Missappropriation of funds by the E. C.

dech said:

  …… With a view to getting some attention from the docile members among the owners is it reasonable and non-defamatory to refer to this as mis-appropriation of funds?

   An addition question is – could the secretary refuse to include an agenda item for the AGM to the effect that EC nominees should demonstrate that they understand at least three of the basic functions/limitations of an EC ……

FROM: https://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/misappropriation.htm
(n) Misappropriation is the wrong application or utilization of funds allocated for any specific purposes, by illegally diverting the money, forging the documents or otherwise misleading the beneficiaries and owners of the fund. Misappropriation is a felony crime punishable by imprisonment.

In a cetrain context the term misappropriate is applicable but it is not a recommended term as people get a little touchy once such terms start getting thrown about. Perhaps using a phrase such as “wrong application or utilization of funds that were allocated for another specific purpose” is better wording; it means the same thing but does not compromise an individuals character as the harshness of saying misappropriate.

Clause 36 of Schedule 2 of the SSMA relaters to requesting motions be put on an agenda.

cl 36 (2)  The secretary must give effect to the requirement of the notice.

In English; if you make a requisition for a motion to be included then the motion gets included – and i believe that means regardless of the content of the motion unless the motion has the potential to see the OC sued.

If the motion has defects or issues then it becomes a matter for the Chair to deal with on the day of the meeting and it is would be up to the Chair of the meeting to determine if the motion gets put to the meeting.

Our AGM agendas often get used as a opportunity to make a statement by people who include such motions as having a minutes silence for the apathetic who do not come to AGMs. Most of these “statement motions” are withdrawn when they come up but they get included because they are required to be included.

The motion you elude to should be on the agenda if you request it but would be one that possibly should not be put to the meeting. The Act sets out the requirements to become an EC member and showing an understanding of any strata knowledge is not one of the requirements.

I do not believe you could deny a person a nomination for an EC position, or an EC position, because they can't answer the “riddles three”.

I would add to the above that no one should expect CTTT to put their house in order if things are not as they should be. I'm not saying do not use CTTT but if you do use CTTT then do not have any expectation of the Act being applied or an outcome that corrects poor management practices. CTTT are not the strata police.

Our complex has set limits for spending money by the EC.  It allows the EC to do most works without having to get permission.  But larger projects need to be brought before the owners for their consideration.

Has worked in that the smaller projects get attended to immediately.  However, the larger projects linger on and on as owners object to spending the money.

If we had no limit, this place would be in better nick than it is.  But having no limit could prove a dangerous thing.  Limits are necessary.

dech said:

   

   …….. on paper it could just appear as something innocuous sounding like “tidy garden at northern side” – which would be another breach – it's hardly a “detailed agenda” as required by the Act unless some indication of expenditure is included.

Hi Dech,
“Detailed agenda”; what a concept.
My SP has for years (about 5) had agendas that are one word or two word items. Of course this is not a detailed agenda but it gets better.

The EC will have say 5 or 6, one or two word, items on the agenda and none of that will get dealt with at the meeting and instead 5 or 6 motions will get introduced and the first things owners know about anything is a set of EC minutes a week or so later; with a similar agenda for the next meeting. It has been going on for years.

It has all been to CTTT, twice, CTTT was sent 3 years worth of EC minutes as evidence and the end result was dismissal.

“Tidy garden at northern side”; that is 5 words and more detail than owners here get and it wouldn't matter if owners here did get 5 word agenda items because the agenda is not the business of the meeting in this SP.

The agenda for the next EC meeting here has 5 items; 3 are two word items, one is a 3 word item and the other is a 4 word item. None of that matters because you can bet your life there will be introduced matters. A recent meeting made 5 resolutions and not one was from an agenda item; the agenda might as well have been a blank piece of paper.

Send enough applications to CTTT and you will learn nobody at CTTT really cares about what is in the Act. Is your SP seriously dysfunctional is all that matters and not getting a detailed agenda and the EC blowing a few grand on self serving gardening are hardly matters that warrant action from our inept strata overlords.

Billen Ben said:

dech said:

   

   …….. on paper it could just appear as something innocuous sounding like “tidy garden at northern side” – which would be another breach – it's hardly a “detailed agenda” as required by the Act unless some indication of expenditure is included.

Hi Dech,
“Detailed agenda”; what a concept.
My SP has for years (about 5) had agendas that are one word or two word items. Of course this is not a detailed agenda but it gets better.

……….
The agenda for the next EC meeting here has 5 items; 3 are two word items, one is a 3 word item and the other is a 4 word item. None of that matters because you can bet your life there will be introduced matters……

 

Hi Dech,
Although this goes a little outside the garden issue and the apparent use of money by EC members to pursue what amounts to personal agendas i just though i would update you on the concept of a detailed agenda.

As i state above the next EC meeting here has 5 items blah blah blah.
The meeting has been held and there were 20 introduced motions and the 5 items on the agenda did not rate a mention. (and i can't get an order to correct this, CTTT just does not care about it)

If you get some innocuous sounding agenda item then think yourself lucky because at least there is a hint of what is going on.

FLOWERPOT MAN said:

Wha possible application can a five year old USA website referring to “felony crime” have in NSW strata admin.
If you are going to be picky with others it helps to be able to spell allude
Please explain this comment. If not the Act, what does the CTTT use as a basis for its decisions? Have you told them they are wrong and you know best?

And if you are going to get picky with other people’s spelling, I suggest you learn to spell ‘what’. By the way, journalists call this Muphry’s Law: Any attempt to correct a misspelling will itself contain another, often worse, literal error.

I don’t always agree with Billen Ben’s point of view – in fact,  I often don’t agree with him – but if you think the CTTT is a fair and logical arbiter of Strata law in this state then you are living in a fool’s paradise. Read some of the other posts on this website if you don’t believe me. Or perhaps, as he suggests elsewhere, you have benefitted from one of their bizarre decisions.

In any case, I will not allow this website to be used for personal sniping at this level – you are boring the rest of us.  Keep your internal issues to yourselves and try to deal with them internally where they will do some good, if not for you, for the others in your community. 

You have been amply warned and you are now banned from posting to the site for a month.  Back in the shed, Flowerpot Man.   And congratulations – you are the first person to be red-carded from Flat Chat.

dech said:

Not many good news stories appear on this site & this is a very partial one.

It's human nature, Dech.  People don't write in to say how happy they are. It's a shame we tend to hear only one side of the story … but nice to think people are too busy being happy.