- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 1 week ago by .
-
Topic
-
None of my motions in a recently issued general meeting agenda have my name or lot number as a means of identification. I thought this was obligatory but on reading the NSW strata act it doesn’t seem to be the case. Would someone be able to set my mind at ease?
I gave written notice (ie an email) which included the motions, an explanation, and my name.
Schedule 1 – Part 2 Agendas, nominations and notices
4 Inclusion of matters on agenda
(1) Any owner, or any person entitled to vote at a general meeting of an owners corporation, may require a motion to be included in the agenda of the next general meeting of the owners corporation.
2) The requirement is to be made by written notice given to the secretary of the owners corporation that—
(a) sets out the required motion, and
(b) states the name of the person making the requirement, and
(c) includes an explanation of the motion of not more than 300 words in length.Thanks!
- This topic was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by .
-
Replies
-
It has been argued, not at NCAT or in Court, that in relation to the following that names and explanations are not something the Act compels he secretary to include on an agenda.
4 Inclusion of matters on agenda
(1) Any owner, or any person entitled to vote at a general meeting of an owners
corporation, may require a motion to be included in the agenda of the next general
meeting of the owners corporation.
(2) The requirement is to be made by written notice given to the secretary of the owners corporation that—(a) sets out the required motion, and
(b) states the name of the person making the requirement, and
(c) includes an explanation of the motion of not more than 300 words in length.
(3) The secretary must give effect to the requirement.
The required motion of (1) and 2(a) is what the secretary is compelled to include; no question there.
That the requirement includes the name of the proposer and an explanation is distinct from the required motion. That should be noted.
This has been taken by some briefs to mean they are required as part of the requisition (as it used to be called) but they are not part of the required motion.
Some argue the name is for the purpose of ensuring the proposer is entitled to request the motion and that the explanation is for the Chair’s benefit or their copy of the agenda if questions are asked (say the proposer is not present).What I will tell you for free is that putting the name on a motion is a hideously poor thing to do as I have for over 20 years watched motions be “determined” by whose name is on them. Personally I feel that if the name is required on the agenda then it is counter productive. The meeting does not need to know who proposed a motion; all they need to know is it comes from an entitled source and then consider its merits.
Bonus free stuff; NCAT has never considered it fatal to a motions outcome that the name or explanation was not included.If you want piece of mind then you need a Tribunal or Court decision as what we think is rather meaningless.
What they think is what matters.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.