- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi Folks
The Minutes of a recent EGM seem out of order to me:
1) Several Owners’ proxies weren’t shown as being given to me.
2) I thought it was normal practice to give full details of the Motions moved and then report whether or not they were carried or defeated. In this case the Minutes simply say that 10 Motions were put and the were defeated “unanimously”. There is not a whisper of what was in the Motions. One would have to refer back to the Agenda to have any idea what these 10 Motions were.
3) The Motions weren’t defeated Unanimously. The Chairperson put the Motions to vote as a block and Owners were asked who wanted to vote against them. A large majority raised their hands. The Chairman announced that the Motions were defeated. No one was given the opportunity to abstain or vote for them.
With major legal action possibly/probably heading our way, shouldn’t the Minutes specify what the Motions were, that some Owners did NOT vote to defeat the Motions, with further clarity re owners who gave their proxies to be used in favour of the Motions spelt out?
It never fails to amaze me how inventive our EC can be in trying to conceal exactly what is happening and also in twisting the truth.
Thanks.
Footnote: have just checked with Fair Trading. There is nothing in the legislation saying how Minutes must be set out. But a bit of truth and transparency surely wouldn’t go astray!
-
Replies
-
The advice provided by the Office of Fair Trading is correct, probably because the Minutes can usually be read in conjunction with the Agenda – although I would have thought that any Strata Manager worth the money the Owners Corporation pays to them would make the extra effort to cut-and-paste the Agenda Items into the Minutes document.
I don’t understand why so many posts to FlatChat speak to Strata Managers doing as they choose, and with those Owners present at a General Meeting (in your example) permitting them to do so; talk about the tail wagging the dog!
But now that the tail’s been wagged…. on the assumption that the “large majority” that voted down the block of Motions represented more than 50% or 75% as the case may be of those Owners entitled to vote, all that you and like-minded Owners can practically do is to write to the Strata Manager to express your collective dissatisfaction, and to vote against accepting the Minutes at the next General Meeting.
A somewhat impractical option may be to apply for Orders to invalidate the vote/s taken at the General Meeting under Sect 153 or 154; depending of course on the size of that “large majority”.
PS – just had a further thought. An Application for Orders may just get-up, as from what you’ve said the Strata Manager would be unable to emphatically state what the votes for and against the Motions were. (1635hrs)
Thanks Millie – I missed that subtlety, but if the payment issue with respect to the Strata Manager is ignored, I believe that the remainder of my commentary is valid and particularly so with seeking Orders under Sect 154.
If the 28 day window for seeking those Orders hasn’t passed, it seems to me that the Chair and/or Secretary of your Executive Committee would be hard-pressed to disprove any assertion that you and others were improperly denied a vote on the motion/s.
Dear Whale, the tail wags the dog in our SP as well, because the pack of dogs in the majority are only too happy being wagged by the tail. We are only puppies in this SP, but we’ll be darned if we’ll yield ownership of the tail. So there.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.