Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorReplies
-
If someone tried that voting stunt at an AGM I was at I would stand up and declare the vote illegal and tell them it would be challenged at NCAT regardless of the outcome unless the followed the law.
Unfortunately at that time we were very naive as to the workings of a strata scheme. It was that, that sent us down the rocky road of strata law. We have been successful in some areas eg. ballots are on a blank paper and that most members had not been duly elected as for over a decade they had been self nominating when there was co-owner. The nomination form size was no more than a cigarette packet.
Update: The meeting on the 23rd June was a “Flying Minute” by the three that are resigning. Not sure if this makes any difference to how the EGM will proceed.Thanks for you reply kaindub, I get what you’re saying. We have the SM’s contract renewal date on the calendar.
Thanks again JT for your input. Will post the outcome, I know one thing for sure is that if there is a ballot it won’t be on a blank paper, in 2016 the then chair made sure there was 10 nominations (he didn’t know that they could determine less). They had 10 names printed on the ballot papers and as he walked among the owners “don’t vote for #10”
Our Strata management let it happen. They are involved in this too and they are running scared.
There is a lot more to this saga, a psychologist that knows the story has said that M4 and M5 should write a book. Would be a great fact/fiction for a Netflix series.
Thank you for your reply JT.
M4 is not a co-owner ” (M4 is not on the title and was nominated by an owner).” and was nominated by another owner under
Section 31 (1) (d) our strata manager declared that nomination is valid.
I believe that there is no special resolution. As above …
“The day before the rescheduled #2 meeting (M1), (M2) and (M3 now living in Bris.) had a meeting and were all to resign and to go to an EGM and declare the committee disbanded.
The three had called a Strata Committee Meeting on the 23rd of June 2021, members (M4 and M5) were never notified of the meeting, there was no Agenda, and the meeting was not posted on the Noticeboard.”
Should this alone not be cause to call the EGM invalid? Further, when M3 declared that he was selling up and moving they suggested that he stay on until a replacement could be found. They said no replacement was forth coming. M4 and M5 had two that would have taken his place and are still willing to stand up.
As for M4 and M5 saying that “they will not nominate again” I’m sure that they will. They are elderly and have a good life style, they have offered to take 12 months on the committee. They are tech savvy and many owners are backing their agenda. As for the “oligarchy” they don’t have that many (75%) left.
Thanks. I had read that section the legalese is sometimes confusing.
This question iss about determination not about a nominee’s eligibility to nominate.
In the SSMA 2015 in Reg P2 – C9 is says:-
(3) After the chairperson declares that nominations have closed, the owners corporation is to decide, in accordance with the Act, the number of members of the strata committee.
I’m looking for something similar in SSMA 1996 as our chairmen in the past sort of declared the number to be elected themselves.
I’m looking at the act and regulations for SSMA 1996 trying to find how the number of nominees is/was determined. I presume that the procedure would be similar to that of SSMA 2015. If it exists could someone point me in the right direction please?
Thanks everyone, very helpful. We are trying to prove to the Owners that this current SC and going way back to the EC (the core members are still in residence) are pulling the wool over our eyes or are just plan ignorant of the Strata Law.
Found the 1997 reg P4-C15 is almost identical to 2016 P2-C10 as above by LP.
Thanks for your replies, we have 71 lots and the incident I refer to was at the 2016 AGM. Not sure if that was conducted under the 2015 act or the 1996 act.
Our AGM is coming up and there is good chance of this happening again. Our committees’ over the years have been getting a lot of stuff wrong, don’t know if it’s out of ignorance or to suit their ends.
Interesting thing is that we have an SM representative at the meeting.
Thanks everyone for your replies. M S I recall seeing somewhere that we can have patio furniture on the balconies, that should cover the sneaky ins. co. from coming back at the owner.
30/10/2017 at 8:18 am in reply to: How do I confirm that a nominee has been correctly nominated? #28547This election process is systemic and goes back at least 10 years. We have had several rouge chairmen that wrongly think that by achieving the dizzying heights of chairman they are the CEO of a multi-national. Most coming from the pubic sector or big corporate and have finally found their nirvana. The current chair has dressed down several owners, is a bully, I think most psychologists would use the N or P words.
I have researched the last three committees:
2015/16 7 members, 2 sole owners, 5 co-owners, 1 possibly in-financial (would be owner if financial, attended just 1 out of 12 meetings).
2016/17 9 members, 1 sole owner, 8 co-owners.
2017/18 9 members, 1 sole owner, 8 co-owners (same as previous bar 1)
Now, if they all resigned they would have to do so one or two at a time in order to maintain a quorum that could co-opt them. The mind boggles, if they (8) all resigned together there would be just one owner, a dictatorship.
Seriously, this could be the smoking gun we need and actually reduce the SC back to around 5 that has been the norm until this mob have taken control.
Further, it brings up the question, not unlike what is going on in Canberra at the moment, that items that recent SC’s have done without taking the items to the owners could be overturned.
28/10/2017 at 4:38 pm in reply to: How do I confirm that a nominee has been correctly nominated? #28524Thanks for that Jimmy T, great advice and I shall propose just that however before doing so what I would like to do is find out if he current members were nominated correctly as I know that many of the 9 are co-owners. And if they aren’t can they be removed?
Thanks JT.
The SC is meeting today and is devoting the meeting to the upgrade of the By-Laws. I have lodged a motion that a new By-Law to include Code of Conduct and Standing Orders as detailed on another thread be adopted.
Will follow up with your suggestion on premises next meeting.
@JimmyT said:
I am not a computer programmer. I rely on the common sense of contributors to limit themselves.
I realise that. It was just a suggestion, I see a couple of other adjustments that would be helpful, however we are getting off topic.
I had ran a successful forum (circa 10 years) made a site wide upgrade that included social aspects. The users just couldn’t grasp the social side and they slowly dropped off. It wasn’t a genre as important as your site here and after 12 years I was no longer involved in that lifestyle and shut it down. I do understand and in due course you will understand where I’m coming from but for now we’ll just say from an 18 month dark place.
Funny thing all those members that couldn’t get social ended up on another site, now what was that site. Oh yeah something called Facebook.
Back to topic.
@JimmyT said:
First of all, your heading on this was (until I edited it) almost as long as your question. Please don’t do that. It screws up the layout on the page.Apologies, I did go back to edit, no edit on the Title. Probably made it longer to get noticed as my first post here was a single word “Transparency” and received nil replies.
Maybe you could limit the number of chars in the Title text box.
-
AuthorReplies