- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks ago by .
At the last attempted committee meeting of my SP we find allegations that two people hold down a 3rd person while a 4th person knees person 3 in the head while another person chants “take him out, take him out”.
Everyone one of them a current or former SC member; mostly office bearers if that gets them extra credit.
There are a couple of provisional AVOs in place and the Court will deal with them in slow course, not due course.
Welcome to the real world, the world the State cares to deny exists. Cliquey, non compliance cultured, mob rule, no consequence strata living fully endorsed by the State. There is nothing dysfunctional about this SP according to CTTT and NCAT. Such a hopeless analysis, based on delusional biases, given the opportunities both have had over the last 10 years to address the culture in this SP.
This SP is a showcase for how not to run a SP and it is dominated by a clique that will ostracize, silence, character assassinate and exclude in response to any descent and it will even (allegedly) get violent if necessary.
I am not writing this if the system worked.
Nothing in the foreseeable future is going to make the system work because it is the system that keeps offering solutions to the problems the system creates.
They’re not really solutions, they are more political announcements candy coated in “Parliament speak”.
Section 238 and rogue committee members being an apex example of useless legislation that makes for a fuzzy warm feeling announcement. I make that comment as my application to remove arguably the most rogue SC members failed recently.
Issues include such things as:
– failure to give notice of items on the agenda of a committee meeting (Sch 2 cl 7)
– failure to first pass a resolution before sending two notices to comply (s 146 (3))
– perceived delegation of function contrary to the Act (ss 11 and 12)
– disenfranchised the owners (no foundation in the Act)
Then there was the misleading comments and misrepresentation in minutes when the OC knew better.
Two of the 3 members sought to be removed in that application allegedly took part in Fight Night.
Rumor is the SC wants to bring back the 3rd member sought to be removed in that application to help calm the room. It is tragic.
We likely do not have an allegedly assaulted owner, AVO cases and potential civil suits if the system worked.
One SC member not involved, but a witness, is claiming to be traumatized.
Let’s hope they don’t watch TV with all the no win, no fee lawyers looking to drum up business.
These days I just pay my levies and have a life outside the machinations of the owners who seek control so as to pursue their personal agendas, often for personal gain, but this “main event” is hard to just turn a blind eye to.
There are some units for sale if you are looking for a more “spicy” strata experience.
- This topic was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.