June 14, 2020 at 7:42 pm #231080DobbieMember
40% of the OC has asked for an EGM to be called as soon as Covid 19 restrictions allow fort a gathering of 35 -40 people.
A list of names has been sent to the strata agent who has asked for each item on the agenda to have attached the name of the person who forwarded that question along with reasons for the request. Is this absolutely necessary according to law?June 15, 2020 at 1:48 pm #231144ts1904Expert
Schedule 1, clause 4, requires that a motion that is submitted include the name of the person submitting it. Perhaps that is what the strata managing agent is after?
But it sounds like you’re just talking about people asking questions of the agent. I’m not sure that it is absolutely necessary for those questions to have names put to them if they are just questions and not motions.June 15, 2020 at 5:45 pm #231193DobbieMember
They are motions. Residents are requesting an EGM and have submitted an agenda. The strata agent wants each motion to have attached the name of the person who submitted it plus reasons for the submission.
Thank you for your reply, Expert.June 16, 2020 at 2:02 pm #231260FlotsamMember
I think the Act is pretty clear so I will just copy-paste that portion to help answer Dobbie’s question. Emphasis in bold is mine.
(1) Any owner, or any person entitled to vote at a general meeting of an owners corporation, may require a motion to be included in the agenda of the next general meeting of the owners corporation.
(2) The requirement is to be made by written notice given to the secretary of the owners corporation that–
(a) sets out the required motion, and
(b) states the name of the person making the requirement, and
(c) includes an explanation of the motion of not more than 300 words in length.
(3) The secretary must give effect to the requirement.
(4) However, if the requirement is made after notice has been given of the meeting, the secretary must include the motion in the agenda for the next subsequent meeting.
(5) An owner or a person may make a requirement even if the owner or person cannot vote because the owner is an unfinancial owner.
As long as the certain requirements per the above are met, the motion must be included in the GM.
As an aside, I’ve always found the rigidity of this interesting because an owner could literally submit a motion “That the Owners Corporation confirm that they consider the Chairperson to be a racist d**khead” and, provided the few conditions were met, the Secretary would be obliged to print the motion. Sure, the motion could be ruled out of order at the GM, and there might be ramifications for the submitter, but neither of these would stop the motion being printed. Now the example I have given is one of hyperbole but we can certainly see more ‘realistic’ examples from unreasonable owners who have been known to make outrageous statements and motions (without printing something that quite goes far enough for it to have ramifications like a defamation claim because most reasonable counterparties prefer to avoid escalating conflict) and there is nothing you can do to stop such things being printed.June 18, 2020 at 9:54 am #231364ts1904Expert
You are right, that absolutely can be done – and it has!
I once heard a story around the traps that an owner submitted a motion to the effect “That there be no Vietnamese in the building”.
It was of course ruled out of order, and the owner didn’t realise that their name would be attached to it until they received the agenda.
But yes, absolutely that can happen, and it has!June 18, 2020 at 8:43 pm #231451Amanda FarmerExpert
OMG, what an example ts1904! I suspect that’s why our 2015 Act introduced the requirement for explanatory notes and names to be attached to lot-owner motions!
Thank you so much for providing that summary, Flotsam.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
(02) 8262 6100
0410 488 802