STO Forums

Search

Type your search criteria above and click Search to search the forums.

To see if someone has already answered a query similar to yours, click the Search button above and search for terms related to your question.

appointment of trustees

By susanna clark on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 at 23:35

At our last AGM - trustees nominations that was received 48hrs prior to AGM were as follow -
Peter - was nominated and accepted by 7 differant owners;
Mary - was nominated by 4 owners;
John - was nominated by 2 owners
Harold - was nominated by 2 owners
Valerie & Mike- were each nominated by 1 owner -
It was decided for 3 trustees to stand.
Owners were then asked to fill in slips with name of trustees to be appointed which was then counted. Peter who got most nominations, were not appointed. Is this correct - shouldn't Peter's 7 nominations secure his position to be appointed?
PLEASE ADVISE!

Replies

You must login to post a reply.

RE: appointment of trustees

Murray Bennett replied on Wed, 06 Feb 2019 at 00:38

The members determine who many trustees are required at the AGM.

If there are too few trustee nominations, nominations can be taken at the AGM, provided that the nominee has given consent....Show More

RE: appointment of trustees

andrew church replied on Wed, 06 Feb 2019 at 09:30

( It was decided for 3 trustees to stand ?? )
-------------------------------
When you say it was decided ? Were VOTING CARDS used to decide or did a member just call out the number THREE from the floor ?
-------------------------------
Rule 17(6) (a) indicates( ISSUE VOTING CARDS ? )
--------------------------------
Annual and special general meetings Page 40 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 7 OCTOBER 2016
----------------------------------
(6) The order of business at general meetings is as follows:
----------------
(a) confirm proxies, nominees and other persons representing members and ISSUE VOTING CARDS ;
------------------
(j) if meeting is an annual general meeting
--------------------
(vii)... DETERMINE the number of trustees to be elected to serve during the next financial year;
---------------------
(viii) elect the trustees
--------------------

RE: RE: appointment of trustees

susanna clark replied on Wed, 06 Feb 2019 at 12:11

Re above response -
Blank paper slips were handed to members who had to fill in the number of trustees to stand - this was collected and counted by the chair.
Nothing was noted on official voting cards.

Am I to understand that seeing there were more nominations received than required for 3 trustees - the number of nominations per person submitted prior to meeting, has no validation in that owners can vote at meeting who is to be appointed even if only one nomination for a person was received.
This voting was done same as mentioned above - with small blank paper slips handed to all in attendance - and then counted by chair when appointments were made. Not registered on voting cards as per say. More like drawn out of the hat!!!! as no record can be delivered as to which owner voted for number of trustees or then who was to be appointed.

RE: RE: RE: appointment of trustees

Murray Bennett replied on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 at 01:25

[Am I to understand that seeing there were more nominations received than required for 3 trustees - the number of nominations per person submitted prior to meeting, has no validation in that owners can vote at meeting who is to be appointed even if only one nomination for a person was received] Yes

[This voting was done same as mentioned above - with small blank paper slips handed to all in attendance - and then counted by chair when appointments were made. Not registered on voting cards as per say. More like drawn out of the hat!!!! as no record can be delivered as to which owner voted for number of trustees or then who was to be appointed] The trustees will be determined by a vote that the chairperson will tally.

RE: RE: RE: RE: appointment of trustees

Murray Bennett replied on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 at 01:43

Note: As I understand PMR 20 which sets out the procedure and requirements for valid voting to take place at a AGM and SGM [which has a quoum] A motion put forward for a vote no longer requires to be seconded before voting takes place. Ordinary resolutions [such as the election of trustees] must be adopted by the majority of the votes made by those entitled to vote calculated by participation quota. So, a calculation would be required to produce the result.

RE: appointment of trustees

andrew church replied on Wed, 06 Feb 2019 at 16:48

( Determine the number of trustees to be elected in terms of THESE RULES ) on pages 26 and 27
--------------------
PART 2 TRUSTEES page 24 and 25 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 7 OCTOBER 2016
-------------------
RULE 5.(3) If a body corporate consists of more than 4 members who are owners of primary sections, they must from time to time determine the number of trustees to be elected in terms of THESE RULES. ( see rules below )
-----------------------------
Requirements for office,disqualification page26
RULE 6. (1) A trustee NEED not be a MEMBER or the legally recognized representative of a MEMBER who is a juristic person. (2) A person who is the managing agent or an employee of the managing agent or the body corporate MAY NOT BE a trustee UNLESS that person IS A MEMBER.
-----------------------------
Nomination, election and replacement page 27
RULE 7. (1) A member may nominate any person for the office of trustee. (2) The nomination of a trustee must be in writing, accompanied by the written consent of the person nominated and delivered to the body corporate service address at least 48 hours before the annual general meeting is due to start. (3) If an insufficient number of nominations are received in terms of sub-rule (2), further nominations may be called for at the annual general meeting with the consent of the persons nominated.
-------------------------------
So it seems you may Determine the number of trustees to be elected in terms of THESE RULES on pages 26 and 27 or you may look at the POST below and see what it looks like when a member present wants a VOTE to be FORCED ?
---------------------------
Charles Baker replied on Fri, 27 Mar 2009
------------------------------
By SETTING a LOWER number of trustees to SERVE for the ensuing year, VERSUS the NOMINATIONS RECEIVED, a VOTE would be FORCED. The assembled members in the A.G.M are then able to indicate their DISAPPROVAL of CERTAIN NOMINEES in THEIR VOTES . In SO DOING they COULD RESTRICT the ELECTION of a CERTAIN NOMINEE or nominees ??
----------------------------------
However you may also Look at Anne Greening post below on trustees and decide for yourself what is the better method ??
-----------------------------------
We are a self-managed ST scheme, and have had up to 10 trustees at a time, over the years - providing many hands to do the work. It's also a good idea to have one of two more than is strictly necessary to allow for continuity and succession planning, as trustees come and go. After all, trustees COST NOTHING!
---------------------------
From the information you have provided it would seem SIX PEOPLE being Peter - Mary - John - Harold - Valerie & Mike used RULE 7. (2) and sent in their nominations 48 hours before the A.G.M. But because It was decided at the A.G.M that only THREE trustees must stand ? This then caused a VOTE to be FORCED ( see Charles Baker method above ? )
------------------------------
My question here would be the following ? In your opinion was there any need by the assembled members in the A.G.M to indicate their DISAPPROVAL of CERTAIN NOMINEES by using the Charles Baker Method ? Which then resulted in THREE out of the SIX nominees being RESTRICTED from becoming trustees etc...
------------------------

RE: RE: appointment of trustees

susanna clark replied on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 at 07:35

Thank you for the response received.
I have read and understand the above appointment of trustees. However confusing as nothing is stated on process on what basis and procedures are to be followed accept to say that owners appoint trustees.
----------------
There were no indication or objections raised of any disapproval of certain nominees. Further, it has now come to my attention that only 3 nominees were received prior to the meeting. The rest were submitted at the meeting.
-------------
My question - what purpose does it serve as per requirement, of submitting nomination 48hrs prior to meeting when these nominations can just be outvoted at the meeting?
-------
Peter as mentioned above does however object to any and all non compliances to the Act, and raises a lot of questions also objects to MA running the show and meeting. All the years 5 trustees were the standing it was only when it came to notice that Peter could be included to make up the 5, that it was suggested for only 3 trustees. As previously noted - the MA who chaired the meeting then decided to hand out scraps of paper to all - not noted on any voting cards but as said, little scraps of paper was issued and each person was asked to just put down the number of trustees. Supposedly counted by the MA & told that the count came to the then appointed 3 persons that was Makes no sense!

RE: appointment of trustees

andrew church replied on Fri, 08 Feb 2019 at 20:47

(Further, it has NOW come to my attention that only 3 nominees were received prior to the meeting ?...( It was decided for 3 trustees to stand...slips were handed to members to fill in the number of trustees to stand )
===========================
From the information you have provided ?
(3 nominees were received prior to the meeting) and The Members present had ( decided for 3 trustees to stand ? )
----------------------------------
So the question here would have to be the following ? In your opinion ? Did you have a SUFFICIENT NUMBER or an INSUFFICIENT NUMBER of nominations after it was ( decided for 3 trustees to stand ? )
---------------------------------
Keep in mind Rule RULE 7.(3) is ONLY USED if an INSUFFICIENT NUMBER of nominations are received ( see RULE 7.(3) below ) ??
-------------------------------------
RULE 7.(3) If an INSUFFICIENT NUMBER of nominations are received , further nominations may be called for at the annual general meeting with the consent of the persons nominated ??
========================
( As previously noted - the MA chaired the meeting ? )
------------------------------
So the question here would have to be the following ? In your opinion ? Did the members present ELECT a chairperson for such meeting using Rule 18. (2) and VOTING cards ?
Or did the agent just walk up and take the chairpersons position without being ELECTED etc...? ( See Rule 18. (2) below )
---------------------------------
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 7 OCTOBER 2016 Page 41 and 42... Annual and special general meetings...Chairperson
Rule18. (2) If there is NO chairperson or the chairperson of the trustees is NOT present within 15 minutes after the time appointed for the meeting, or IS UNWILLING or UNABLE TO ACT as chairperson, the members present MUST ELECT A CHAIRPERSON FOR SUCH A MEETING .
----------------------------
Rule 17(6) (a) confirm proxies, nominees and other persons representing members and ISSUE VOTING CARDS ;
---------------------------
Please note made an error and posted information on another post. Trustees appointment
By susanna clark on Tue,05 Feb 2019 at 23:56

RE: RE: appointment of trustees

susanna clark replied on Fri, 08 Feb 2019 at 21:29

OK.... at start of meeting, the MA was all set up and seated in front of hall and he just started to open the meeting when I objected & asked why Chairperson is not conducting the meeting. One of the trustees then came forward & MA said that this trustee is to chair the meeting. However, the MA continued chairing the meeting with so-called trustee chairperson did not say one word. When she was questioned on a matter all she replied was ' no comment' We then realised that his trustee and her husband were the only 2 trustees left of the 5 that was decided on at 2017 meeting. So it is unknown whether she was in fact the chairperson....
--------------
I know for a fact that THREE persons submitted nominations 48hrs prior to meeting. Two of the three ea own 3 units each So in fact 7 nominations for Peter were submitted prior to meeting. Only 3 of the nominations at first, were mentioned by MA and when questioned about other submitted nominations, he said, 'Oh I forgot' but 'OK it will stand'......!!!!It was never made known about when other nominations were submitted prior to meeting or just handed it at start of meeting. All very hush hush as we know that 'Peter' would not have been a good choice for the MA, as 'Peter' does not approve of the MA's non compliances to the Act and makes it know. Thus none of the actual nominations were presented to be viewed as MA stated ' 'it will be made available on written request'?????? There were thus sufficient numbers of nominations when it was decided that 5 trustees be changed to 3.
-------------
A note was delivered as voting sheet with one item listed to be voted on 'approval of budget'
The rest, as said before, extra small pieces of scrap paper was issued when it was required to just write 3 or 5 trustees;
and the other scrap paper again to put down names of recommended trustees - how it was counted and who these scraps of papers validity of voting was established, is beyond me.
------------
on this note I then also wish to mention that we only got a 10 day notice for this AGM;
----------------
AGM Meeting took place 8 months after year end; notices were sent out on 28 Nov. for meeting to be held on 6th Dec 2018 -10 days notice.
On 13th December, statements were issued already debiting accounts with levy increase
Normal levy increase was noted;
PLUS
a levy called Project/Admin levy of R400. Probability of this was not discussed or made any mention of.Am IU wrong in questioning this matter as well - how can the MA submit levy increase amount and also, debit accounts with this Project/Admin levy BEFORE trustees even had their firs meeting????? This came from nowhere!!!!!
--------------------
The 10yr maintenance plan submitted - was marked 'prelimanary and incomplete;
---------------
There had been no major repairs carried out over past 2 years and according to financials, sufficient funds was noted to be in both accounts.There was no mention that the Reserve fund was insufficient - for any project/reserve fund.
-------------
Thus, issue on appointment of trustees my basic issue as every scheme was used to avoid 'Peter' from being appointed for MA well knew, that his days would have then be counted. Therefore you input is valued to make me determined no to just accept all the non complaint acts.

1
Advertisements
Banner
Website Statistics
  • Forum Topics: 11589
  • Users: 21043