NSW EGM and Voting Motions

• 

  mskeggs on 09/09/2024 - 12:26

  +3

  Are you talking about a strata general meeting?

  • 

    sydney1506 on 09/09/2024 - 12:41

    A special EGM was called

    • 

      mskeggs on 09/09/2024 - 14:01

      +1

      I mean, are you talking about a strata body corporate governance?
      Not a company title or something else?

      • 

        sydney1506 on 09/09/2024 - 14:05

        Yes, Strata

• 

  sw0rdy on 09/09/2024 - 13:04

  +7

  How should this be handled in the future?

  On a bargain site

  • 

    sydney1506 on 09/09/2024 - 13:59

    I mean, why not?
    It is in relation to a government grant to save us money installing EV chargers ;)

• 

  JIMB0 on 09/09/2024 - 13:19

  +1

  This is what chatgpt said:

  In situations like this where there are multiple quotes being voted on, and one is preferred over the other but neither passes, it can be tricky to structure the motions in a way that captures the consensus of the group.

  Here are a few ways to structure motions in future EGMs to avoid this kind of outcome:

  1. Sequential Voting with Conditional Acceptance
     Structure the voting process so that the decision is made in a tiered fashion. This way, if the preferred option doesn’t pass, there is a fallback option.

  Example:

  Motion 1: “The owners corporation RESOLVES to accept Quote 2 as the preferred quote for the installation of the EV Charging Infrastructure.”
  Motion 2 (conditional): “If Motion 1 does not pass, the owners corporation RESOLVES to accept Quote 1 as an alternative for the installation of the EV Charging Infrastructure.”
  This would allow a fallback option (Quote 1) to be considered if Quote 2 does not pass, avoiding a scenario where no decision is made.

  2. Single Motion with Multiple Options
     Another approach could be to bundle both quotes into a single motion and allow the owners to indicate their preference directly.

  Example:

  Motion: “The owners corporation RESOLVES to select a quote for the installation of the EV Charging Infrastructure, with the following options:
  Quote 1 (Vendor 1 – $15,000 including GST)
  Quote 2 (Vendor 2 – $13,000 including GST)
  Owners vote on their preferred option.”
  After the vote, whichever option receives the majority is selected. This avoids the issue of two separate motions that might both fail.

  3. Runoff Voting
     If the group is split and there’s a preference but not a strong enough majority for either quote, you can adopt a runoff voting system. Owners first vote on both quotes. If neither receives a majority, a second vote is held between the two options, or between the more popular options from the first round.

  4. Survey or Discussion Prior to the Meeting
     Another possibility is to conduct a survey or an informal discussion before the meeting to see if a majority of owners favor one quote over the other. This could inform the structuring of motions or eliminate unnecessary motions that are unlikely to pass.

  5. Motion to Accept a Range of Quotes
     The motion could also be designed to authorize a range of quotes instead of picking one specific quote.

  Example:

  Motion: "The owners corporation RESOLVES to approve a budget range of $13,000 to $15,000 for the installation of EV Charging Infrastructure and authorizes the committee to select the most appropriate contractor within this budget."
  This allows flexibility in case negotiations or further considerations are required, especially if quotes are relatively similar.

  By adjusting the structure of the motions, you can make it easier to ensure that some form of consensus is reached and avoid situations where neither option is approved, delaying the project.

  Hope this helps.

• 

  brendanm on 09/09/2024 - 13:20

  Welcome to ozfreestralegaladvice

• 

  Dollar General on 09/09/2024 - 13:43

  Read the model rules is the best outcome for you

• 

  Seraphin7 on 09/09/2024 - 15:51

  +1

  The logic of what you have presented is that while motion 4 has passed, the meeting was not satisfied with either motion 5 or 6 (even though they are some what consequential to motion 4).

  I can only assume that the quotes contained within motions 5 and 6 were unacceptable … logic does not require you to accept 5 or 6 simply because you have accepted 4.

  The complete set of resolutions should (presumably) then include that further quotes for the works contemplated will be sought and that a decision on the engagement of a contractor will be contingent on the receipt of those quotes and any other information necessary to make that decision.

  • 

    sydney1506 on 09/09/2024 - 15:58

    "I can only assume that the quotes contained within motions 5 and 6 were unacceptable … logic does not require you to accept 5 or 6 simply because you have accepted 4."

    Partially correct, but as mentioned, it turns out most people would have been happy with either quote

    • 

      PrinceOfWhales on 09/09/2024 - 17:40

      the majority 'against' votes suggest otherwise

      • 

        sydney1506 on 10/09/2024 - 08:11

        Not true.
        When the votes where announced, everyone said that they thought they could only vote for one and against the other, which is logically.
        Thats what some of us owners are trying to understand how the Strata Manager could word and structure motions going forward to remain compliant with the Act but allow people give a ranking of their 1st and 2nd choice if they wish to.