- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Our strata manager will sit as Chair at our upcoming AGM and there are issues in relation to the motion to reappoint the manager.
A few of the issues are the current agreement does not expire for 7 months and the SC could extend it to run to the 2024 AGM. The issue here is the new agreement, which would supersede the existing one, will cost the OC more immediately. That does not seem in the OCs best interest yet it is an oblivious SC who have submitted the motion and the agent who will, as Chair, be putting the motion to the AGM without telling them this motion to re-appoint him, now rather than later, is not in your best financial interest.
As the cost of the proposed agreement is above $30k p.a. the OC is required by s 102 of the Act to get a second quotation.
The OC did get the second quotation but it was a week after the AGM notice was sent out and the person who sought the quote, a supporter of the current agent, told the other agent they were seeking the quote because they were just testing the water. The second quote is a sham quote to tick a box and not a quote sought in the best interests of the OC. The quotation would not even exist had an owner not pressed the agent to see it after they received their AGM notice.The agents position is the OC has two quotations as per s 102 and the motion to re-appoint him can now be amended to the other proposal if the meeting wants to do that.
There are issues over how the information has been sent out. There has not been 7 clear days for a lot of the attachments that inform on certain motions. The information that was not included in the AGM notice was sent over a week after the agenda was sent and it may not arrive to some owners before the meeting. It is not just the reappointment motion that has this problem.Curiously the second quotation is about $11k less that the current agents new proposal but already the current agent is circulating disparaging comments about the other agreement and agency.
The same cost differential existed when the OC first took on the agent about 8 years ago, the EGM had a choice of another agent for $10k less and chose the more expensive one because the dominant, only, faction in the SP thought that agent suited them better.I have been in discussion with the agent for about a week on the issues and it seems the agent really wants this motion to go ahead. Strange given one might think an alternative costing $11k less would worry him; it doesn’t worry him if he knows he has the numbers, if he knows he has the support of those who like that he does not interfere with the non compliance culture.
It is all too easy to say to an AGM that the alternative has hidden costs and is not as good when no one from the other agency is at the meeting.The question is how does the agent, as Chair at the AGM, objectively and in the best interests of the OC address questions in relation to the validity of a motion worth over $140k, over 3 years, to his business?
I don’t think that is possible, there are 140000 reasons to ignore anything that might see the reappointment not go through.- This topic was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by .
-
Replies
-
You are confusing roles here,
The chair of the meeting conducts the running of the meeting, ensuring everyone is able to debate any motion.
You could just as easily have the real chairman, or any other agreed party to be chairman.
I doubt whether the strata manager can speak for the motion. Firstly they are not an owner, so do not have any voting or speaking rights. Secondly, it’s clearly a conflict of interests and they should excuse themselves from the debate.
However it seems the committee is happy with this strata manager ( for whatever reason) . Sometime,just because you don’t like something, does not make it wrong.
If you want things changed, get elected to the committee. That’s where the power is and decisions are made.
As you probably know, few owners turn up to general meetings, and those that do just go with the flow.
Firstly they [strata managers] are not an owner, so do not have any voting or speaking rights.
If the strata manager is asked a question then they are entitled if not expected to answer. The only reference to “speaking rights” that I can find in the NSW Act refers to owners who attend meetings but must get the permission of the committee before speaking. Also, if the strata mangers are holding proxies, they are entitled to vote except on matters relating to their contracts or remuneration.
Conflicts of interest do not negate votes – they simply have to be declared.The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
This is a common misunderstanding. Proxies do not have entitlement to vote. Sch 1 clause 23 talks about who is entitlement to vote. Proxies are entitlement to cast the vote of the person with entitlement to vote (if the person with the entitlement is financial). It isn’t semantics.
This isn’t semantics either:
Schedule 1, 25 Rights of proxies and limits on votes by proxies
(7) Limits on exercise of proxy by building manager, on-site residential property manager or strata managing agent
A vote by a proxy who is a building manager, an on-site residential property manager or a strata managing agent is invalid if it would obtain or assist in obtaining a pecuniary interest for, or confer or assist in conferring any other material benefit on, the proxy.
Also, it would help us to understand your argument if you could differentiate between proxy holders, proxy votes and proxy providers. Referring to them all as “proxies” is pretty confusing.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
I think you miss some of the key aspects of what is going on here. The agent has fiduciary duties. There is a massive conflict when it comes to being Chair for this motion because the Chair has such a huge financial interest in the motion. The issue arises when the Chair is asked to rule the motion out of order. There is a whole lot more to being Chair than seeing orderly conduct and discussion.
It’s sort of unclear what you are looking for from this forum. If it’s to vindicate your view that the strata manager is acting in their interest, then that’s obvious. But being right does not make the problem go away. Something needs to be done.
Unfortunately for you , you have a do nothing committee. Unless the composition of the committee changes, then nothing else will. The toughest thing I have found in life is for someone to step up and “ fight the good fight”
It takes a lot of emotional energy, a lot of time, sometimes money. You make some enemies along the way. Most people are not prepared to take this on, in addition to the rest of their lives. It also takes a lot of political noise.
First step is to get on the committee. Second step is to be elected Secretary or Chairman. Are you the one to champion your cause?
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.