Blocking Executive Committee Nomination at AGM

@nugalbags said:
Hello, We have an upcoming AGM. At which time we will be receiving nominations and signing people up for for the coming years EC. One vexacious resident  who has often been on the committee before, is not only unhelpful and does nothing in way shape or form; she goes out of her way to be difficult and to block or derail any attempts to get things done around the block.

Question: If they are “nominated” for the EC, is there anyway to have a “No” vote and therefore not have them on the EC? Thanks in advance, N

The process is actually quite straightforward.

There is a legal obligation to have a motion to decide the number of people you want on your executive committee.  Make sure you have a “ticket” that includes everybody you want on the EC and nobody you don’t.  Set the number of seats on the EC to accommodate the poeple on your ticket and no one else.

If possible, sound out other owners to see if they want to be on and to get their support. But make sure you have the numbers beforehand to a) set the correct number of seats on the committee and b) elect your ticket.

If anyone at the meeting objects to this and seems to have support – “Mrs X wants to be on so we should have another seat” – tell the meeting that the entire EC ticket will withdraw their nomination because the EC  will be totally dysfunctional otherwise.

However, if you have done your legwork previously, this should not even arise and Mrs X will be blindsided, as they say on Survivor (the perfect illustration of how to run an EC).

@PMC2 said:
Hi Jimmy,

I am actually very surprised by your advice because somebody on the flat-chat forum has ‘alleged’ a resident as ‘vexacious’. After everything the Hon Mr. Anthony Roberts discussed regarding proxy votes etc. I cannot applaud the inference that 1 person can “decide the number of people you want on your executive committee” by issuing a “ticket”!

This is a democratic system you are detailing but correct me if I am wrong, have you just outlined a way for somebody to control a strata scheme using a pre-meditated solution? 

OK, let me stop you right there.  What is the problem with doing a little forward planning to deal with a recurring problem?  And it’s not one person deciding – but somebody has to put the suggestion on the table for others to consider and agree upon (or otherwise). I merely recommended that anyone in this situation seeks the support of their co-owners – including the other people on the ticket, of course – to deal with a problem that is causing distress and dysfunction in their committee. 

We are not talking about “blind” proxies here.  We are talking about a considered and widely discussed strategy that can only be achieved by the consensus of the a majority of owners.

The reason you restrict the number of seats  to the people on the ticket is so that the disruptive member doesn’t get on the committee by default – if the number of candidates equals the number of seats then there is no election and your vaunted democratic principles evaporate.  It’s all too easy for people who don’t have to deal with people like this to give them a sympathy vote, so you have to be organised about this.

You have clearly never had to endure a year of executive committee meetings disrupted by one person who thinks that whenever their view doesn’t prevail they are entitled to rant and rave and act in a way that is anything but democratic.

Of course, the open and honest way to deal with this would be for each of the people who have suffered at the hand of this person to stand up at the AGM and describe this person’s behaviour in detail, asking people not to vote for them.  In the meantime you have pretty much destroyed their credibility in the community (not to mention the social and psychological effects that might have).

If you could just step off your high horse for a second, I’d love to hear your suggestions for a solution that actually works when you have a person who dominates meetings regardless of the effect that has on the other owners in his or her community, or indeed, the community itself.

And as for wrapping yourself in the Australian flag and sticking up for the “rights of citizens”, what about the rights of the majority to decide how they want the business of their community to be conducted – e.g. in a civil and constructive manner?  There is no fraud on the minority when an informed majority decided its had enough of the shenanigans of one owner.

PMC2 said 

‘nugalbags’, if this resident has done anything illegal, you can apply to CTTT to have them removed as an executive committee member. I advise against plotting to remove them. It can only end up costing the Owners Corporation if you get found out… especially if a Compulsory Strata Manager is installed.

This is misleading nonsense. You don’t have to be a criminal to disrupt the workings of an owners corporation. And where in the Act does it allow an adjudicator to dismiss an EC member for their behaviour? Even if there were such a provision, can you imagine the extended disruption to community life while evidence was gathered and argued to and fro.  

This whole statement is factually incorrect and, I suspect, mischievous in its intent. This is about individual behaviour and its consequences and there is nothing to be ‘found out’ about anyone taking what is a somewhat political but, in the circumstances, very pragmatic course of action.

This is exactly the kind of action that senior people in Fair Trading have (privately) suggested in the past as a way of dealing with disruptive committee members.  There is nothing illegal, immoral or actionable about it. 

In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies – sometimes the “citizens” have to be a bit smarter than imagining that all the have to do is raise an objection at the CTTT and their problems will be magically resolved. Anyone who has ever taken even a watertight case to the CTTT will testify to naivety of that belief.

In fact, the strictly correct way to remove a member of an EC is to hold a general meeting and pass a special resolution to declare their seat vacant. How much easier is it to take the opportunity afforded by the AGM and get the majority of people to agree beforehand that one person’s proven unacceptable behaviour is intolerable and save everyone – including the miscreant – the personal grief and extended agony of either being publicly humiliated or trying to get a 75 percent vote at another time.

The chances of a widely agreed and perfectly legitimate pre-emptive strike against a disruptive EC member leading to the statutory appointment of a strata manager are less than zero. Do you have any knowledge or experience of strata law at all? This smacks of scaremongering. 

By the way, common law has nothing to do with this – it only applies when there are no other laws covering an issue. I suggested nothing that isn’t adequately covered by strata law.

So, please, next time, actually read what I have written before you come on here and attack me personally.  And get your facts right before you start issuing advice about what people should do and the consequences of their actions.

By all means, cite one case – just one – that proves you are right and I am wrong and I will publish it here along with an apology and a retraction.

Further to Jimmy’s post, no-one has a right to be on the EC.  You have the right to nominate yourself or someone else for election to the EC, and then it depends on the number of members determined and election, if any.

If everyone had the right to be elected we would have a very crowded Parliament.

Yes it can be a difficult balancing act, and each circumstance is different.  In our scheme there is one person who to date we have kept off the EC.  That person is dishonest, and has had no qualms about damaging the common property and breaching by-laws whenever they feel like it.  The reason I do not want that person on the EC is because if they were, I know that they would instruct tradesman to do things around the property on the basis that they are an EC member and have authority.  That person thinks I am evil incarnate, which is not surprising.

The spelling is “vexatious”.

Hi jimmy,

There are obviously two sides to this discussion. My concerns are due to the ‘Judge Judy’ style finger pointing… Can you be certain that “nugalbags” isn’t the troublemaker?

1. Forward planning is fine; formation of a clique is not!
2. You stated “tell the meeting that the entire EC ticket will withdraw their nomination because the EC will be totally dysfunctional otherwise” asserting a dictatorship, not a suggestion to seek “support of their co-owners”.
3. You suggested doing this prior to an AGM, not “a considered and widely discussed strategy”.
4. I have too many years with “disruptive members” on committees by default… “rusted on”, as cited in Mr Anthony Robert’s Strata Reforms articles. I endured meetings disrupted by the chairperson, secretary and treasurer whose actions are anything but democratic, approving expenditure without consulting the other EC members and even sanctioning spending required to be done by the Owners Corporation.
5. “The open and honest way to deal with this would be for each of the people who have suffered at the hand of this person to stand up at the AGM and describe this person’s behaviour in detail”… Again, could this lead to a defamation claim.
6. Hang on while I dismount… I am of the opinion committee members should only be allowed to make decisions on minor issues (colour of paint, finishes, cleaners, etc.) with everything else set out as mandatory and performed immediately by the Strata Manager (who should be held accountable) without any interference of committee members. Autocratic owners should not be allowed hold other residents to ransom, EVER! It’s not a perfect system, hence why strata reforms are currently happening.
7. Dare I say you have witnessed EC penny pinchers or the members who freely disregard by-laws at the detriment of others, yet demand everyone else abide by them?
8. Your argument rests on the majority being ‘correctly’ informed, who’s to say the shenanigans are not from autocratic owners wanting to dictate or rort the system?
9. Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 – Sect 162, relates to the appointment of a Compulsory Strata Manager. This is hard to prove, but is an option is bad decisions or dysfunction by EC members is allowed to fester.
10. I reject your ‘mischievous’ comment, it is usually the individual behaviour of committee members not doing what’s required of the act that causes Supreme Court claims. Look at your forum topis to see highlighted issues such as illegal spending, notices, breaches of duties which have all been committed by rouge Strata managers, Executive Committee Members and even Building Managers.
11. In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies –”citizens” shouldn’t have to be smarter, the laws should disincentive wrongdoing in the first place. I have had many watertight cases at CTTT, they all ended up at the District Court.
12. How about Strata Cases on Austlii are for claims under negligence? Even breaches of section 62 constitute negligence when all three clauses are breached. The latest Dr Thoo case asserts this well.

Lastly, I did not attack you, I merely suggested that your advice could be construed by disruptive committee members. My opinion was that bullying someone off a committee, who we only have one person’s word that they are ‘disruptive’, can also be committed on the ‘good people’ can it not?

I believe there are many successful applications for a Compulsory Strata Management appointed by CTTT Adjudicators. The Owners – Strata Plan 5709 v Andrews [2009] NSWCA 189, Hatzvy v Grossbard and Owners Corporation SP13671 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2010] NSWCTTT 477.

If I offended you, I sincerely apologise, but I would like to reiterate I was merely suggesting that your response (well respected by Flat-Chat followers) could be used in a very bad light, and I am still of the opinion that it is more than likely a ‘bad’ element of Strata Society that would do just that.

I have already stated the method proposed would be allow the executive to take a vote from ‘every’ member, if the one member is disruptive, then the others will out vote. Is that not the way it should work… In simple terms. As tedious as it sounds, I am sure that’s the way the legislature was formed.

Anyhow, I stand by my first comments and would never endorse any action to purposely reject an owner, even if they are disruptive. They most likely have valid concerns just like anybody else. Ganging up on them to make sure they are not represented is not a good thing… In my book, I’d rather do the right thing.

There are many cases that have been appealed to the district court from CTTT to be decided by a judge. Adjudicators don’t have to apply the law, if they choose not to. I also point out ALL of my previous cases to the district court have been judged in my favour, with costs and damages awarded. This might be the reason I condone behind the scenes actions, it’s not transparent.

It appears that having an opinion or expressing concern is not a good quality to have so ill bow out and wish you luck with this site Jimmy T.

We have a situation in our complex in Queensland where a nomination has been received for a committee position.  The person nominated it has come to light is in fact the Uncle of the owner rather than a daughter as the person is claiming.  

This is an  extremely difficult situation we have round ourselves in as under the law they are not a member of their “immediate” family.  We have only three nominations at this stage and removing this person would mean if no other owners turned up to the AGM (non committee members), we would e left without a functioning committee.  

What is a good way to solve this issue?

@Kangaroo said:
Hmmm, an uncle or a daughter.

Make them present their credentials to the OC.

Uncle should be Niece.  The line should have read … “The person nominated it has come to light is in fact the Niece of the owner rather than a daughter as the person is claiming. “

The papers I requested to see were very dubious in nature, really a complete fraud.  At the end of the day an interstate owner trying to get a vote on the committee which they would otherwise not get.