- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
All over Strataland, you can hear the wails of distress as desperate proxy vote hoarders look into the abyss of the new laws and the introduction of electronic voting.
On November 30 in NSW, proxy harvesting as we know it will end and individuals will be seriously restricted in the number of votes they can beg or borrow from people who can’t or won’t attend AGMs.
Needless to say, some power junkies are already planning to confound the new laws, probably by sharing blank proxies among their cronies and chosen committee members.
If you have already read this in print, there is an
update including links to software packages HERE.However, Innovation and Better Regulation Minister Victor Dominello could block any potential rort with the stroke of a pen, literally, by requiring that the same hand that signs the form should also write the name of the proxy.
Of course no one is going to run proxy votes past handwriting experts before every AGM. But the possibility of scrutiny after the event should keep most of the bastards honest.
So far, so negative. The really important news is that the new laws will encourage and allow more involvement, especially by absent investors, reversing years of disengagement caused by proxy farmers and their wily ways.
Owners will now be able to participate by phone or Skype and vote electronically. But that presents both a challenge and an opportunity to software providers to create an easily usable app that takes advantage of the new laws.
Strata communities want and need a simple and secure program that leads us into that promised land of open discussion, free and fair votes and informed decision making.
My ideal electronic voting program would probably be web-based, and include:
- A page where owners could suggest items for the next AGM
- A space where the committee could post a notional agenda, for discussion, explaining their thinking behind some of the items.
- The facility for all of these issues to be freely debated without fear or favour.
- A secure page that would carry the final agenda and allow only registered, eligible lot owners to vote on the agenda items.
- Another page where candidates for election could tell other owners what they would bring to the committee.
Now, this is going to horrify Trumpish demagogues and control freaks who believe there’s already too much democracy (because they, and only they, know what’s best).
But we’ll be on the lookout for any software packages that seem to fit the bill and report back on flatchat.com.au.
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.
-
Replies
-
At our recent EGM to elect a new committee, as no proxies were allowed, Powers of Attorney were provided by several people.
So the smarties are one step ahead.
In response to Jimmy’s query (post #2) about anybody else using an electronic voting system, as some regulars would be aware from my previous posts, our self-managed scheme has been using a web-based package called simply voting for all Executive Committee and General Meeting since around 2013.
As the current NSW Act is “silent” on the subject of electronic voting I’ve always convened physical meetings, and for general meetings have when necessary followed the provisions of Sch.2 Cl.12 before taking into account any submitted on-line votes.
To be honest I found the very first set-up a little tedious but after that, and with the support of the developers who provide extremely helpful and timely advice, I’ve found simply voting to be a breeze if not a little inflexible in terms of pricing where up to 10 voters is free, and from there up to 250 voters is a flat $260AUD.
I haven’t at this stage checked simply voting’s compliance in detail with the post November 2016 provisions of the new NSW Act and of the Regulation, but that’s the responsibility of the purveyors of the product.
You can have a practice as a participant HERE and as a Secretary/Organiaser HERE.
Obviously I have no association of any kind with the proprietors, developers, or operators of the simply voting product or its backroom; I’m merely a satisfied user of 3 years.
mailbox said.… At our recent EGM to elect a new committee, as no proxies were allowed, Powers of Attorney were provided by several people. So the smarties are one step ahead.
I’m not a Lawyer, but I would expect that as Sch.1 Cl.26(1) of the proposed new Act states that persons acting as a proxy must be appointed by “an instrument in the form prescribed by the regulations “ and the Regulation (2016) states that “an instrument appointing a proxy is to be in or to the effect of (my emphasis) Form 1 in Schedule 1 “, that a Power of Attorney would have the same effect at a General Meeting as the Form prescribed and would therefore come under the same limitations as given in Cl.26(7); viz one (1) instrument for Schemes of instruments equal to 5% of the total number of Lots in the scheme.
So the smarties aren’t one step ahead in my opinion, although it never ceases to amaze me how hard some many Strata dwellers try to bastardize what should be a democratic process.
With the addition of electronic voting via a reliable secure encrypted method (definitely NOT email) one wonders why an owner would ever have to appoint a proxy or a power of attorney.
This post has been edited as it breached our rules forbidding promotion of specific product by their companies posing as Forum members – JimmyT.
Scallywag – while I have no doubt that the public availability of the upcoming NSW Legislation and supporting Regulation will bring purveyors of on-line voting systems both within Australia and elsewhere out of the woodwork, you really are a scallywag by initially promoting such a system without declaring your association with it.
But be that as it may, as your now un-named product is designed around QLD Legislation have you or any of your colleagues checked its compliance with the provisions of the NSW Regulation (2016); particularly with Cl.15 and how it manages votes that need to be tallied by a means other than one vote one value?
Once you’ve done that, perhaps approach Jimmy T about sponsorship of this forum or about some other means of advertising ahead of the inevitable rush.
Dear Mr T, Thomson,
Jimmy,
On the matter of proxies. I am in a community association and the death knell for proxy harvesting is still some time away.
Do you know if “post dated” proxies are legal? Especially post dated to the day of the AGM. Members of our Exec Ctee had over 90% of their proxies ‘delivered’ on the date of the AGM.
The statutory proxy form for both stratas and Community Assocns states it must be signed on the date it is MADE. This is variously interpreted as “the date of effect” therefore enabling, date of AGM post dating.
I believe “made” is archaic legislative language and means, date signed. Therefore precluding post dated proxies.
Can you help, please. Please can you help!! (I’m getting a bit whiny, now!)Also, can a chairman at an AGM invalidate proxys believed to be post dated??
Ian C
If it is clear what the intent of the proxy allocation is, I would have thought the decent and reasonable thing for the chair to do is just act as if the form had been ‘made’ and then arrived on the day of the meeting. From the sounds of it, the form would be valid and unambiguous if that occurred.
I think owners would be justifiably annoyed if their clearly stated intentions were thwarted by an overzealous application of pedantry.
The only circumstance I can imagine when it would be of any consequence when the proxy allocation is made is if a person filled out two forms differently. Then the later dated one would be the one for the chair to follow.
@JimmyT said:
I agree with Peter’s general point about thwarting the intention of the proxy providers but the date of signing is significant because of the provision thet the most recently dated proxy superseded any previous proxies given by the same person.Agreed. Far better if dated properly. I only meant that if only one form shows up and it is clear and correct in all respects except the date, then I would be inclined to accept it.
As a chair, I would be tempted to disallow proxies that turned up unsigned on the day.
I would not just be tempted. I would certainly not allow proxies that were unsigned.
Check out Strata Vote – https://www.stratavote.com.au/
Its software created in Queensland, presumably with a QLD focus, but shouldn’t be too difficult to change for other jurisdictions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.