By the Paddocks Club team
Below are examples of two questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum, to show you what is available to our Community members!
When must/can the AGM agenda be approved?
Member’s question:
Good day Paddocks,
With regards to PMR 17(6)(e), please give clarity when the agenda must be approved.
It is understood that without the approval of the agenda, the meeting can not proceed, but then it becomes impractical to first vote on the item and calculate it (which is very tedious in a complex with over 200 units), to establish if the agenda is approved before the meeting can continue.
Thank you
Graham’s answer:
Dear member,
The process of “approving the agenda” is a decision that considers changing the order in which the meeting will discuss and decide each of the items of business on the agenda.
The default is that items of business are done in the order the trustees gave in the agenda—but there may be good reasons that some items should be done earlier, or later than originally planned.
Normally the need to move an item back or forward would be known when the meeting starts, so the chairperson could start by asking: “Is there anyone who suggests that the order of business should be changed?”, and if so, then putting the proposed change to the vote. If there is no such suggestion, in my view the chairperson could ask that this be noted and move on to the next item, without the need to call for a vote to confirm what is obvious.
In a very long meeting, where some people have to leave before all the business can be dealt with, or if the meeting is going to be adjourned, it may be sensible to take such a decision later—during the course of the meeting. So an owner could, for example, suggest that a particular issue should be advanced so that it can be dealt with before the adjournment, or delayed because it is logically associated with a matter that will only be dealt with after the adjournment.
Regards,
Graham
Member’s further question:
Hi Graham,
Thank you for the explanation. So the approval is rather relating to the order, of the items, rather than the actual items that are on the agenda for discussion.
At our AGM we had objection from an owner regards the agenda because the item she proposed was not a point on the agenda, and she insisted that the trustees have a duty to include the point rather than having the discretion to refuse or accept items submitted to the body corporate.
The trustees advised that if she wishes to discuss a matter which requires Special Resolution approval, she will have to get 25% of owners making such a written request before the trustees would call a special meeting to discuss the matter, which would then be a point on the agenda.
The AGM continued, however, the owner disruptively persisted and even posted her documents online for others to view.
Graham’s answer:
Hi member,
The owner was not entitled to raise any issue that was not on the agenda already, with adequate notice of that issue having been given to other owners by way of the agenda.
If the trustees agreed that the issue should be discussed – but not without due notice – they could decide to include it in the next General Metting agenda. If not, then the owner could try to raise the support necessary to requisition a meeting to deal with it.
Regards
Graham
AGM notice too short by one day: Are the decisions legal?
Member’s question:
Hi Graham
We had an AGM this week, and the notice period to the owners was one day short for the proper notice of 14 days. At the meeting, one of the members stopped the meeting and said that all decisions that are made at this meeting will not be legal and can be contested.
My question then is, if at this meeting all owners voted to go ahead although the notice was one day short, would it make it a legal meeting where all decisions would be considered legal?
Graham’s answer:
Dear member,
The law requires 14 days notice. The argument that owners agreed to go ahead anyway does not help, as the issue is covered by the law, not their agreement. It might also be argued that this is merely a technical error, that it was only one day, and that there was no prejudice to owners, but I would not be confident of any of these arguments, particularly because at least one owner objected and raised this issue at the meeting.
If the decisions made at an AGM are so important that it makes no sense to have a question mark hanging over their validity—e.g. the worry that the contributions are not properly levied because the underlying budget was not approved. I suggest you call another meeting with proper notice and take the AGM decisions again.
Regards,
Graham
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 16, Issue 9.
Graham Paddock is available to answer questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum for Community members. Get all your questions answered by joining Paddocks Club.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
Recent Comments