#18329
Sir Humphrey
Strataguru

    The EC chairman has sought legal advice on behalf of the committee, without discussing it first or getting agreement. The amount is not exorbitant, and falls within delegated approval system for complex maintenance (ie under 1000). However, the feeling is legal advice falls outside this. Your thoughts? What options do a) EC members have and b) non members.  

    I would think EC members could ‘have a quiet word’ with the chair to indicate they are not happy with spending that was not discussed by the EC. There will always be some matters minor enough that EC members could just get on with it (EG. buying some replacement globes for path lights is not something we bother to pass resolutions about (there is an amount for lighting in the budget). Several EC members keep a small stock, replace globes, and send in a receipt for reimbursement). At some point EC members, including the chair, should exercise judgement about when matters are significant enough that they should be formalised by an EC resolution or, more formal still, a resolution of a general meeting. In between might be some things where an email would suffice (EG. “Dear EC, does anyone have a problem with me spending about $XXX from the maintenance budget on some paint and a bit of timber to fix up the YYY?”). 

    In the ACT at least, up to a point specified in the Act, the EC can spend money on legal advice or even legal action so I expect you would have something similar. 

    Sometimes an EC might need to spend money on something because it would be irresponsible not to do so, even if not clearly identified in a budget. 

    It sounds like perhaps this was a borderline matter and the chair could be pulled up on it informally by the EC.