#25139
Sir Humphrey
Strataguru
Chat-starter

    In the past year, we did have a complaint about an unapproved structure erected on one unit. It had a direct impact on the immediate neighbour, and even if she had not complained, the EC would have issued a Rules Infringement Notice in any case. Dealing with this has dragged out over a year and at first involved trying a softly, softly approach of speaking to the unit owner, then a nice letter explaining why the structure was unacceptable (and did not serve the function it was purported to serve), then the Rules Infringement Notice. In all that our EC minutes accurately record who was to do what and why and when. We wanted an accurate paper trail that would be useful if came to it that we were accused of having done anything other than utterly by the book. 

    In that we referred to ‘the owner of unit XX’ but that would have afforded no anonymity if minutes had been broadcast. When we reached the point that the Tribunal had given orders that the owner must comply with the infringement notice, this was fully disclosed to owners generally except for naming the names or unit number. Firstly as an item in the newsletter, then as one item in a written report from the EC chair to our AGM. In both places, the unit owner’s anonymity was preserved. We did emphasise that the ACAT’s Decisions and Reasons had upheld our unit alterations processes and we reminded unit owners of the need to follow those processes (quite liberal by most standards, but important nonetheless).

    Then, soon after, out of the blue, at our recent AGM, a unit owner wanted to put a last minute motion that EC minutes be published and distributed to all owners within two weeks of the EC meeting. The chair refused to put the motion for many reasons that I consider valid, mainly to do with inadequate notice. Many unit owners had already submitted absentee votes or made proxy appointments without this matter being on the agenda, there was not enough time to issue a new proxy/absentee voting form, and putting the motion would be inconsistent with certain principles of meeting procedure given in a text that our first AGM adopted as the rules for meetings of the corporation.

    The AGM degenerated in fairly ugly debating the validity of the chair’s ruling. The chair had accepted the motion (and two others) as matters for discussion but not voting under ‘Other Business’ which was specifically listed on the meeting notice/agenda as “Discussion of other matters…”. However, we didn’t get to any real discussion of the merits or otherwise of publishing minutes.