Changing condominium common property and voting

[Beggar]

I have a question. Perhaps someone can help. What I understand that for changing common property 50 % of the votes are needed. Let's say that the condo has in total 100 votes. Does this mean that at the AGM there need to be at least 50 votes present to vote and 26 votes could approve the change. Or does this mean that 50 votes are needed to approve the change.

 

If there is a second meeting because there were not enough people at the first meeting then I understood that the 50% are reduced to 1/3. So if less than 1/3 of all the 100 votes are present at the 2nd meeting can they decide on the change of common property? 

[Delight]

  In your first scenario the motion can pass with just 50 votes

If 50 -and above-co -owners are present at this first meeting then no second meeting is allowed

 

The 2nd vote,-if allowed requires ,using your figures ,at leats 34 co -owners to vote for the motion.

I attach a JPEG

[Beggar]

Thank you for your response. Let me take the 2nd meeting. So at least 34 votes need to be at the meeting. And if 17 of them vote YES then the common area change is spproved. Is this correct? 

[Delight]

5 hours ago, Beggar said:

Thank you for your response. Let me take the 2nd meeting. So at least 34 votes need to be at the meeting. And if 17 of them vote YES then the common area change is spproved. Is this correct? 

Sorry no

All 34 have to approve. .

In your scenario only 17% are voting to approve.

Co -owners tend not attend 2nd meetings.

I am aware of one circumstance where a bunch of co -owners conspired.

Knowing the reluctance of co -owners to attend 2nd meetings -they offered their services as proxies to apathetic co -owners.

At the meeting they suceeded in getting authorisation  to sell a large and commercially attractive piece of land.

No doubt they were all suitably rewarded by the buyer.

I cannot name the particular condo. That would be inappropriate.

However it is in 2 building complex -based in Jomtien and has a red roof.

[Beggar]

Thank you very much for clarifying this for me. You helped me a lot. I think I know the Jomtien case.

 

Perhaps one more thing. How can I make sure that they don't cheat when they count the votes? 

[Delight]

1 hour ago, Beggar said:

Thank you very much for clarifying this for me. You helped me a lot. I think I know the Jomtien case.

 

Perhaps one more thing. How can I make sure that they don't cheat when they count the votes? 

Who are they?

Why would they want to cheat?

[KittenKong]

20 minutes ago, Delight said:

Who are they?

Why would they want to cheat?

I imagine that "they" are other co-owners or management, who presumably want to make some sort of change that the OP does not agree with (or vice versa).

 

The only reason I can see for cheating would be to get their way if they dont think that they can do it by legal means. No shortage of lying and cheating going on in buildings here (like the one with the red roof).

[Beggar]

Because the committee follows their own interests. The members have the same business. They are renting out rooms - other members got removed... and the management just does what they expect. The question is how can cheating be avoided. In the end they count the votes alone. 

[KittenKong]

3 hours ago, Delight said:

Co -owners tend not attend 2nd meetings.

I would say the opposite. More people seem to attend the second meeting in buildings that I know of, because they know full well that the first meeting is unlikely to take place.

[Delight]

17 hours ago, Beggar said:

Because the committee follows their own interests. The members have the same business. They are renting out rooms - other members got removed... and the management just does what they expect. The question is how can cheating be avoided. In the end they count the votes alone. 

 At a general meeting the committee chairman chairs the meeting.This is typical but not essential.

At every meeting that I have attended this has to be agreed by the attending co -owners. It is the first point on the agenda.

When I have chaired  a meeting the adjudicators advised me that my selection was approved and further advised that at least 25% of the total vote was in attendance.

Only then could the meeting move forward.

As far as the other committee members are concerned -they are not committee members -in that meeting. They are co -owners.

Committee members operate as such in an official committee meeting.

 

The JPM or the building manager(BM)  actually run the meeting. One of them has responded to the committee's call  to request such a  meeting at a particular date. -and then  the JPMor BM organise the communication to co -owners-plus the venue etc. etc.

So it must be the JPM or the BM who is in charge of procedure.

1) Ensuring that the attendees can  legally attend

2) That proxies are legal.

The JPM must attend the meeting to ensure that it stays within the law.

It therefore follows that the JPM is in charge of vote counting.

If I was to attend a meeting and discovered that the co -owners were counting the vote -I would stand up and declare the meeting to be illegal

 

 

[KittenKong]

3 hours ago, Delight said:

If I was to attend a meeting and discovered that the co -owners were counting the vote -I would stand up and declare the meeting to be illegal

In some buildings I would much rather see co-owners doing the counting than management. There is nothing illegal about co-owners doing it anyway, though it is illegal for candidates to touch the ballots.

 

[KittenKong]

3 hours ago, Delight said:

The JPM must attend the meeting to ensure that it stays within the law.

It therefore follows that the JPM is in charge of vote counting.

What happens if there is no JPM? I've been in meetings like that.

[Delight]

37 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

What happens if there is no JPM? I've been in meetings like that.

 

If the official JPM does not show-sending an acceptable representative is generally ok.

That has happened in my experience.The representative  is someone who is known to both committee and co -owners.

If the co -owners started to count the votes I would expect him/her to stop that process and organise something different.

There must be somebody who ensures that the meeting is conducted lawfully.

 

[Beggar]

Here at my condo the manager is just a slave of some powerful committee members. Really nothing else. You will never get an answer of the manager that has not been approved by these powerful committee members. Not even on small things. The problem is that co-owners using the condominium for their rental business care a lot that they have enough power to follow their interests. Co-owners that don't use the condominium for their business are not very motivated and organized to fight for their rights. And so they are used and forced to pay for the nice business infrastructure of the business oriented group. But I think you have this situation very often. So nothing really special.

[Delight]

 Most subcribers to this blog complain that the committee in their buildings are lazy and apathetic.

You are complaining about the opposite i.e a hardworking committee-just not doing what you want.

The JPM -by law -reports to the committee i.e the committee controls the JPM. That seems to be the case in your building.

The other co-owners are not complaining.

I assume that you have a list of poor symptoms- as you see it.

You may wish to detail this list.

 

[Beggar]

Yes you are right. The committee is hard working - but for their own (business) interests. Nothing else to add. But in the end it is all about votes - nothing else. I understand this and don't complain about this. The law is the law. Nothing wrong with this - I will give MY best - even without little support from not so motivated co-owners. Many of them sadly don't even realize the reality around them. But perhaps I simply bought a condo at a location with the wrong owners - or even worse. I bought a room without time sharing in a hotel ????

[wpcoe]

At my building, at the January AGM the JPM was not present, nor were any committee members (turns out we didn't have any as they had all resigned, sold, died, or whatever) so a co-owner volunteered to chair the meeting and was voted to do so by a majority of attending co-owners.

 

As an aside, at the meeting the agenda was modified so that the only business conducted was to elect a committee, and to check into replacing the JPM.  Shortly after the meeting, it was discovered that the committees elected at the AGMs for the previous four years were never registered at the Land Office, so basically the building had been without a legal committee for five years. (!)  (I know Kitten Kong will not be surprised in the least.  LOL!)