Question: How can a small body corporate committee meet its obligations, manage conflicts, and ensure balanced decision-making?
For over 20 years, our body corporate operated without a formal committee. As secretary, I informally carried out most executive roles and made decisions in consultation with the strata manager. We rarely held formal meetings or used voting outside committee processes, except when owners made specific requests, such as installing an air conditioner. Our committee now has three members, but given its small size, we face challenges in meeting all legislative requirements.
One of your recent articles highlighted the importance of keeping records and distributing minutes for all committee meetings. We have not consistently done this, and we want to understand how to balance our obligations with our limited volunteer capacity. Are there any exceptions or flexibility for small schemes in how these requirements are applied? Additionally, is it permissible under the Body Corporate and Community Management (BCCM) legislation for one owner to hold more than one executive role, such as secretary and treasurer?
Another concern is how to manage differing views within the committee. For example, one member proposed a comprehensive soil treatment across the gardens due to concerns about depletion. While we support reasonable maintenance, many owners believe the cost and scope of this proposal exceed what is necessary or appropriate for our small residential scheme. How can a committee moderate individual enthusiasm when it does not reflect the priorities of most owners? What procedures or safeguards can ensure that decision-making stays balanced, transparent, and aligned with the wider ownership’s interests?
Some owners also want to reduce costs by seeking quotes from alternative contractors, but one committee member resists change and even discouraged a contractor from submitting a quote. How can a committee ensure a fair and transparent process when considering service providers, and prevent individual influence from overriding democratic decision-making?
Answer: Differing viewpoints are nothing to fear and indeed can be a sign of healthy discussion and governance.
To your discrete queries first:
- Yes, one person can hold all three executive roles.
- Yes, there is flexibility for small schemes, depending upon the number of lots involved. If your scheme is a 3-lot scheme, for example, there are provisions for the modified operation of a committee in that situation. If your scheme has a concentration of owners (i.e., one owner owning several lots, resulting in effectively only 2 or 3 different owners), then that too might trigger modified provisions.
Your broader queries are both universal and somewhat challenging to briefly address. Your question about disagreements and differing viewpoints is one we’ll tackle now. Differing viewpoints are nothing to fear and indeed can be a sign of healthy discussion and governance. Remember, a strata scheme is a very arbitrary situation in which people are randomly joined together with nothing in common except for their shared investment, so it’s almost inevitable that disagreement will arise. It is when that disagreement is the only thing that ever happens, or if disagreement prevents things from getting done, that there is a problem. Our experience has shown that methodical, consistent, and transparent processes are the most effective way to deal with this. Additionally, always remember that the role of a committee is to make decisions. Chat and discussions are fine, but ultimately, a vote must be taken and cold, hard numbers will win the day.
This is general information only and not legal advice.
Chris Irons Strata Solve E: chris@stratasolve.com.au P: 0419 805 898