Proxy Votes at General Meetings

Billen Ben said:

When ammending a special resolution motion the rules are as follows;

Sch 2 SSMA clause 23   
Amendment or revocation of unanimous or special resolutions

A unanimous resolution or special resolution of an owners corporation may not be amended or revoked except by a subsequent unanimous resolution or special resolution, as the case may be.

However, a unanimous resolution of an owners corporation dealing with common property may be amended by a special resolution.

So it seems you need a SR motion to amend a SR motion.

I'm not sure that that's the case.  The quoted section refers to amending a resolution (ie, one that has already been passed) not a motion to pass a resolution.  Even then, as you can see, there are anomalies (for instance, a unanimous resolution dealing with common property can be chancged by a special resolution but unanimous reolutions pertainiong to other issues (like what???) can't.

I'm really not clear on this myself as it seems to me having a motion amended by a simple majority still requires the litmus test of a 75 percent majority to pass into the by-laws.  Maybe one of our strata manager or lawyer friends can help.

As for voting with non- discretionary proxies; if non-discretionary proxies mean that the principals have stated the manner in which the proxy is to vote then according to Horsley's Meetings, a fine text regarding meetings, a proxy who casts a vote contrary to the wishes of the principal is still a valid vote as far as the meeting is concerned and it becomes a matter between the principal and proxy.

Yes. I am reliably informed that regardless of how they have been instructed, a proxy-holder may vote in any way they wish*.  What they should do is another matter but, for instance, if new information or a particularly compelling argument was presented at a meeting – which is why we have meetings, after all – they are entitled to vote against their instructions.  Choose your proxy-holder wisely and discuss the issues with them  – 'blind' proxy votes are not good for the process.

*One exception may be the standard inclusion to vote on the appointment of a new strata manager.

Thanks for that.  I'm still a bit unclear. If a motion for a by-law said: “This OC resolves to ban all pets.” and someone proposed an amendment that said “with the exception of pets already in residence”, would that stand or fall under the rules as you see them.

By the way, at our last agm, amendments to motions had to be on the agenda issued for the meeting.  We weren't allowed to rock up and propose an amendment without prior notice (which seems fair, given proxies and the need to consider issues properly).

I would just clarify the following;

According to Horsley owners would have the right to propose amendments, at the meeting, within the scope of the principle that the amendment not alter the nature of the motion. If someone proposed an amendment and the Chair did not allow the meeting to pass or fail the amendment then from what appears in Horsley it is likely the decision on the substantive motion would be in jeopardy.

The Chair has a great deal of power and discretion at an AGM. Generally speaking; if the Chair feels an amendment breaches the “nature of the motion” principle then the Chair can refuse to put the amenedment motion to the meeting but it appears, from the Horsley text, that the Chair is obliged to put amendments to the meeting that do not suffer from such a defect. If there is contention over whether or not an amendment crosses the line it places the Chair in a difficult position.

In the example given by Jimmy about a by-law and no pets. The Chair is placed in a position where the Chair can allow or disallow the amendment and the  Chair could decline to put the substantive motion to the meeting.

It is a tough gig being a Chair at an AGM when things get a little grey.

JimmyT said:

Just one more thing – Horsley is an optional (but very sound) set of rules to follow, isn't it?

Could an OC pass a by-law saying that all meetings have to be conducted by Horsley's rules (except where they conflict with Strata Law).

Would sound like a big step forward for a lot of dysfunctional ECs and OCs to me … but then, how do you get them to pass the by-law?.

A lot of Horsley relates to procedures developed through common law and Horsley quotes the cases so it is very solid. Horsley notes where there are contradicting cases and the law remains unclear but Horsley always says to be aware of statutory requirements because statute can negate some common law aspects of a meeting. So an understanding of the strata requirements is important to have before reading Horsley (SSMA Sch 2 and 3 particularly)

Horsley has a lot of depth; to ask Joe average to read it, comprehend it and action it is a big ask.

A Horsley meeting would be civilized meeting which is not a wide spread trait of strata meetings so it would mean some significant change for a lot of people and people do not like radical change.
We have a code of conduct for meetings but those who push it hardest are those who breach it most. The AGM used to have motion  “That the meeting adopts the code of conduct for the meeting … blah blah blah.
The motion has disappeared in recent years because the AGM still misbehaved after passing the motion.

I think the idea is great but unrealistic. For example if my SP had such a by-law it would be virtually unenforceable on some people and enforced at the drop of hat on others. We have huge issues with the selective enforcement of by-laws.

If an OC feels they could pass and enforce such a by-law then they would, no doubt, benefit from it. Any such by-law would involve procedures and rules and would be quite an extensive by-law so it would be very difficult to draft and could take years of amending to refine.

If the Chair (and his/her assistants) of a meeting was familiar with Horsley then it would be a great start especially if the Chair maintained control of the meeting and set the basic “rules” at the beginning of the meeting. Perhaps a simple cover page on the AGM agenda outlining how the meeting will be conducted (according to Horsley) would be good.
Just having a copy at meetings so it could be refered to would be a start.

Horsley is a real eye opener given the typical strata meeting is stereotyped as a hostile environment. Educating people in the ways of Horsley would have the same problems as educating people in the ways of the Act.

Any SP who can get just one owner to read it would benefit – as long as other owners were prepared to listen. It is in most libraries.

I use it as a reference when the Act is silent and i need something substantial for CTTT applications regarding failures in meetings. Adjudicators and Member may not be bound by other CTTT decisions but good solid case law makes them think twice before having a brain explosion.