STO Forums


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.

Trustees appointment

By susanna clark on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 at 23:56

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?


You must login to post a reply.

RE: Trustees appointment

Rudy Maritz replied on Thu, 07 Feb 2019 at 23:12

Hi Susanna. Sadly for Peter, a nomination is not the same as a vote. Six people were nominated and the members in general meeting opted to have only three trustees. They voted for the three they saw most fit and that is a valid "election".
Unless there is something in your scheme rules that says otherwise, this must be accepted by all concerned. It is possible that the 7 people who nominated Peter, never thought to nominate someone else. When the "other person" was nominated, they probably decided not to vote for their own nominee. I count a total of 16 members nominating someone, but you did not say how many members in the BC. This could also be a deciding factor, as not all voters will nominate someone.

RE: Trustees appointment

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

( 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 etc... ? )
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

RE: Trustees appointment

andrew church replied on Fri, 08 Feb 2019 at 20:14

( 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
Rule 18. (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 ;
Extra information was read from susanna clarks post...Appointment of Trustees Thu, 07 Feb 2019 at 07:35 etc..

RE: RE: Trustees appointment

susanna clark replied on Fri, 08 Feb 2019 at 22:15

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;
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.
PLEASE to also view my questions posted last week on Audit and Financials under Finance to provide me with views on this matter as well.
Reason - I feel should I have enough grounds to lodge complaint with CSOS, then I will do just that.

Website Statistics
  • Forum Topics: 11589
  • Users: 21043