Changing number of seats on Strata Committee

clement wrote:

I understand that the number of members of the strata committee is dictated at the AGM by the number of eligible persons willing to stand. We currently have 4.

No, the chair calls for nominations then the owners at the meeting vote on the number of people they want to be on it, with a minimum of one and maximum of nine. If they decide on a committee with fewer seats than there are nominees, they hold an election.

Can we increase the number of members via an OC meeting putting forward new nominees or do we have to wait until the next AGM?

No.  But you could hold an extraordinary general meeting then follow the procedure laid out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Strata Act, if only on the grounds that you have been doing it wrong until now (if that’s the case) and you were putting things right..

I have heard of strata schemes deliberately choosing to have more seats than candidates, so that the elected committee can then co-opt additional members at a later date,

But my eye has been drawn to the following section of Schedule 1 of the Act:

(2)  A strata committee may appoint a person eligible for election as a member to fill a vacancy in the office of a member of the strata committee, other than a vacancy arising under subsection (1) (d) …

And 1(d) says this:

(1)  An elected member of a strata committee vacates office as a member—

scotlandx wrote:

I don’t know why anyone would do that anyway.

I’m trying to recall, but I think the seat was being kept open for someone who was a friend of the chair and was buying into the building but hadn’t settled before the AGM.

Or it was being held for someone who was divisive and polarising within the strata scheme and would not have survived an open vote at the AGM.

Or both.  Or maybe it was one of my fever-dream strata nightmares.

In any case, it looks like it would be illegal now and probably was back then too.

preddyswharf wrote:

The strata manager accepted an oral nomination from this proxy representing the fourth lot. This decision was challenged as per sec 31, but the strata manager refused the challenge and defended her decision based on history and sec 9.

For the uninitiated, Section 31 of the NSW Act details who can be nominated for election and how. Section 9 establishes the collective rights and responsibilities of all owners to make decisions about the scheme.

This election is actually even less kosher than you thought.  The strata manager should not have accepted the self-nomination of the co-owner as co-owners can only be nominated by the other co-owner.

So, legally, this election is all over the place.  But is it wrong?

Your strata manager has clearly thought that having all owners involved is going to be a better way of running the building than having two owners shut out of decision-making for a year.  Of course, those owners could call for general meetings to air any grievances, so why not just include them from the get-go, so  that every committee meeting is a bit like an EGM?

Did the SM follow the law? No. Would a Tribunal overturn the election. Probably not as they would want to see who had suffered in any way because of the informal nature of the election.

For what it’s worth, I think your SM’s efforts to be inclusive are laudable, even if she went about it the wrong way.

clement wrote:

We now have a couple of new owners willing to join the committee and so we are looking at ways to enable this to happen. Looks like an EGM might be the way to go using the excuse that the AGM did not follow protocol.

It’s entirely procedural because the committee’s decisions can always be overturned by the owners at a general meeting anyway. But having a committee that’s more aligned with the general feelings of the owners as a whole can only help.