- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
QUESTION: Is there any organised lobbying going on to limit the number of proxies that may be held by any one owner at general meetings? I believe that in Queensland it is restricted to two.
At a townhouse complex, from where we recently moved because we could not stand it any longer, one woman managed to acquire at least seven proxies from people with little command of English. Is there anyone in authority we can write to about this? – HPC, via Flat Chat Forum.
ANSWER: There is certainly a concern in strata about the ‘clustering’ of proxy votes into too few hands, one reason it’s illegal for developers to demand them in contracts. However strata law in NSW is so deeply flawed that the issue is pretty far down the hit list for change.
I hadn’t heard about the limit in Queensland so it may just be wishful thinking. The problem with limiting the number of proxies one person can hold is that you could disenfranchise owners who can’t find proxy holders who agree with them and haven’t exceeded their limit.
That said, by not limiting it, you allow clustering through either active campaigning such as you describe or ‘blind’ proxies passed to office-bearers because they haven’t screwed up recently.
I would favour a voting form that goes out with the agenda with a yes or no box on all the agenda items. That way you can campaign on issues rather than personalities which, unfortunately, is what it usually comes down to under the current system.
As far as who to write to, even a legal but unfair decision can be challenged at the CTTT or in court. But now that you’ve left that complex, all you can do is write to your MP and ask them if they have any clue what’s happening in strata, if not why not, and if so, what they’re doing about it.
Join the discussion or ask your own question at flatchat.com.au/forum. And Jimmy will be on the James Valentine show on ABC 702 to answer your questions on Tuesday, March 29 at 2pm.
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
-
I have found the appropriate part of the Queensland Act (see below) which does at least give some precedent to any approach to NSW legislators, which I for one intend to make and hope others will also.
Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (QLD)Chapter 5…
Part 3 Proxies for body corporate meetings—Act, section 103
106 Purpose of pt 3
The purpose of this part is to prescribe matters about the appointment and use of a proxy to represent a member of the body corporate at a general meeting of the body corporate.
107 Appointment
(1) A voter for the general meeting may appoint a proxy to act for the person at the general meeting.
(2) However, the body corporate may by special resolution prohibit the use of proxies—
(a) for particular things described in the special resolution;
or(b) altogether.
(3) An appointment under subsection (1) has effect subject to the operation of a special resolution under subsection (2).
(4) A person must not hold—
(a) if there are 20 or more lots included in the community titles scheme—proxies greater in number than 5% of the lots;
or(b) if there are fewer than 20 lots included in the scheme—more than 1 proxy.
I too would worry about disenfranchising people. In recent times our proxy forms have had all the motions numbered and people can direct their proxy to vote yes, no, or abstain on each particular motion. Alternatively they can tick the 'vote as he/she sees fit' box. At least once I have held held up my hand twice for a yes and once for a no (or something like that) since I held proxies for owners with differing views on at least one motion. I know others have done the same in our OC. The abstain option becomes important for special resolutions where the crucial number is how many negatives relative to the total vote. People neither for nor against, present or explicitly abstaining, contribute to the total “present and entitled to vote, in person or by proxy” (the phrasing in the ACT).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.