Talk to the hand, not the committee.

TrulEConcerned wrote:

Questions: 1. Is the suggested by law “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive”? And presumably, “illegal”.

No, it’s just stupid, unworkable and unnecessary.  There is no law requiring committee members to read or respond to correspondence, therefore there is no need for a by-law telling them they don’t have to. The only consequence is that they might not be re-elected at the next AGM.

2. Is the suggested “code of conduct” a violation of a person’s rights and presumably, “illegal”?

What are they going to do? Tie your hands behind your back so you can’t write?  Again, it’s unworkable and unnecessary.

Reading between the lines, however, this has the feel of a signalling motion to get people to back off. There’s a fair chance that someone in your scheme has decided that the best way to get what they want is to badger the committee members with emails, letters and phone calls. This can be unproductive and deeply annoying and even distressing for committee members.

In fact, the best way to get what you want is to persuade other owners that you (and likeminded owners) should be elected on to the committee and the easiest way to do that is to persuade them that money is being wasted and their property values are being detrimentally affected.

If a disgruntled owner can’t persuade their neighbours of either of these things, then they have an uphill battle. And be clear, all that constant irritation of people in power does is to make them irritated.  It certainly doesn’t make them more inclined to hear others’ points of view.

On the other hand, if owners aren’t prepared to listen to their neighbours, then why are they on the committee in the first place?

So, if you object to these moves to silence owners, put another motion up asking that committee members state whether they are prepared to read and respond to owners’ questions, complaints and suggestions, before the committee elections.

If the motion fails, it means your fellow owners simply don’t care and it’s time to let it go.

TrulEConcerned wrote:

You suggest that the SC be challenged in a future AGM. The SC members are in the positions for life (sitting on a small hill of proxies, replenished annually) as most residents are charmed by a couple of them and are clueless as to what is proposed.

That would be a very, very small hill. In a strata scheme the size that you have described, each committee member is only allowed to hold one proxy vote

My worries are as follows: a) The by law (or “code”) will enable the SC and agent not to acknowledge ANY correspondence they receive, so in the case of say overpaid or wrongly charged levies, the owner could take forever to get her money back.

As already said, the code is redundant and has no force.  It’s entirely up to the committee members whether or not they respond and then they have to justify their inaction when they stand for election.

… the SC has not had a properly constituted SC meeting for the three years since the current mob were elected. Presumably they talk informally amongst themselves and choose not to hold SC meetings, but that is not what is required under the Act, isn’t it?

The only requirement under the Act is that an AGM must be held every year.  However, if the committee is meeting and making decisions, then they must issue a notice of meeting, an agenda and minutes, under the terms of Schedule 2 of the Strata Act. If they are making decisions without due process, then it may be worth challenging them at Fair Trading and possibly even NCAT.

TrulEConcerned wrote:

Do you think potential purchasers of a lot when searching the records may be put off by what they may interpret as owners being muzzled?

I think potential purchasers are more likely to be put off buying if they think someone is stirring up trouble unnecessarily – which makes it hard to argue that you want owners to stir up trouble.

If this was being proposed at my block’s AGM, I would point out that any such by-laws or Codes of Conduct are unenforceable and are therefore just cluttterig up the by-laws and costing money for registration, to no one’s benefit.

They can have a code of conduct for the committee, but not for non-elected  owners.

If they want to deter serial pests, then they should find a better way of doing it (such as by publishing in the minutes the amount of correspondence and the cost of responsing to it.)

But if they don’t want to engage with ANY owners, why are they even standing for election?

NB: This topic is now closed.