Sub-committees

Sub-committees certainly aren't illegal.  ECs can take advice from whomever they want but only the members of subcommittees who are EC members have a vote. 

Smart ECs use sub-committees (comprising at least one EC member and any non-EC members as are interested) as a way of spreading their knowledge base and introducing potential future EC members to the ins and outs of the EC world. Only those who feel threatened by other people's opinions would have any reason to object to sub-committees. 

On this very point, the chairman of my building was recently fulminating that outsiders' opinions were “more trouble than they're worth” when someone pointed out that the last sub-committee approved by the EC had dealt with a gardening issue very efficiently … and (oops!) it had included his wife. Much hilarity ensued.

It really depends what you want in your EC – a lively exchange of (hopefully) informed opinions or a cluster of know-alls whose views – informed or otherwise – dare not be challenged.

Regarding the Act, there's nothing in it that I know of to cover sub-committees but then there is no need for any legislation. They're not getting paid, they don't have any specific voting power and their views can only be expressed via EC members or, in the case of non-EC members – at the invitation of the EC.

Sounds like sour grapes from someone whose opinions have been over-ruled.

We have just sent a letter to all owners. We have an important and difficult question about a use of the common property to resolve which will require working out just what motions to put to a general meeting. It is tricky because the best solution in one part of our property might not be the best solution somewhere else. People have different interests and we (the EC) want to be as equitable as possible in enabling unit owners to gain amenity from the common property but it will be unavoidably not equal. The matter is complicated by a messy history. The EC decided to form a 'working group' of EC members plus several others selected for have different interests from those EC members could be said to have. The EC will have the last word on what motion(s) to put to the general meeting but we genuinely want to try to build a consensus by including these others. On the other hand we didn't want discussion to degenerate into rabble by having a cast of thousands. The letter explains our approach and invites owners to feel ideas into the working group. I hope it works!

The other thing we do is have a subcommittee of one person who deals with the grounds maintenance contractor. We discourage owners from distracting the contractor with direct requests. That one person subcommittee does a great job but is not interested to be part of the EC for any other matters. The EC understands that it has the final responsibility but is happy to delegate this role. We get regular updates and sometimes step in when a particular task is required. It has been working well for quite a few years now. 

Billen Ben said:

At the end of the day sub committees are good but they are nothing more than an advisory group …. unless you live here.

In our latest set of EC minutes can be found a motion (introduced motion not from the agenda) to put $3000 in the hands of our Hall Committee to “pay for invoices and costs of workers….”. The motion passes unanimously.

The EC minutes go on to also make it clear that;

“John Citizen (not his real name) will be joining the Hall Committee to take up a vacancy, and will act as the sub committee treasurer and the EC took note of this.”

This is completely contrary to several sections of the Act and the Committee has gone well beyond being an advisory group.

Our Committee (sub committee) has management roles, performs management functions and exercises control over money.

Who is going to stop them ?

OK, boys – enough {taps top pocket to threaten yellow cards all round}

PeterC said:

So… Did the budget approved at the last AGM include $3000 for whatever is being done to the hall? If yes, I suppose the EC can approve its being managed this way. If no, I don't think it can just hand out $3000 unless there is a compelling case like the roof about to collapse or something else that might be dangerous or prevent a much greater cost later. 

I think you will find the Act is very specific about who can handle money and who has management roles. The idea that sub committees (i.e. advisory groups ) can be give autonomy over OC money and management decisions is inconsistent with what the Act requires.

Yes, the budget was approved and yes sub committees are not to be found in the SSMA as being in a role of management or having the capacity to be handling and accounting for money.

Would you be happy to have an advisory group in your OC given OC money to manage and account for when you know it is not consistent with the requirements of the Act? I'm not.

The EC cannot approve the $3000 being managed this way and it is surprising you suggest it may be OK. Even the OC at a general meeting has no power to make such an approval.

We have numerous sub committees. If each one had autonomy over the budget that covered their respective area then we would have half a dozen different treasurers accounting for various aspects of the OC budget.

As for the Flowerpot Man – i have never tried to get on a subbie so the idea i have some bee in my bonnet because i am not on a subbie is completely misplaced – but you already know that.

Billen Ben said:

PeterC said:

So… Did the budget approved at the last AGM include $3000 for whatever is being done to the hall? If yes, I suppose the EC can approve its being managed this way.

I think you will find the Act is very specific about who can handle money and who has management roles. The idea that sub committees (i.e. advisory groups ) can be give autonomy over OC money and management decisions is inconsistent with what the Act requires….Would you be happy to have an advisory group in your OC given OC money to manage and account for when you know it is not consistent with the requirements of the Act? I'm not.

Obviously something more going on here but as for my own comment, an example we have working just fine, and quite legal I think, is that our “grounds coordinator” (one person sub-committee) has permission from the EC to spend a certain amount from the AGM-approved gardening budget largely at her discretion on new plants or mulch or similar as required. Just which species to plant, where and when, is generally left to her judgement together with the contractor who does the actual work. Both have shown good judgement in the past and we don't need to micromanage. She has particular expertise, access to cheap commercial tube stock and will pick a good time to do planting according the season, whether it has rained, what other jobs need attention from the contractor and so on. On occasions the EC will feed through suggestions from owners: 'A particular area is looking a bit bare after some bushes died or whatever'. As treasurer, I am happy to forward an email from the grounds coordinator, with a scan of the receipt attached, to the managing agent, copied to the other EC members, to say it is OK to reimburse the grounds coordinator for plants she has purchased. The EC would of course have to step in if poor choices were being made or the budget exceeded but we have not had that problem. 

Billen Ben said:

…I am glad you have a subbie of one who is responsible and dedicated enough to do some good work and that you also have an EC prepared to step in if anything funny starts going on. It sounds like your SP is in a good situation. 

 

Don’t think we live in an ideal happy community! We don’t have this particular issue but we have plenty of others and the EC is now starting to feel quite familiar with the ACAT, ACT equivalent of your CTTT.