Bye-bye to bad old by-laws?

Reviewing all the rules/Bylaws in one meeting could be hard, especially in a larger or more complex OC. Just one bylaw might be subject to a great deal of debate. 

In the ACT, our OC has been through a process taking about 4 years so far to review our rules (ACT-speak for bylaws). We had a set from the mid 1970s from the first general meeting of the OC which replaced the default set. That had kept some default rules, had substantially amended others and had some custom rules. 

Many years later, it was clear that many of the rules were irrelevant or useless. Some were just old-fashioned in their language. We had a period of education for owners about what rules were for, how they worked with the Act, how they could be enforced etc. EC members sketched out some of the changes we thought were obvious or desirable. We had small group meetings in different parts of the site to discuss all this. 

Then we put a series of motions to a general meeting, just to make changes that we hoped would be so innocuous that everyone would get used to the process and we would not scare the horses. The first motion was to change the word ‘lot’ to ‘unit’ in each rule where it appeared (to align with the language of the current Act), substitute gender-neutral language and so on. Then we had a series of motions to replace various carried over default rules from the 1970 Act with their equivalents from the current Act where the meaning and effect was nearly identical.

Then we rescinded a bunch of rules that were redundant or irrelevant. Some rules were no longer of any effect because their subject matter had been incorporated into the current Act, generally without much difference but making the rule redundant. Some rules referred to matters that had only been relevant while construction was still under way, so those could go. We still had one person who voted against the motions, presumably on some misplaced point of principle. 

The next year we sent drafts to everyone with a cover letter and proposed a range of changes that we thought would be relatively uncontroversial but useful.  For example, we had from the start a rule prohibiting growing noxious plants. However, it had never been successfully used. That was amended by tacking on the end “or any plant recognised as invasive or a pest plant by relevant authorities in the ACT”. It was explained that the ACT has a Pest Plant and Animals Act which has a schedule of plants declared to be pest plants. Consequently we had an objective standard to refer to which would be kept up to date without requiring work from the OC. This has made it far easier to say: ‘It’s on the list, we need to deal with that ivy or this periwinkle and grow something different there.’

At this consultation stage we had our drafts checked out by a strata specialist lawyer who did some useful tweaking. We added in some new rules which made  responsibilities for various things explicit that had generally been assumed, with good reason, but occasionally caused headaches for ECs or had potential to be a problem. These were things like individual responsibility to maintain various individually installed paths and utility connections and equipment such as air-conditioners that might be on or under or crossing common property but only service the one unit. 

These also passed with an overwhelming majority but a small minority opposed, presumably out of some misplaced distrust of the EC or wilful misreading of the obvious intention of the rule. 

With those rules out of the way, we had several rounds of drafts and consultation on a revised ‘Keeping of Animals’ rule. This had been left to late in the process because we knew there would be differing and possibly heated opinions on this and we did not want to derail the whole process. So, at this year’s AGM we passed the animals rule. The main point of difference is that we had on one hand some wanting utter laissez faire, particularly with cats free to roam the common property. On the other hand we had a strong view that we should ban cats from our site that has remnant bush, birds, lizards, etc. Some though dogs should never be off-lead, yet others have well-behaved, well-trained dogs and have innocuous fun throwing a ball for their dog in parts of our extensive grounds. In the end our rule passed by special resolution which in the ACT requires ‘fewer than a third opposed’ but would not have passed in NSW which requires less than a quarter. It is species neutral. It allows animals on the common property only when under the control and supervision of a responsible person but has enough flexibility to allow a well-behaved dog off-lead, even while others would never be off-lead. Some owners already took their cats out with a lead or had indoor cats which stuck close by to them when they went outdoors or had extensive enclosed cat-runs in their courtyards.

Crucial to getting the rule passed was having a ‘grandfathering’ clause. A small number of animals that were accustomed to roaming unaccompanied at the time the rule was adopted are on a ‘Grandfathered Animals List’. As they eventually die off their replacements will have to comply with the rule. 

Foreshadowed as still to come is amending our unit alterations rule. We have an existing rule and an established practice which we believed was consistent with the Act but we thought it might need to be made explicit in case of future debate. However, in the past year we used the existing rule in a Tribunal matter when a unit owner made an unapproved alteration. The published Decision and Reasons document very helpfully sets out that our existing rule is valid and confirms that it was used correctly by the EC in accordance with various other OC resolutions. So, we might not need to amend that rule after all since the Tribunal’s ruling clearly and unequivocally sets out its proper operation in a way that is consistent with what we have always done and thought was correct. 

So, a rules review can be a long and involved process, particularly if you are trying to engage a large OC. I doubt it could always be done all in one go. We have had several years of constant reference to the ‘on-going rules review’ in newsletters and AGM papers and consultation letters to owners.