› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Strata Committees › Current Page
- This topic has 21 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by .
-
CreatorTopic
-
24/10/2013 at 12:45 pm #9109
Hello, We have an upcoming AGM. At which time we will be receiving nominations and signing people up for for the coming years EC. One vexacious resident who has often been on the committee before, is not only unhelpful and does nothing in way shape or form; she goes out of her way to be difficult and to block or derail any attempts to get things done around the block.
Question: If they are “nominated” for the EC, is there anyway to have a “No” vote and therefore not have them on the EC? Thanks in advance, N
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
04/11/2013 at 9:16 am #19956
Thanks for the advice.
05/11/2013 at 11:32 am #20036It also depends how open you want to be at the meeting and how severe the actual issues are. If there are guenuine reasons for the person not to be on the EC then you should speak publicly against their nomination. We had an EC member who repeatedly waged war against other EC members and residents. I kept a note of their behaviours and the impacts. We determined how many extra hours they caused us to deal with matters and the additional Schedule B costs incurred through the strata manager needing to carry out additional tasks. It was so compelling the person got one vote only – their own. You need to do some work to get rid of these type of people but it is worth it in the end.
06/11/2013 at 8:39 am #19900@nugalbags said:
Hello, We have an upcoming AGM. At which time we will be receiving nominations and signing people up for for the coming years EC. One vexacious resident who has often been on the committee before, is not only unhelpful and does nothing in way shape or form; she goes out of her way to be difficult and to block or derail any attempts to get things done around the block.Question: If they are “nominated” for the EC, is there anyway to have a “No” vote and therefore not have them on the EC? Thanks in advance, N
The process is actually quite straightforward.
There is a legal obligation to have a motion to decide the number of people you want on your executive committee. Make sure you have a “ticket” that includes everybody you want on the EC and nobody you don’t. Set the number of seats on the EC to accommodate the poeple on your ticket and no one else.
If possible, sound out other owners to see if they want to be on and to get their support. But make sure you have the numbers beforehand to a) set the correct number of seats on the committee and b) elect your ticket.
If anyone at the meeting objects to this and seems to have support – “Mrs X wants to be on so we should have another seat” – tell the meeting that the entire EC ticket will withdraw their nomination because the EC will be totally dysfunctional otherwise.
However, if you have done your legwork previously, this should not even arise and Mrs X will be blindsided, as they say on Survivor (the perfect illustration of how to run an EC).
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.
06/11/2013 at 10:17 am #20054Hi Jimmy,
I am actually very surprised by your advice because somebody on the flat-chat forum has ‘alleged’ a resident as ‘vexacious’. After everything the Hon Mr. Anthony Roberts discussed regarding proxy votes etc. I cannot applaud the inference that 1 person can “decide the number of people you want on your executive committee” by issuing a “ticket”!
This is a democratic system you are detailing but correct me if I am wrong, have you just outlined a way for somebody to control a strata scheme using a pre-meditated solution? If the vexatious resident is part of the committee, the decisions should be based on all votes, not just one person. Surely this is the fairest way to run a Strata Scheme?
I can’t help but think this method could constitute ‘fraud on the minority’ and removing an owner’s democratic rights is a serious offence well documented in the act. “Dysfunctional” and “blindsided” are words that come to mind when plotting to target one person. The Owners Corporation are in place for the good of ‘all owners’ and members should not be plotting against any minority’s!
Don’t take this as a rant, it’s far from it, but someone should stick up for the rights of Australian Citizens under common law. It is only fair is it not?
‘nugalbags’, if this resident has done anything illegal, you can apply to CTTT to have them removed as an executive committee member. I advise against plotting to remove them. It can only end up costing the Owners Corporation if you get found out… especially if a Compulsory Strata Manager is installed.
06/11/2013 at 11:51 am #20056
@PMC2 said:
Hi Jimmy,I am actually very surprised by your advice because somebody on the flat-chat forum has ‘alleged’ a resident as ‘vexacious’. After everything the Hon Mr. Anthony Roberts discussed regarding proxy votes etc. I cannot applaud the inference that 1 person can “decide the number of people you want on your executive committee” by issuing a “ticket”!
This is a democratic system you are detailing but correct me if I am wrong, have you just outlined a way for somebody to control a strata scheme using a pre-meditated solution?
OK, let me stop you right there. What is the problem with doing a little forward planning to deal with a recurring problem? And it’s not one person deciding – but somebody has to put the suggestion on the table for others to consider and agree upon (or otherwise). I merely recommended that anyone in this situation seeks the support of their co-owners – including the other people on the ticket, of course – to deal with a problem that is causing distress and dysfunction in their committee.
We are not talking about “blind” proxies here. We are talking about a considered and widely discussed strategy that can only be achieved by the consensus of the a majority of owners.
The reason you restrict the number of seats to the people on the ticket is so that the disruptive member doesn’t get on the committee by default – if the number of candidates equals the number of seats then there is no election and your vaunted democratic principles evaporate. It’s all too easy for people who don’t have to deal with people like this to give them a sympathy vote, so you have to be organised about this.
You have clearly never had to endure a year of executive committee meetings disrupted by one person who thinks that whenever their view doesn’t prevail they are entitled to rant and rave and act in a way that is anything but democratic.
Of course, the open and honest way to deal with this would be for each of the people who have suffered at the hand of this person to stand up at the AGM and describe this person’s behaviour in detail, asking people not to vote for them. In the meantime you have pretty much destroyed their credibility in the community (not to mention the social and psychological effects that might have).
If you could just step off your high horse for a second, I’d love to hear your suggestions for a solution that actually works when you have a person who dominates meetings regardless of the effect that has on the other owners in his or her community, or indeed, the community itself.
And as for wrapping yourself in the Australian flag and sticking up for the “rights of citizens”, what about the rights of the majority to decide how they want the business of their community to be conducted – e.g. in a civil and constructive manner? There is no fraud on the minority when an informed majority decided its had enough of the shenanigans of one owner.
PMC2 said
‘nugalbags’, if this resident has done anything illegal, you can apply to CTTT to have them removed as an executive committee member. I advise against plotting to remove them. It can only end up costing the Owners Corporation if you get found out… especially if a Compulsory Strata Manager is installed.
This is misleading nonsense. You don’t have to be a criminal to disrupt the workings of an owners corporation. And where in the Act does it allow an adjudicator to dismiss an EC member for their behaviour? Even if there were such a provision, can you imagine the extended disruption to community life while evidence was gathered and argued to and fro.
This whole statement is factually incorrect and, I suspect, mischievous in its intent. This is about individual behaviour and its consequences and there is nothing to be ‘found out’ about anyone taking what is a somewhat political but, in the circumstances, very pragmatic course of action.
This is exactly the kind of action that senior people in Fair Trading have (privately) suggested in the past as a way of dealing with disruptive committee members. There is nothing illegal, immoral or actionable about it.
In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies – sometimes the “citizens” have to be a bit smarter than imagining that all the have to do is raise an objection at the CTTT and their problems will be magically resolved. Anyone who has ever taken even a watertight case to the CTTT will testify to naivety of that belief.
In fact, the strictly correct way to remove a member of an EC is to hold a general meeting and pass a special resolution to declare their seat vacant. How much easier is it to take the opportunity afforded by the AGM and get the majority of people to agree beforehand that one person’s proven unacceptable behaviour is intolerable and save everyone – including the miscreant – the personal grief and extended agony of either being publicly humiliated or trying to get a 75 percent vote at another time.
The chances of a widely agreed and perfectly legitimate pre-emptive strike against a disruptive EC member leading to the statutory appointment of a strata manager are less than zero. Do you have any knowledge or experience of strata law at all? This smacks of scaremongering.
By the way, common law has nothing to do with this – it only applies when there are no other laws covering an issue. I suggested nothing that isn’t adequately covered by strata law.
So, please, next time, actually read what I have written before you come on here and attack me personally. And get your facts right before you start issuing advice about what people should do and the consequences of their actions.
By all means, cite one case – just one – that proves you are right and I am wrong and I will publish it here along with an apology and a retraction.
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.
06/11/2013 at 12:44 pm #20057Unfortunately, one solution cannot fit all situations. If a committe is stacked and biased to favour the interests of one or a few individuals (which comes about through multiple ownership by one person in a large strata scheme and low turnout by absentee owners), then vexacious may simply mean representing a different point of view.
06/11/2013 at 1:43 pm #20061Further to Jimmy’s post, no-one has a right to be on the EC. You have the right to nominate yourself or someone else for election to the EC, and then it depends on the number of members determined and election, if any.
If everyone had the right to be elected we would have a very crowded Parliament.
Yes it can be a difficult balancing act, and each circumstance is different. In our scheme there is one person who to date we have kept off the EC. That person is dishonest, and has had no qualms about damaging the common property and breaching by-laws whenever they feel like it. The reason I do not want that person on the EC is because if they were, I know that they would instruct tradesman to do things around the property on the basis that they are an EC member and have authority. That person thinks I am evil incarnate, which is not surprising.
The spelling is “vexatious”.
06/11/2013 at 1:44 pm #20062@Mrs Kravitz said:
Unfortunately, one solution cannot fit all situations. If a committe is stacked and biased to favour the interests of one or a few individuals (which comes about through multiple ownership by one person in a large strata scheme and low turnout by absentee owners), then vexacious may simply mean representing a different point of view.I couldn’t agree more. I just took the phrase “does nothing in way shape or form; she goes out of her way to be difficult and to block or derail any attempts to get things done around the block” at face value.
I have seen the same “vote for our ticket” system used to exclude people from ECs who might have had a contribution to make. Hell, it’s been used to keep me off my building’s EC, albeit with the help of a bumper crop in the proxy harvest.
But remove great swathes of proxies from the picture (as will happen next year) and a little bit of political planning can go a long way to get rid of bad apples. And don’t forget, the good guys are able to mount their own campaigns, with their own tickets, if they want.
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.
06/11/2013 at 4:18 pm #20065Hi jimmy,
There are obviously two sides to this discussion. My concerns are due to the ‘Judge Judy’ style finger pointing… Can you be certain that “nugalbags” isn’t the troublemaker?
- Forward planning is fine; formation of a clique is not!
- You stated “tell the meeting that the entire EC ticket will withdraw their nomination because the EC will be totally dysfunctional otherwise” asserting a dictatorship, not a suggestion to seek “support of their co-owners”.
- You suggested doing this prior to an AGM, not “a considered and widely discussed strategy”.
- I have too many years with “disruptive members” on committees by default… “rusted on”, as cited in Mr Anthony Robert’s Strata Reforms articles. I endured meetings disrupted by the chairperson, secretary and treasurer whose actions are anything but democratic, approving expenditure without consulting the other EC members and even sanctioning spending required to be done by the Owners Corporation.
- “The open and honest way to deal with this would be for each of the people who have suffered at the hand of this person to stand up at the AGM and describe this person’s behaviour in detail”… Again, could this lead to a defamation claim.
- Hang on while I dismount… I am of the opinion committee members should only be allowed to make decisions on minor issues (colour of paint, finishes, cleaners, etc.) with everything else set out as mandatory and performed immediately by the Strata Manager (who should be held accountable) without any interference of committee members. Autocratic owners should not be allowed hold other residents to ransom, EVER! It’s not a perfect system, hence why strata reforms are currently happening.
- Dare I say you have witnessed EC penny pinchers or the members who freely disregard by-laws at the detriment of others, yet demand everyone else abide by them?
- Your argument rests on the majority being ‘correctly’ informed, who’s to say the shenanigans are not from autocratic owners wanting to dictate or rort the system?
- Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 – Sect 162, relates to the appointment of a Compulsory Strata Manager. This is hard to prove, but is an option is bad decisions or dysfunction by EC members is allowed to fester.
- I reject your ‘mischievous’ comment, it is usually the individual behaviour of committee members not doing what’s required of the act that causes Supreme Court claims. Look at your forum topis to see highlighted issues such as illegal spending, notices, breaches of duties which have all been committed by rouge Strata managers, Executive Committee Members and even Building Managers.
- In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies –”citizens” shouldn’t have to be smarter, the laws should disincentive wrongdoing in the first place. I have had many watertight cases at CTTT, they all ended up at the District Court.
- How about Strata Cases on Austlii are for claims under negligence? Even breaches of section 62 constitute negligence when all three clauses are breached. The latest Dr Thoo case asserts this well.
Lastly, I did not attack you, I merely suggested that your advice could be construed by disruptive committee members. My opinion was that bullying someone off a committee, who we only have one person’s word that they are ‘disruptive’, can also be committed on the ‘good people’ can it not?
I believe there are many successful applications for a Compulsory Strata Management appointed by CTTT Adjudicators. The Owners – Strata Plan 5709 v Andrews [2009] NSWCA 189, Hatzvy v Grossbard and Owners Corporation SP13671 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2010] NSWCTTT 477.
If I offended you, I sincerely apologise, but I would like to reiterate I was merely suggesting that your response (well respected by Flat-Chat followers) could be used in a very bad light, and I am still of the opinion that it is more than likely a ‘bad’ element of Strata Society that would do just that.
06/11/2013 at 6:20 pm #20071
@PMC2 said:
Hi jimmy,There are obviously two sides to this discussion. My concerns are due to the ‘Judge Judy’ style finger pointing… Can you be certain that “nugalbags” isn’t the troublemaker?
No, but I chose to work on that assumption. Let’s just say my advice was for ECs who find themselves with a troublemaker in their midst and want to get rid of him or her.
Forward planning is fine; formation of a clique is not!
I can’t think of any level of politics that doesn’t involve a group of people who have similar aims working together to achieve them. It becomes a clique when the sole collective aim is maintaining their power and influence, rather than trying to achieve something for the greater good.
You stated “tell the meeting that the entire EC ticket will withdraw their nomination because the EC will be totally dysfunctional otherwise” asserting a dictatorship, not a suggestion to seek “support of their co-owners”.
Dictatorship is one person acting alone with no regard for the opinions of others. This is a group of people saying, when their move has been challenged or rejected, you can elect who you like but if you think the committee should have to put up with this person’s behaviour, then you do the job because we don’t need it. I call it collective bargaining.
You suggested doing this prior to an AGM, not “a considered and widely discussed strategy”.
Well it depends what you mean by ‘prior’. I meant days and weeks. If I had mean immediately prior I would have said so.
I have too many years with “disruptive members” on committees by default… “rusted on”, as cited in Mr Anthony Robert’s Strata Reforms articles. I endured meetings disrupted by the chairperson, secretary and treasurer whose actions are anything but democratic, approving expenditure without consulting the other EC members and even sanctioning spending required to be done by the Owners Corporation.
Yes, and those are things you can either take to a general meeting or refer to the CTTT. A bullying chairperson is bad enough – and the EC always has the opportunity to sack them from the office (though not the committee). But someone doing what you have described, according to your last posting, can easily be dealt with by the CTTT because it is illegal (although i would reiterate that it is far from that easy).
“The open and honest way to deal with this would be for each of the people who have suffered at the hand of this person to stand up at the AGM and describe this person’s behaviour in detail”… Again, could this lead to a defamation claim.
Members of the owners corporation are allowed considerable “privilege” under defamation laws and the allegedly defamed person would have to prove malice as well as that the comments were not relevant to the discussions at hand (the election of committee members). However that doesn’t mean that legal action can’t be threatened or attempted – which is why it is better to do all this the way I described.
I am of the opinion committee members should only be allowed to make decisions on minor issues (colour of paint, finishes, cleaners, etc.) with everything else set out as mandatory and performed immediately by the Strata Manager (who should be held accountable) without any interference of committee members. Autocratic owners should not be allowed hold other residents to ransom, EVER! It’s not a perfect system, hence why strata reforms are currently happening.
These specific opinions are interesting but they are hardly relevant within the bounds of this discussion. A reasonable analysis of the proposed changes to the laws will reveal the general thrust is to give people more power to run their own lives the way they want … or, at least, that’s what the Minister said to me on the phone this morning. I think you’ll find there are fewer restrictions and more transparency in the finalised proposals.
Dare I say you have witnessed EC penny pinchers or the members who freely disregard by-laws at the detriment of others, yet demand everyone else abide by them?
Correct. And i have seen them turfed out on their ears using exactly the method I described here.
Your argument rests on the majority being ‘correctly’ informed, who’s to say the shenanigans are not from autocratic owners wanting to dictate or rort the system?
Evil prospers when good men (and women) do nothing. People have to be allowed to make their own choices and, sadly, one of those choices all too frequently employed in strata is to do nothing because the status quo always feels safer than the great unknown. But let’s stick to the question we have before us and work on the assumption that there is a disruptive person in a committee and how do you get them out in the most effective way
Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 – Sect 162, relates to the appointment of a Compulsory Strata Manager. This is hard to prove, but is an option if bad decisions or dysfunction by EC members is allowed to fester.
Hard to prove? Impossible unless that single disruptive person has caused the prime functions of the Owners Corporation – i.e. its legal obligations – to be neglected. The only occasions when I have seen that avenue explored in the case of a single disruptive person has been when the person concerned is the chair and they have led the owners Corp to be in breach of the Act. That’s not what we are talking about here.
I reject your ‘mischievous’ comment…
Withdrawn, with apologies …
… it is usually the individual behaviour of committee members not doing what’s required of the act that causes Supreme Court claims. Look at your forum topics to see highlighted issues such as illegal spending, notices, breaches of duties which have all been committed by rouge Strata managers, Executive Committee Members and even Building Managers.
In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies –”citizens” shouldn’t have to be smarter, the laws should disincentive wrongdoing in the first place. I have had many watertight cases at CTTT, they all ended up at the District Court.
Two points – we’re not talking about what should and shouldn’t happen, we’re referring to real life, right now under the current laws and by-laws. Oh, and at the risk of sounding facetious, if you had watertight cases, then they wouldn’t have gone to the District Court. Even so, that supports my argument that the CTTT is not a magic wand that cures all ills. You have to take responsibility for your own community and the way it works. There are no StrataCops to come and enforce the law.
How about Strata Cases on Austlii are for claims under negligence? Even breaches of section 62 constitute negligence when all three clauses are breached. The latest Dr Thoo case asserts this well.
I don’t understand this reference. There are no cases that I know of where an Owners Corp has suffered the statutory appointment of a strata manager because they formed a voting bloc to exclude someone from an executive committee using entirely legal means to do so. Oh, and Dr Thoo lost his claim to have the common property upgraded so I don’t see the relevance of that either.
Lastly, I did not attack you, I merely suggested that your advice could be construed by disruptive committee members. My opinion was that bullying someone off a committee, who we only have one person’s word that they are ‘disruptive’, can also be committed on the ‘good people’ can it not?
Attack? Criticise? Censure? There was a sense of outrage that I would be telling the good people of StrataLand how to quickly, quietly and efficiently get rid of disruptive elements. And yes, it can be used to get rid of good people too – in which case the owners, by supporting that, will get the EC they deserve … as they inevitably discover.
I believe there are many successful applications for a Compulsory Strata Management appointed by CTTT Adjudicators. The Owners – Strata Plan 5709 v Andrews [2009] NSWCA 189, Hatzvy v Grossbard and Owners Corporation SP13671 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2010] NSWCTTT 477.
Yes but these were not for forming a voting bloc to remove a disruptive member – which is the whole point of this discussion. These were for other issues entirely, as you well know.
If I offended you, I sincerely apologise, but I would like to reiterate I was merely suggesting that your response (well respected by Flat-Chat followers) could be used in a very bad light, and I am still of the opinion that it is more than likely a ‘bad’ element of Strata Society that would do just that.
As I said below, I have had it done to me so I know how it feels. However, in a case where there is a persistently disruptive member of an EC, you have yet to offer a solution that is more effective and less disruptive to the community as a whole than what I recommended.
Seriously, working on the assumption that there are disruptive members of ECs who manage to get themselves elected by default or other means, what is your proposal for removing them with the minimum pain and fuss?
Failing that, let’s agree to differ because I’m sure this discussion is becoming a tad tedious for other readers of this website.
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.
06/11/2013 at 6:55 pm #20072I have already stated the method proposed would be allow the executive to take a vote from ‘every’ member, if the one member is disruptive, then the others will out vote. Is that not the way it should work… In simple terms. As tedious as it sounds, I am sure that’s the way the legislature was formed.
Anyhow, I stand by my first comments and would never endorse any action to purposely reject an owner, even if they are disruptive. They most likely have valid concerns just like anybody else. Ganging up on them to make sure they are not represented is not a good thing… In my book, I’d rather do the right thing.
There are many cases that have been appealed to the district court from CTTT to be decided by a judge. Adjudicators don’t have to apply the law, if they choose not to. I also point out ALL of my previous cases to the district court have been judged in my favour, with costs and damages awarded. This might be the reason I condone behind the scenes actions, it’s not transparent.
It appears that having an opinion or expressing concern is not a good quality to have so ill bow out and wish you luck with this site Jimmy T.
06/11/2013 at 7:10 pm #20074Nugalbags, I’m sure you are able to discern the best way forward from all of this rambling to and fro. If you have the support of your EC and they have the support of the majority of the community, the mechanism is there to take this person out of the picture without breaking any laws, by-laws or risking defamation or any other legal redress. It’s democracy at work.
If your fellow EC members and other owners disagree with you, so be it. That’s politics.
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.
04/03/2014 at 3:59 pm #21093We have a situation in our complex in Queensland where a nomination has been received for a committee position. The person nominated it has come to light is in fact the Uncle of the owner rather than a daughter as the person is claiming.
This is an extremely difficult situation we have round ourselves in as under the law they are not a member of their “immediate” family. We have only three nominations at this stage and removing this person would mean if no other owners turned up to the AGM (non committee members), we would e left without a functioning committee.
What is a good way to solve this issue?
04/03/2014 at 8:16 pm #21099Hmmm, an uncle or a daughter.
Make them present their credentials to the OC.
05/03/2014 at 2:20 am #21100@Kangaroo said:
Hmmm, an uncle or a daughter.Make them present their credentials to the OC.
Uncle should be Niece. The line should have read … “The person nominated it has come to light is in fact the Niece of the owner rather than a daughter as the person is claiming. “
The papers I requested to see were very dubious in nature, really a complete fraud. At the end of the day an interstate owner trying to get a vote on the committee which they would otherwise not get.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Strata Committees › Current Page