Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #8866
    Scallywag
    Flatchatter

      Is it needed ?   

      Would it help overcome the no shows at AGM’s ?

      Owners could vote at home.  

      Proxies would not be required! or be abused !

      What would it cost ?   Would it save money?

       

       

       

       

    Viewing 13 replies - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #19037
      Whale
      Flatchatter

        I know that the Act (in NSW) is silent on the subject, but I’ve already setup an on-line vote as a trial for our upcoming AGM using some US-based Software that has all the bells-and-whistles, including pre-allocated IDs (names from the Strata Roll), system generated passwords, and even weighted voting (poll voting to us).

        There’s no fee for up to 10 individual voters, and that’s almost enough for me to cover the Owners in our Plan who currently take no interest in anything, including General Meetings.

        I’m inclined to the view that provided a quorum is achieved then on-line votes, where at least Owners have the ability to concurrently read and vote on each Motion, is a better option than a Proxy “in the form prescribed” and a far better option than a Proxy of the “farmed” variety.

        One of the Motions will be used to determine if our Owners favour on-line voting, and I wonder if those votes could in future be used at Meetings that have had to be re-convened, and where Proxies don’t count, or whether I’ll finish up in the CTTT Gaol for doing things this way?

        #19039
        Kangaroo
        Flatchatter

          CTTT Goal?

          We’re the 4th tier of government, aren’t we?

          We should be allowed to set up our own justice system.

          Trial by jury (of 12 owners) for By-Law breaches.

          Subpoenas to attend AGMs.

          Conscription to the green army for working bees.

          And our own goals.

          #19040
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster

            Hey, Roo, is that ‘own goals’ or own-goals?

            Obviously the electronic voting thing would require a change in legislation and, bear in mind that the section of Queensland strata law relating to secret ballots is bigger than the whole of Victoria’s strata law, that could be a whole other long, drawn-out issue.

            I live in a building which has a website; typically hard-to-read –  style over substance – and boring as bat shit.  Recently EC members’ email addresses have been removed but due to the prevailing view that other people’s ideas are dissent and good ideas are treason, the battle over the tiles on my balcony are there to be read by the world and his blogger.

            Now I can’t find the email addresses of the new people on the committee – candidates’ identities are also kept secret “to save the embarrassment of those who fail” – to pass on the facts of the situation rather than the EC’s resident bush lawyer’s opinions.

            I suggested at the last AGM that the minutes on the website should be locked by a password but the EC members, building managers and strata manager’s email addresses should be accessible to owners.  Now the EC and AGM minutes are available to all and sundry but the EC email addresses are secret.

            Seriously, though, I can understand why EC members wouldn’t want their personal addresses to be on the web to be trawled by spammers, but it would take about five minutes to set up generic email addresses like jeff@the stratawebsite.com which could then forward filtered mail to their own addresses.

            This is what passes for communication in an autocratic system. 

            For all its faults, this website would be a great place for little polls to be run – like, what should we do first,  buy new gym equipment or paint the lift lobbies (again)?  But, like so many buildings in this state, we don’t need people to express their opinions because father knows best.

            As was said by a prominent member of our EC only recently, “there is such a thing as too much democracy …”

             

             

            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.
            #19042
            Kangaroo
            Flatchatter

              Damn, I knew I should have spelled it the American way! Jail.

              I don’t think an on line electronic voting system would be good.

              It would simply encourage even more Owners to skip the AGM.

              Fewer Owners getting to meet their neighbours face-to-face, and actually talk to them.

              Fewer absentee landlords taking their once-a-year look at the state of their property.

              #19046
              Whale
              Flatchatter

                G’day Roo – I could have called it the clink, pokey, joint, hoosegow, nick, slammer, big-house, pen, tank, cooler, or even jail, but I guess I’m showing my age by continuing to use the adopted ‘strayian way to describe where I may end up after using electronic voting (EV) for our AGM – post our achievement of a quorum.

                On a more serious note, I still favour Scallywag‘s summary of the benefits, after all EV may at least encourage inclusivity and it would cut the legs off the proxy farmers; both good outcomes in my opinion.

                I’ll let you all know how widely it’s accepted.

                #19077
                imported_dech
                Blocked

                  “Whale” wrote “I know that the Act (in NSW) is silent on the subject,” and Jimmy T responded with ” Obviously the electronic voting thing would require a change in legislation” the Act was quite clear last time I looked and electronic remote voting would be a “meeting in writing” although if the location of the meeting was recorded as cyberspace and people communicated via telephone/internet voice media that may satisfy the requirements of the Act. Otherwise an agenda item could be something like “improve lighting on rear path for safety of elderly occupants” which most might vote yes for and then an EC puts in two 36 watt fluoro’s beaming half their light into a nearby bedroom window whereas reasonable discussion at a meeting may have lead to a 5 watt light below the window level.

                  There can certainly be “too much democracy” which is essentially where people who have either little idea of the issues or are grossly inconsiderate of others nonetheless vote on the issue.

                  #19081
                  Whale
                  Flatchatter

                    Thanks Dech – I sometimes think that I try too hard in my efforts to make our General Meeting Agendas comprehensive and informative, in part to avoid problems of the type that you’ve referred to in your post.

                    A preamble to every Motion and copies of all job specs. resulted in an 18 page Agenda last year, and this year’s is heading in the same direction!

                    The on-line electronic voting software that I’m going to use allows for attachments to each Motion (like the financial statements, quotes, job specs etc), so I’m hopeful that those of my Proprietors who never attend despite the free BBQ, and never submit a Proxy, will read the hard-copy Agenda and the paperless attachments to the on-line software, and PARTICIPATE!

                    I’d be interested to receive some FlatChat about the legality of what I’m doing, in circumstances where on-line votes would only be used if a quorum was achieved at the Meeting in accordance with the Act.

                    If this doesn’t get a significant response, I’m back to that dummy motion to double the Contributions :-)  

                    #19088

                    Whale refers to a “Proxy “in the form prescribed”” by the Act.

                    I wonder how it would be viewed by our esteemed strata lawyer friends if an on-line voting form was set up that looked just like the prescribed form with the insertion of the voting “buttons” and if once submitted would generate a pdf copy for the secretary to print out and take to the meeting. The form would need to specify the proxy being given to say the chair of the meeting.

                    Anyway… just a thought.

                    #19302
                    Whale
                    Flatchatter

                      A bit of feedback.

                      Just held our AGM, and as I mentioned before I trialed an on-line voting system on the basis that those votes would only be used if there was a quorum at the Meeting, or at a re-convened Meeting.

                      Well we achieved a quorum, and four (4) of the ten (10) Proprietors who were selected to participate in the on-line trial on the basis of their history of non-participation and their residential locations (e.g. interstate) actually did so.

                      Not a bad result first-up, and as those at the Meeting voted in favour of persevering with the on-line process at the next General Meeting, that’s a satisfying outcome from my perspective.

                      I’m sure that there are other on-line voting sites around, but the one that I used suits Strata Meetings perfectly, from group e-mails to all participants, secure logins and encryptions, and set start/finishing times, right down to limiting the voting options so that participants can’t vote “yes” and “no” to the same Motion, and to a “yes”/”no” with free-form entry for Motions such as the one restricting E/C decisions.

                      Really good, relevant, user-friendly, well supported, and in my opinion legal provided a quorum is achieved at the physical Meeting.

                      Have a look HERE for the details; up to ten (10) “electors” is free and beyond that reasonably priced!

                      #19304
                      Jimmy-T
                      Keymaster

                        That online voting system is pretty amazing.  You get it free for up to 10 voters and then it’s charged on the basis of the number of votes.

                        FYI, I punched in the number of lot owners in my building (132) and it would cost us about $220 for one meeting and about $350 for an unlimited number of meetings per year.

                        The one question that arises is the legality (or otherwise) of this system but I reckon that you would get round that by giving proxies to the chair on the understanding that he used the proxies according to the electronic votes. That ‘understanding’ implies an element of trust as proxy holders can pretty much do as they please with the proxies. (Apologies if all this has been thrashed out earlier.)

                        And, to be fair, the procedural niceties of AGMs are only ever relevant if someone challenges the decisions that have been made.  The Act does allow an adjudicator to revoke or nullify a decision if proper procedure hasn’t been followed – but they are also allowed not to take that action, provided the discrepancies in the vote would not have changed its outcome (see below).

                        Realistically, I reckon if everything is kept above board, transparent and as compliant with the law as possible, this is a great step forward, especially for small schemes with a lot of investor owners.

                        153 Order invalidating resolution of owners corporation

                        (1)  An Adjudicator may make an order invalidating any resolution of, or election held by, the persons present at a meeting of an owners corporation if the Adjudicator considers that the provisions of this Act have not been complied with in relation to the meeting.

                        (2)  An Adjudicator may refuse to make an order under this section but only if the Adjudicator considers:

                        (a)  that the failure to comply with the provisions of this Act did not adversely affect any person, and

                        (b)  that compliance with the provisions of this Act would not have resulted in a failure to pass the resolution or have affected the result of the election.

                        (3)  An application for an order under this section may be made only by an owner or first mortgagee of a lot.

                        154Order where voting rights denied or due notice of item of business not given

                        (1)  An Adjudicator may order that a resolution passed at a general meeting of an owners corporation be treated as a nullity on and from the date of the order if satisfied that the resolution would not have been passed but for the fact that the applicant for the order:

                        (a)  was improperly denied a vote on the motion for the resolution, or

                        (b)  was not given due notice of the item of business in relation to which the resolution was passed.

                        (2)  An application for an order under this section may not be made after 28 days after the date of the meeting at which the resolution was passed.

                        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.
                        #12206

                        Thank for the update Whale. I agree with Jimmy’s stance that you would still require a proxy form appointing someone physically attending the meeting for the votes to be counted.

                        Another thought is, how would you deal with a motion that is amended at the meeting? If the owners at a meeting agree to the wording of a motion being changed then this could easily affect the voting intention of those who have filled out on-line voting forms prior to the meeting.

                        In my view, if I was the holder of a proxy form with clearly set out voting instructions I would likely abstain from voting on an emended motion (whilst exercising proxy voting).

                        Could Kanga or anyone else out there advise how this is dealt with in Qld legislation?

                        #19305
                        Whale
                        Flatchatter

                          Just before KWP, Austman, PeterC, and any of our other interstaters jump in, I must say that I accept JGOWI’s point about amended Motions and I’ll include that point as another circumstance where an on-line vote may be invalidated, but for the life of me I can’t see the need for on-line participants to submit a proxy in circumstances where a quorum has been achieved at the physical meeting.

                          Frankly, I was more concerned on this occasion to ensure that the on-line “ballot” closed-off at around the same time as the meeting concluded, so that those personally present couldn’t influence those voting on-line to support specific and maybe contentious points of view.

                          Anyway, as I said back on post #2, I may finish up in Gaol for being innovative in my methods to encourage our Proprietors to participate in the operations of their Plan, but maybe the Magistrate (or Member) will be kind; I won’t comment further on the grounds that it may incriminate meWink.

                          #19306
                          kiwipaul
                          Flatchatter

                            @just get on with it said:

                            Could Kanga or anyone else out there advise how this is dealt with in Qld legislation?

                            In QLD you can vote by returing your Agenda suitably completed with how you wish to vote each item. So the agenda is in effect a voting paper.

                            If any motion is significently (not sure how we actually define this) changed the postal vote if it was voted for the motion (origional), now is declared against the changed motion.

                          Viewing 13 replies - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
                          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                          Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page