FDH

Older topic, but loved your intro to this thread JT,  https://www.flatchat.com.au/forum-nutter-abuse/ esp. ‘…there is no strata law that covers “Obsessive Nutter Syndrome”.’ Oh I wish.

May not be a crime to impersonate a committee member, but apparently being Criminally Annoying is.  A man has been charged with the criminal offence of “annoying a person”. annoying-tasmanian-man-faces-court

But back to this serious issue.  We have exactly the same, but not elderly and it sounds like, more accordingly aggressive. ‘Antisocial’ hardly comes close.

Got the PVO – issued by police, so we didn’t have to get it ourselves. It includes stalking, harassment, intimidation etc – the sort of thing that this type of interference is deemed to be in law. If it’s broken, arrest.

On that basis our strata managers can deny access, being that to supply the info would be counter to the PVO.

So you were right JT, it is a strong argument that this is a form of harassment and the law agrees.

Thanks Jimmy. I gather any rules of the role would have to be in the form of by-laws to give them any muscle.

Looking at them, I think the requirements of a committee as a whole would first need to be to set. For instance, given the legislation doesn’t demand any meetings be held, it’s easy not to miss too many when there are none. Previously I’ve served in years like that.

I think that brings back the title of the original article, which was pointing to disengagement, not necessarily just money. If you run a closed shop, you can’t expect customers.

We are over 80% investor, but I found with direct engagement many of them were very interested, but there was nothing to get involved in. Not even discussion.

Out there in Investorland, there is talent. Although perhaps not having the time or inclination to be on a committee, some have become valuable consultants. Business owners, analysts, lawyers, engineers.

Career investors have useful comparative knowledge. One of their buildings is run like this, another like that. This is good, that is bad. All is a help to us.

Anyways, back to your point. That does seem to be an answer. Set the structure, then KPIs, now let’s talk money.  I have long thought about enshrining committee governance but not in any relation to payment.

I’ll talk to the SM. There must be other OC’s who have brought their committees to a more professional level. That’s the most important thing to us – but in a way which doesn’t exclude those good folk who just want to help – we don’t want a cold board of directors scenario either. As you say, avoid extremes.

Ah ha, so the door was truly an example. Otherwise, important question in there from JT – ‘Your front door or building front door?’ I assumed SC member’s door. Exactly the situation our OC just paid to rectify. Door given a wink and nudge by the chair, replacement a different colour in an otherwise contiguous hall – and not even fire rated. SC member since sold and we couldn’t ask the new owner to pay the thousands for a compliant door. So you see my sensitivity to a private deal about common property, particularly a door!

My point was that a chair should immediately dispel any myth that the committee can make all decisions, and that the chair is the undisputed ruler of the SC. Chairs can even convince their own committees of this, good people included as Flame Tree says.

The committee will end up a being a couple despots and a bunch of yes folk, created by selected favours doled out by a chair who has has no authority to do so.  Or worse, a fear of their deliberately implied power if wielded against the others.

Yes, a little legislation quoting can be effective, but just as JT warned, a perceived threat to their position can cause all manner of wrath to reign down on a member rightfully pointing out strata law. In turn, it generates a self perpetuating myth which becomes truth – they do end up with power.

That’s a dysfunctional situation that is too familiar to all of us who read these pages.

Excellent advice, but hard to follow. By the time it’s spiraled out of control and dragged on with no respite, of course tempers are raised.
I used the catchee monkey method and it was a revolution in a teacup (AGM), however it took a lot of work and years of patience, followed by a short sharp blow by proxy the larynx.
Chucked out everything and everybody that was part of the incumbant slide into a black hole of governance and quagmire of apathy. The two go hand in to create a vortex which will suck you into its financial vacuum, leave your CWF devastated and debts up to your armpits.
Now those dozens of the previously silent 8-1 majority owners of our large block are loving us sick for the fast turnaround in their fortunes.

Whoopi did well! We are up to $170K and no end in sight, about one owner!

What’s more, the owner imho is actually the victim in many ways. I feel like a traitor to the cause, but our committee and manager (one and the same in spirit) need to learn a lesson, and feel the wrath of the owners when we lose a lot of money.

Particularly because costs weren’t GM ratified – they don’t even know it’s going on.

It’ll be a very expensive told-you-so for me, and not one I will enjoy in the slightest.