Amending size of committee

[Eneukman]

At the recent AGM for the condo where I live, co-owners were asked to decide whether they wanted a committee comprised of 3, 5, 7 or 9 co-owners. To my extreme surprise, they voted for a committee of 3! This means that should a vacancy arise for whatever reason, a general meeting will have to be called to bring the number of committee members back up to the minimum number required by law.

Can the committee call a general meeting at some point to increase the size of the committee to 5 or 7? If this is possible, the best time would be at the next AGM to avoid the cost of calling 2 meetings (the chances of getting a quorum at the first meeting are close to zero). Also, should it be possible to increase the size of the committee would the new members term of office end at the same time as those elected initially?

Thanks,

Alan

[Delight]

A committee has a 2 year life. It ends after this 2 year period-irrespective of the additions and resignations that may occur during this 2 year period

Min. size 3 members . Max .size 9 members.

If the committee actual falls to below three members – then a general meeting (AGM or more likely EGM )will need to be arranged to fix the problem.

Calling a general meeting to increase the committee size when it is legal in terms of its numbers is ,I guess ,legally possible.

The co –owners may be curious as to know why-given that the issue can be dealt with on an annual basis.

Committee of 3 can be a good committee. Better ,I think ,than a committee of 9. Just my view.

Committee members are appointed at a general meeting

The committee detail must be registered at the land office.

[KittenKong]

Committee of 3 can be a good committee. Better ,I think ,than a committee of 9. Just my view.

It depends so much on who the three or the nine are.

Possibly the odds favour a small committee being more successful, assuming that they get on with each other and are prepared to do the work. If they didn't get on or were idle it could be a disaster. Having nine members does allow for six to drop out for whatever reason before a GM becomes obligatory, and it does allow the workload to be spread about.

When God created the idea of unpaid committees running condo buildings for two-year terms he must have been on LSD.

[KittenKong]

A committee has a 2 year life. It ends after this 2 year period-irrespective of the additions and resignations that may occur during this 2 year period

Min. size 3 members . Max .size 9 members.

If the committee actual falls to below three members – then a general meeting (AGM or more likely EGM )will need to be arranged to fix the problem

Calling a general meeting to increase the committee size when it is legal in terms of its numbers is ,I guess ,legally possible.

My understanding is that for this to happen enough members would have to resign to reduce the number of serving members to below three, unless 20% of the co-owners wanted to force the issue by calling a meeting themselves.

In practice one imagines that all serving members would resign, thus forcing a complete new election.

[Eneukman]

I live in a large building so having a lager committee of, say, 7 is much more sensible particularly when committee members are likely to be away a few times a year. One individual, who was actually elected at the AGM stood down before the committee was registered after 20% of co-owners signed a petition to remove him thus saving the expense of an EGM to have him deselected. The candidate with the next highest number of votes took his place.

The potential problem I see is that if just one of the committee members is unable to continue for whatever reason, an EGM will have to be called whilst a larger committee would be able to continue with one less member.

Alan

[Delight]

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply. Maybe we are incorrect!

A meeting of co -owners with 20% of the vote cannot de -select a committee member. I assume in your particular case it was more about co -owner pressure.

Committee selection can only occur at a general meeting.Objections to a particular candidate can be voiced there.

The law says maximum 9 members. There is no provision for reducing that number. If it were legal then 50% of the co -owners would have to agree-agree to change the Rules and Regs.

Even then I suspect that such a change would be illegal.

I think that the Min. & Max committee size is cast in legal stone.

Others may see it differently.

[KittenKong]

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply. Maybe we are incorrect!

A meeting of co -owners with 20% of the vote cannot de -select a committee member. I assume in your particular case it was more about co -owner pressure.

Committee selection can only occur at a general meeting.Objections to a particular candidate can be voiced there.

The law says maximum 9 members. There is no provision for reducing that number. If it were legal then 50% of the co -owners would have to agree-agree to change the Rules and Regs.

Even then I suspect that such a change would be illegal.

I think that the Min. & Max committee size is cast in legal stone.

Others may see it differently.

As far as I know the minimum and maximum numbers are indeed cast in legal stone: they are 3 and 9.

But each condo can vote for the number of members they wish to have between those two limits. It sounds like your condo voted for 9 at some point, which obviously implies that if 9 people or fewer stand for election then all are elected by default without a vote, and presumably the question never again appeared on the agenda. But it could appear on any AGM/EGM agenda if anyone cared to propose it.

20% of the voters by ratio can oblige the JPM to call an EGM and presumably in this particular case they would have done so in order to try to force the unwanted committee member to stand down by a vote of no confidence, and then to hold another vote for his/her replacement. In practice I would expect all members to stand down if it came to that, but that would be up to them.

Once elected any committee member can hang on to the end of his term even if he is subject to a vote of no-confidence (unless he/she sells his unit or dies or becomes bankrupt) but it seems unlikely that anyone would care to do so. Especially as anyone doing this job is unpaid and (probably) unloved!

[Delight]

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply.

As far as I know the minimum and maximum numbers are indeed cast in legal stone: they are 3 and 9.

But each condo can vote for the number of members they wish to have between those two limits.

Who agreed that a new Max can be created at a local level?

It’s not detailed in the Act!

[KittenKong]

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply.

As far as I know the minimum and maximum numbers are indeed cast in legal stone: they are 3 and 9.

But each condo can vote for the number of members they wish to have between those two limits.

Who agreed that a new Max can be created at a local level?

Its not detailed in the Act!

How else could it be determined? If there are actual minima and maxima then there needs to be some way of choosing which figure is actually to apply, and I see no other way than a vote.

Or are you suggesting that the law provides for anyone who stands to be elected without a vote, as long as they are not less than 3 and not more than 9? In that case there would not be much voting done in most buildings that I know of.

Perhaps a(nother) question for the "ask the lawyer" section?

[Eneukman]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply. Maybe we are incorrect!

A meeting of co -owners with 20% of the vote cannot de -select a committee member. I assume in your particular case it was more about co -owner pressure.

Committee selection can only occur at a general meeting.Objections to a particular candidate can be voiced there.

The law says maximum 9 members. There is no provision for reducing that number. If it were legal then 50% of the co -owners would have to agree-agree to change the Rules and Regs.

Even then I suspect that such a change would be illegal.

I think that the Min. & Max committee size is cast in legal stone.

Others may see it differently.

I recall that at one committee election, there were only 6 candidates but an election was still held with only 5 being elected as the candidate who got the fewest votes not being elected as he got fewer than 50% of the votes at the meeting. Reading our regulations that would appear to have been correct. Still, at the following election, no-one got more than 50% of the votes so, as co-owners had voted for a committee of 5, the 5 who got the most votes were elected. It was alleged that some owners who were going to be unable to attend the meeting were, instead of granting a proxy were given voting slips in advance and told to give them to a committee member to hand in on their behalf at the actual meeting.

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply. Maybe we are incorrect!

A meeting of co -owners with 20% of the vote cannot de -select a committee member. I assume in your particular case it was more about co -owner pressure.

Committee selection can only occur at a general meeting.Objections to a particular candidate can be voiced there.

The law says maximum 9 members. There is no provision for reducing that number. If it were legal then 50% of the co -owners would have to agree-agree to change the Rules and Regs.

Even then I suspect that such a change would be illegal.

I think that the Min. & Max committee size is cast in legal stone.

Others may see it differently.

As far as I know the minimum and maximum numbers are indeed cast in legal stone: they are 3 and 9.

But each condo can vote for the number of members they wish to have between those two limits. It sounds like your condo voted for 9 at some point, which obviously implies that if 9 people or fewer stand for election then all are elected by default without a vote, and presumably the question never again appeared on the agenda. But it could appear on any AGM/EGM agenda if anyone cared to propose it.

20% of the voters by ratio can oblige the JPM to call an EGM and presumably in this particular case they would have done so in order to try to force the unwanted committee member to stand down by a vote of no confidence, and then to hold another vote for his/her replacement. In practice I would expect all members to stand down if it came to that, but that would be up to them.

Once elected any committee member can hang on to the end of his term even if he is subject to a vote of no-confidence (unless he/she sells his unit or dies or becomes bankrupt) but it seems unlikely that anyone would care to do so. Especially as anyone doing this job is unpaid and (probably) unloved!

Yes, around 20% of co-owners signed a petition to remove a committee member so had he not chosen to stand down before the committee was registered, an EGM would have had to be called by the JPM. We had just over 25% at the AGM (2nd attempt) so the JPM was appointed by co-owners though I have yet to see the actual results of the voting. Had an EGM been called, the committee member in question would as I understand the position been deselected and then been unable to seek election to that condo's committee again in the future. I'm uncertain whether or not this applies to any condo committee.

I'll post a question in "Ask the Lawyer" in a day or two.

Alan

[Delight]

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply.

As far as I know the minimum and maximum numbers are indeed cast in legal stone: they are 3 and 9.

But each condo can vote for the number of members they wish to have between those two limits.

Who agreed that a new Max can be created at a local level?

Its not detailed in the Act!

How else could it be determined? If there are actual minima and maxima then there needs to be some way of choosing which figure is actually to apply, and I see no other way than a vote.

Or are you suggesting that the law provides for anyone who stands to be elected without a vote, as long as they are not less than 3 and not more than 9? In that case there would not be much voting done in most buildings that I know of.

Perhaps a(nother) question for the "ask the lawyer" section?

The management structure of a condo is almost identical to a business corporation.

The Act only refers to a ‘Board’

Members of a’ Board ‘ are appointed –not selected.

Final approval is sought from co -owners/shareholders (in the corporate world).

One difference being that the Act specifies Min and Max .

For that reason then a vote is required to satisfy that specified Max.

Reference your ‘Ask the Lawyer ‘suggestion.

Some months ago I requested clarification on that Blog.

My Q related to the appointed of a co –owner who had served the maximum 2 consecutive terms- i.e would that appointment only be valid inorder to satisfy the Min 3. Or could would it be valid up to the Max. 9

In fact I asked the Q twice (my 2^nd attempt was not printed)

I am still awaiting a reply.

[KittenKong]

How else could it be determined? If there are actual minima and maxima then there needs to be some way of choosing which figure is actually to apply, and I see no other way than a vote.

Or are you suggesting that the law provides for anyone who stands to be elected without a vote, as long as they are not less than 3 and not more than 9? In that case there would not be much voting done in most buildings that I know of.

The management structure of a condo is almost identical to a business corporation.

The Act only refers to a Board

Members of a Board are appointed not selected.

Final approval is sought from co -owners/shareholders (in the corporate world).

I dont quite see the relevance to a building committee for which anyone can stand and be elected by vote. No one is appointed.

One difference being that the Act specifies Min and Max .

For that reason then a vote is required to satisfy that specified Max.

Yes, but how are you suggesting that the maximum is specified if it isn't by vote?

Either the co-owners vote to set the number of people they want to have on the committee, or the field is left wide open for any number up to nine. In either case, if fewer than the applicable maximum stand then they all get elected by default anyway so no need for a vote.

[KittenKong]

Had an EGM been called, the committee member in question would as I understand the position been deselected and then been unable to seek election to that condo's committee again in the future. I'm uncertain whether or not this applies to any condo committee.

From what I see in the 2008 Act a committee member can be removed if 50% by ratio of co-owners present at a GM vote for it. What happens if less than 50% of those present vote for it, I dont know (and I would rather never need to find out).

Assuming that 50% did vote for it then it seems like the member would be permanently barred, as he would if he was bankrupt or dead or insane etc. But if he just stands down then he can stand again for a future committee.

[Delight]

How else could it be determined? If there are actual minima and maxima then there needs to be some way of choosing which figure is actually to apply, and I see no other way than a vote.

Or are you suggesting that the law provides for anyone who stands to be elected without a vote, as long as they are not less than 3 and not more than 9? In that case there would not be much voting done in most buildings that I know of.

The management structure of a condo is almost identical to a business corporation.

The Act only refers to a Board

Members of a Board are appointed not selected.

Final approval is sought from co -owners/shareholders (in the corporate world).

I dont quite see the relevance to a building committee for which anyone can stand and be elected by vote. No one is appointed.

One difference being that the Act specifies Min and Max .

For that reason then a vote is required to satisfy that specified Max.

Yes, but how are you suggesting that the maximum is specified if it isn't by vote?

Either the co-owners vote to set the number of people they want to have on the committee, or the field is left wide open for any number up to nine. In either case, if fewer than the applicable maximum stand then they all get elected by default anyway so no need for a vote.

If up to 9 apply -the 9 are appointed. If more than 9 -then a vote.

The final 9 have to be ratified by co -owner approval. Co -owners can object to the potential appointments.

[KittenKong]

If up to 9 apply -the 9 are appointed. If more than 9 -then a vote.

The final 9 have to be ratified by co -owner approval. Co -owners can object to the potential appointments.

Approval? What approval can there be apart from a vote?

And how can one object except by voting against?

I just don't see how the arrangement you describe can work.

[Delight]

If up to 9 apply -the 9 are appointed. If more than 9 -then a vote.

The final 9 have to be ratified by co -owner approval. Co -owners can object to the potential appointments.

Approval? What approval can there be apart from a vote?

And how can one object except by voting against?

I just don't see how the arrangement you describe can work.

There is a vote for approval /dis approval for all the names selected.

But to get back to the main point there is no possibility of rejecting candidates to satisfy a the desire to have a committee size less than 9-assuming just 9 apply. That is what is happening in the condo where the OP lives.

[KittenKong]

But to get back to the main point there is no possibility of rejecting candidates to satisfy a the desire to have a committee size less than 9-assuming just 9 apply. That is what is happening in the condo where the OP lives.

That's not the way I read what the OP wrote.

[Delight]

But to get back to the main point there is no possibility of rejecting candidates to satisfy a the desire to have a committee size less than 9-assuming just 9 apply. That is what is happening in the condo where the OP lives.

That's not the way I read what the OP wrote.

In the strict sense you are correct.

However implicit in the OP is the idea that candidates can be barred –even if space is available.

The Act details eligibility of candidates (I detail below)

There is no requirement that a candidate has to have specific skills or that they are fit for purpose.

Section 37/1 The following persons shall be eligible for an appointment as a member:

(1) A joint owner or his spouse,

(2) A statutory heir, custodian or curator in the case where a joint owner is a minor, incompetent or quasi-incompetent person, as the case may be.

(3) An agent of the condominium corporate in the case where the condominium corporate is a joint owner.

In the case where any unit’s ownership holder consist of several joint owners, only one person shall be eligible for an appointment as a member.

Also you state (in an earlier post)

From what I see in the 2008 Act a committee member can be removed if 50% by ratio of co-owners present at a GM vote for it.

The last paragraph of Section 32 of the Act states in relation to modifying the Regs.

.

In the case where the competent official is of the view that such alteration or addition is not contradictory to the law, the competent official shall then register such alteration or addition thereof.

In other words -do what you like –just do not alter the Law..

The 50% vote that you refer to is not featured –as far as I can see.

Maybe you could quote your source.

Clearly we see things differently

Referring to your earlier ‘Ask The Lawyer ‘idea.

I have already posed one Committee related Q -and had it ignored

Can I suggest that you seek guidance with ‘Ask The Lawyer.

[KittenKong]

The 50% vote that you refer to is not featured –as far as I can see.

Maybe you could quote your source.

Yes, I'm basing that on section 44 which basically says that, in the absence of any more specific rule, 50% by ratio have to agree to something to pass it.

Clearly we see things differently

Referring to your earlier ‘Ask The Lawyer ‘idea.

I have already posed one Committee related Q -and had it ignored

Can I suggest that you seek guidance with ‘Ask The Lawyer.

The question is not something that I need to know about. The OP might want to ask about it.

Personally the less I have to do with lawyers the happier I am.

[Eneukman]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Had an EGM been called, the committee member in question would as I understand the position been deselected and then been unable to seek election to that condo's committee again in the future. I'm uncertain whether or not this applies to any condo committee.

From what I see in the 2008 Act a committee member can be removed if 50% by ratio of co-owners present at a GM vote for it. What happens if less than 50% of those present vote for it, I dont know (and I would rather never need to find out).

Assuming that 50% did vote for it then it seems like the member would be permanently barred, as he would if he was bankrupt or dead or insane etc. But if he just stands down then he can stand again for a future committee.

If there was a resolution at a general meeting to remove someone from the committee and fewer than 50% of co-owners present voted in favour of removal, then that person would remain a committee member until the committee's term of office was up.

I've now posted my original question in "Ask the Lawyer" so hopefully I'll get a reply in a day or two. I also posted the same question on another forum. Someone who works for a local law firm (he's a qualified solicitor from the UK and has studied Thai law) replied to the effect that additional committee members could be appointed at the next AGM and that those elected would serve a complete 2 year term. If this were to be implemented, this would ensure some continuity in future committees.

The legality of restricting the size of the committee to a lower number than 9 is another matter and is one I'll maybe raise towards the end of the year.

Alan

[Eneukman]

I've now had a reply to the query I posted in "Ask the Lawyer" it is:

"Additional members to the committee can be elected during the term of office of the committee. However the newly elected member will only hold office for the remainder of the 2 years term of office."

It agrees with what I was told elsewhere apart from the term of office terminating at the same time as the originally elected members, which is what I thought would be the case.

Alan

[KittenKong]

"Additional members to the committee can be elected during the term of office of the committee. However the newly elected member will only hold office for the remainder of the 2 years term of office."

That was my understanding also.

[Delight]

Reference your post( The act of an AGM approving a maximum committee size with less than 9 members) plus a statement by KittenKong (ref.the removal of committee members)

To my mind neither of these 2 issues have been addressed.

Neither of these 2 issues are covered directly in the Act.

The 'Ask the Lawyer 'response was to quote verbatim from the Act.

Accurate statement -just not relevant.

[Eneukman]

Reference your post( The act of an AGM approving a maximum committee size with less than 9 members) plus a statement by KittenKong (ref.the removal of committee members)

To my mind neither of these 2 issues have been addressed.

Neither of these 2 issues are covered directly in the Act.

The 'Ask the Lawyer 'response was to quote verbatim from the Act.

Accurate statement -just not relevant.

This is a separate matter from the question I raised initially though it is one to which I would like a definitive answer. I'll hold off until nearer the time for the next AGM.

Alan

[LannaGuy]

I see that committee selection processes vary.

For example in the condo where I live -voting only applies when more than 9 candidates apply. Maybe we are incorrect!

A meeting of co -owners with 20% of the vote cannot de -select a committee member. I assume in your particular case it was more about co -owner pressure.

Committee selection can only occur at a general meeting.Objections to a particular candidate can be voiced there.

The law says maximum 9 members. There is no provision for reducing that number. If it were legal then 50% of the co -owners would have to agree-agree to change the Rules and Regs.

Even then I suspect that such a change would be illegal.

I think that the Min. & Max committee size is cast in legal stone.

Others may see it differently.

yes you are totally incorrect EACH committee member must achieve 50% of the owners votes. What you are doing is illegal I'm sorry to say. So eveb if there are places and 40% of owners go to the meeting (inc. proxies) and the owners get's 19% they cannot be elected.

[KittenKong]

The Condo Act is incredibly vague and imprecise, as one might expect, but it does say this:

Section 44 The resolution of the general meeting shall be by the majority of votes of joint-owners attending the meeting unless this Act will have provided otherwise.

Committee members can only be appointed by resolution of the co-owners at a general meeting, so I would say that this means there does have to be a vote for each committee member and only those receiving more than 50% of the vote are elected. The minimum/maximum number of 3/9 is written in stone, but no prevision is made about fixing an exact number between 3 and 9. Co-owners could vote to fix a number if they want to but there is no requirement to do so.

So I think that Delight's building is not respecting the act in this matter. (Of course it wont be the only building in Thailand that doesnt respect the law!)

[Delight]

I shall try again

[Delight]

yes you are totally incorrect EACH committee member must achieve 50% of the owners votes. What you are doing is illegal I'm sorry to say. So eveb if there are places and 40% of owners go to the meeting (inc. proxies) and the owners get's 19% they cannot be elected.

So I think that Delight's building is not respecting the act in this matter. (Of course it wont be the only building in Thailand that doesnt respect the law!)

The condo act is very specific reference who can be a committee member 37/1 and

who cannot be a committee member 37/2

It is the JPM who vets the applicants and a simple majority confirmation of the meeting vote to approve.

The general co –owners are not expected to know the law so are not in a position to vet applicants.

Given this on what basis can an individual applicant be denied the right to serve on the committee-given that the JPM gives the all clear?

If committee applicant somehow moves from 37/1 to 37/2 then that person will have to be removed as a committee member-or rather refused admission on any future committee.

The JPM has the legal authority to do this.

So the dreamed up processes by LannaGuy and endorsed by KittenKong –are just that –Dreamed Up.

With respect to the OP’s question -what happened at the general meeting with respect to

An official committee max less than 9

[LannaGuy]

yes you are totally incorrect EACH committee member must achieve 50% of the owners votes. What you are doing is illegal I'm sorry to say. So eveb if there are places and 40% of owners go to the meeting (inc. proxies) and the owners get's 19% they cannot be elected.

So I think that Delight's building is not respecting the act in this matter. (Of course it wont be the only building in Thailand that doesnt respect the law!)

The condo act is very specific reference who can be a committee member 37/1 and

who cannot be a committee member 37/2

It is the JPM who vets the applicants and a simple majority confirmation of the meeting vote to approve.

The general co –owners are not expected to know the law so are not in a position to vet applicants.

Given this on what basis can an individual applicant be denied the right to serve on the committee-given that the JPM gives the all clear?

If committee applicant somehow moves from 37/1 to 37/2 then that person will have to be removed as a committee member-or rather refused admission on any future committee.

The JPM has the legal authority to do this.

So the dreamed up processes by LannaGuy and endorsed by KittenKong –are just that –Dreamed Up.

With respect to the OP’s question -what happened at the general meeting with respect to

An official committee max less than 9

sorry what 'dreamed up processes'? each committee member requires the majority of voters at an agm/egm to approve then correct?

[KittenKong]

The condo act is very specific reference who can be a committee member 37/1 and

who cannot be a committee member 37/2

It is the JPM who vets the applicants and a simple majority confirmation of the meeting vote to approve.

The general co –owners are not expected to know the law so are not in a position to vet applicants.

Given this on what basis can an individual applicant be denied the right to serve on the committee-given that the JPM gives the all clear?

There is no "right" to be on a committee. People are elected or not elected, that's all. There is a right to stand for election that applies to all co-owners, unless they happen to fall into one of the restricted categories.

Regardless of whether the JPM agrees that candidates are suitable, the condo act states that they still need to be voted for. So in this respect your building is not obeying the law.

When the topic first arose I was also thinking that if the number of candidates is less than 9 then no vote is needed at all, but I see that this is wrong and that a majority vote is always needed in order for anyone to be on the committee. Those who dont get that vote cannot serve.

Any other solution could result in people who are universally disliked being on the committee simply because 9 people in total or less stood, and that cant be right.