- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
Every executive committee has had one at some time – a member who can only see one point of view (theirs) and for whom being outvoted is evidence of either mass stupidity or a sinister conspiracy.
They dominate meetings and either badger everyone else into submission or, if that fails, mount disruptive campaigns within the building to overturn decisions.
“Because he is so persistent, aggressive, and negative, EC members have caved in to his point of view in the past,” JudyE wrote to the Flat Chat Forum, wanting to know what they can do to counter this particular breed of highly disruptive boardroom bully.
She goes on to say that the rogue EC member has enough support in the building to ensure he can’t be voted off the committee at a general meeting, as well as possibly revoking decisions with which he disagrees.
Meanwhile Crazy Larry tells his supporters what a pack of idiots everyone else is. But they don’t see him in action and some may give him their proxy votes to get him to go away. So what do you do?
Firstly I would get serious. Find a book on how to conduct meetings and take a formal agreement (preferably at a general meeting) to abide by its recommended standing orders. The website masterofmeetings.com has some good suggestions.
Or your chairman could limit discussion on each item on the agenda to say five minutes before you take a vote and insist that everyone has their say at least once before anyone gets to speak for a second time.
If you have rock solid rules, you can then censure Crazy Larry for bad behaviour, which will appear in the minutes.
Finally, get owners to agree that all meetings should be recorded (audio is fine) and create a Facebook page where you post an unedited audio from each meeting.
Once his supporters hear what a bully Crazy Larry is, they may be less keen to support him and that might calm him down a bit.
How would you control a rogue EC member? Go here to read the original discussion.
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
-
This situation can actually be reversed where the committee don't maintain the place because they won't spend the money, most of them are there to make up the numbers or keep an eye on their 'investment' and have been installed by a proxy-enabled coup which shut-out more sensible owners wanting to be on the Executive Committee.
Is it possible… just possible… the 'board room' bully described above could be a long-time resident who genuinely knows how the building works, its history, has altruistic intentions and just wants things done properly?
This from Michael Teys, of Teys Lawyers:
Ever since the 12-year-old kid dumped the schoolyard bully on his head and the video went viral on You Tube, social media has become the weapon of choice of the oppressed. Our forum host, Jimmy T this week suggests the same treatment for Crazy Larry, the overly opinionated but well proxied committee member on flat-chatter, JudyE’s committee.
Jimmy argues an audio of Crazy Larry’s performance posted on a Facebook page will expose him for the bully he is and bring about the end of his reign.
Oh, contraire, Jimmy T. Publicity is just what this fellow wants. His type loves a forum and you would give him just one more. Strata bullies need to be deprived of oxygen not given another canister.
Jimmy’s other suggestion is the better one: a good set of meeting rules and procedures and united support for the chair to enforce the procedural rules. When Crazy Larry rants invoke the gag – that he no longer be heard. If necessary, adjourn the meeting a send him out to cool down.
A firm but persistent and reasonable chair will beat an overbearing committee member every day of the week, at least eventually when he realizes his game is up.
JimmyT, you've described this person well. We will take your suggestions on board, though Michael Tey has a valid point. Les this person is a long time resident who has some good intentions, but also wants to big note himself and to assist his favoured residents.
Is it possible to create a local strata rule or by-law which limits the number of proxies that one owner can obtain?
Mr Michael Teys of Teys Lawyers, with respect, the french saying meaning 'on the contrary' is 'au contraire' not as you said 'Oh contraire'.
And with respect, the firm but persistent, yet Unreasonable chair (who is a bully with squillions of proxies, deviously obtained) helped by a lazy strata manager who reckons he knows which side his bread is buttered on, will also win nearly every day of the week.
The quicker the system is fixed the better.
I agree with Mr. Teys here. One of our owners would fit the description to some degree. She is not on the EC but send imperious edicts to the EC by email, CC’d to others who listen to her. Our chair has taken to dealing with this by picking just on thing in her emails that can be clearly demonstrated to be false, correcting her on that point, noting that there are many other inaccuracies and reminding her to be polite, all in a very brief email, CC’d to the same people she addressed. We tend hear much less from her since this approach was used. Previously we mistakenly gave her too much oxygen by engaging in debates with her or being outraged at ludicrous accusations. For some people, particularly the elderly, pointing out their bad manners is a far more effective censure than pointing out their errors of fact.
So what do you do when the Chairperson/Secretary is the schoolyard bully and the majority of owners have been intimidated into apathy?
Its hilarious how similar the EC crazies described here sound to our own, do they realize they're becoming a cliche!
Regarding JimmyT's recent point using past conduct against troublemakers, our EC is about to do the same to an OC member who was once chair of the EC and behaves as if she still is.
We'll hold an executive committee meeting, ask her to explain her actions (Executive Committee conflict of interest and fraud) and point out her own complaints and demands to be hypocritical and unreasonable in the face of her “crime”. We also want to have said “crime” noted in the strata records, essentially de-fanging her and preventing her from doing it again (she tried recently).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.