problem head on – propose that you cut the payments on the basis that the committee is breaking the law and then call for a new chair when she blows up.