Amending size of committee

[Delight]

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.

It is the committee that is appointed, not committee members.

Suggest that you re -read the Act.

The law is also specific as to the qualifications of committee members.

Skill, expertise, experience and general usefulness –do not feature on the man profile.

There is also no requirement to be liked or respected.

It is all stated in 37/1 and 37/2 . Very specific .

For certain it would not satisfy Western Values.

[KittenKong]

It is the committee that is appointed, not committee members.

That makes no sense at all to me.

[Delight]

It is the committee that is appointed, not committee members.

That makes no sense at all to me.

It is the committee as a single entity that is appointed

The Act says:

Section 373 The Management committee comprising not less than three and not more than nine members shall be appointed by the resolution at a general meeting.

37/1 37/2 adds detail about the requirements for the members.

[KittenKong]

It is the committee that is appointed, not committee members.

That makes no sense at all to me.

It is the committee as a single entity that is appointed

The Act says:

Section 373 The Management committee comprising not less than three and not more than nine members shall be appointed by the resolution at a general meeting.

37/1 37/2 adds detail about the requirements for the members.

What you wrote still makes no sense at all.

What is the difference between appointing 3-9 committee members and appointing a committee of 3-9 members? I dont see it.

[Delight]

The suggestion was that each applicant for the position of committee member has to be approved by a co owner vote at a general meeting

I am saying that that is not the case. The whole of the volunteers are approved (or not ) in one single vote.

Obviously if the positions are over subscribed then a system will have to be devised to reduce the total applicants to 9.

My reading of the Act -and that of our JPM and presumably the land office is that the law ,in this context, refers separately to the committee and to committee members.

The co owners just vote to approve the committee volunteers en masse to create a committee.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Delight

[KittenKong]

The suggestion was that each applicant for the position of committee member has to be approved by a co owner vote at a general meeting

I am saying that that is not the case. The whole of the volunteers are approved (or not ) in one single vote.

Obviously if the positions are over subscribed then a system will have to be devised to reduce the total applicants to 9.

My reading of the Act -and that of our JPM and presumably the land office is that the law ,in this context, refers separately to the committee and to committee members.[/size]

The co owners just vote to approve the committee volunteers en masse to create a committee.[/size]

Until now I have never heard of a committee being elected here in the way you describe. I can see nothing but disadvantages to co-owners with it in that co-owners dont get to decide which individual persons they wish to have represent them, which I think is vital.

I dont think it is a valid interpretation of the law and, knowing Thailand, I would suspect that it has been cooked up by some devious co-owners/JPM/management company in an attempt to rig the committee in their favour.

It is also illogical in that, as you say, "Obviously if the positions are over subscribed then a system will have to be devised to reduce the total applicants to 9". A system already exists for this: it's called a proper vote and is applied in every condo building I have ever known here.

[LannaGuy]

The suggestion was that each applicant for the position of committee member has to be approved by a co owner vote at a general meeting

I am saying that that is not the case. The whole of the volunteers are approved (or not ) in one single vote.

Obviously if the positions are over subscribed then a system will have to be devised to reduce the total applicants to 9.

My reading of the Act -and that of our JPM and presumably the land office is that the law ,in this context, refers separately to the committee and to committee members.

The co owners just vote to approve the committee volunteers en masse to create a committee.

never heard of it nor seen it as committee members are submitted on a voting form and voted individually giving meeting members the opportunity to select who they want

[huawei]

Generally if there are under 9, They are just all voted in. If there are more than 9 then the count has value.

[LannaGuy]

Generally if there are under 9, They are just all voted in. If there are more than 9 then the count has value.

nope that's not legal dude as everyone had to get 'majority' otherwise if under '9' and riff raff could get in

[LannaGuy]

Generally if there are under 9, They are just all voted in. If there are more than 9 then the count has value.

nope that's not legal dude as everyone had to get 'majority' otherwise if under '9' and riff raff could get in

[Delight]

Generally if there are under 9, They are just all voted in. If there are more than 9 then the count has value.

nope that's not legal dude as everyone had to get 'majority' otherwise if under '9' and riff raff could get in

If it is not legal then the Condo Act will state

The condo act specifies the criteria of those who can join the committee 37/1 and specifies the criteria of those who cannot join the committee 37/2.

There is no riff raff filter based on your subjective view .

Where ,in the Act,does it agree with your stance?

[LannaGuy]

Generally if there are under 9, They are just all voted in. If there are more than 9 then the count has value.

nope that's not legal dude as everyone had to get 'majority' otherwise if under '9' and riff raff could get in

If it is not legal then the Condo Act will state

The condo act specifies the criteria of those who can join the committee 37/1 and specifies the criteria of those who cannot join the committee 37/2.

There is no riff raff filter based on your subjective view .

Where ,in the Act,does it agree with your stance?

it does state it, sir, but maybe you cannot understand it? each member shall be voted by a majority of the meeting? which part of that do you not understand? it is not my 'stance' it is the law but it's not really worth continuing to debate but best of luck with your rather strange 'interpretation'

[Delight]

Generally if there are under 9, They are just all voted in. If there are more than 9 then the count has value.

nope that's not legal dude as everyone had to get 'majority' otherwise if under '9' and riff raff could get in

If it is not legal then the Condo Act will state

The condo act specifies the criteria of those who can join the committee 37/1 and specifies the criteria of those who cannot join the committee 37/2.

There is no riff raff filter based on your subjective view .

Where ,in the Act,does it agree with your stance?

each member shall be voted by a majority of the meeting? which part of that do you not understand?

You are making it up as you go along!

This phrase 'each member shall be voted by a majority of the meeting'

Which Section of the Act?

Which Paragraph of the Act?

When I say Act . I am referring to the Condo Act of Thailand.

Maybe you are referring to some other countries Act

Edited December 9, 2015 by Delight

[LannaGuy]

You are making it up as you go along!

This phrase 'each member shall be voted by a majority of the meeting'

Which Section of the Act?

Which Paragraph of the Act?

When I say Act . I am referring to the Condo Act of Thailand.

Maybe you are referring to some other countries Act

Thank you sir but you are unable to grasp it so no point continuing to debate with your goodself. The Condo Act is clear have a great day:

Section 44. A resolution of the general meeting requires a majority vote of the co-owners present at the meeting, unless this Act provides otherwise.

Section 45. In voting, each co-owner has a vote equal to the ratio that such co-owner has title to in the common property.

Edited December 9, 2015 by LannaGuy

[KittenKong]

The act is very imprecise (what else is new?) but in all buildings I have known here the individual candidates are voted for individually, and this seems correct to me. Look at it this way: if it were permissible to have blanket votes then an entire agenda could be passed with just one vote of agreement, and that would clearly be wrong and against the wording and spirit of the act.

I would not be satisfied with a building management that allowed an entire committee slate to be voted in with one vote, though I can understand why some devious managements would be keen to do this.

In the interests of democracy and clarity the opportunity must be given to all co-owners to reject someone they dont like by not voting for him/her, even if the general lack of interest in being on committees means that there are rarely as many as 9 candidates anyway.

[smutcakes]

Committee members are voted individually. Its the very essence of having a Committee that those on it are voted by the ownership. It is the reason why Committee members are not allowed to give a proxy to someone to attend Committee meetings on their behalf, because they were elected individually themselves, not anyone else they might give a proxy to.

There is a Q&A section on the lands department website where many of these questions are submitted and answered. (In Thai) However in true LD style their answers are not always clear, and often refer back to article X or Y which the lack of clarity of the article is the very reason for asking the question.

[Delight]

It is the reason why Committee members are not allowed to give a proxy to someone to attend Committee meetings on their behalf, because they were elected individually themselves, not anyone else they might give a proxy to.

Smutcakes -you are correct that committee members cannot carry proxies I suspect that that is what you intended to say.(Committee members can not carry proxies -but can issue them)

However committee member candidates can carry proxies -up to 3. At this stage they are not committee members

There in lies the problem.

If you are voting for individuals then it is almost an election.

Elections in this part of the world are notoriously corrupt.

For that reason the Act only refers to voting for the committee en masse.

Of course if the voters are sufficiently disappointed with certain committee candidates -then the whole committee can be rejected.

Suspect that those who drew up the Act were aware of elections and the corruption that they can generate

Edited December 10, 2015 by Delight

[huawei]

Stupid question ( maybe) but how do you vote for a committee on mass? Especially if more than 9 are nominated.

[smutcakes]

Delight, you have completely lost me on this topic, not really even sure what you are implying.

Condominium's can and do pass resolutions saying there Committee will only be 5 or 7 persons. Many Condo's do this, but it is necessary to get over 50% or 33% of the entire ownership as you are altering the regulations of the Condominium.

For this example lets say a Committee of 7 was approved and the building regulations altered and registered to reflect this.

You then have an AGM with Election of the Committee on the Agenda and 13 applicants raise their hand in the meeting for the position.

Voting is taken and then the top 7 of those would be placed in the Committee provided they had the vote of the majority in the room. If the building had not specified a 7 person Committee then the top 9 would be in the Committee provided each individual had over 50% of the voting in the room.

I really have no idea what you are getting at on the whole voting en masse thing. Each individual is put forward and elected or not elected by the voters in the room.

Admittedly land departments do often vary on whether candidates need to get over 50% of the vote or not, especially if there are vacancies on the Committee and a vote on fixing the number of members has not been taken.

[Delight]

Stupid question ( maybe) but how do you vote for a committee on mass? Especially if more than 9 are nominated.

A committee can never be more than 9 members. So any thing more would not constitute a committee.

A system to reduce the number of candidates to 9 has to be devised.

It is not detailed in the act.

[Delight]

Delight, you have completely lost me on this topic, not really even sure what you are implying.

Condominium's can and do pass resolutions saying there Committee will only be 5 or 7 persons. Many Condo's do this, but it is necessary to get over 50% or 33% of the entire ownership as you are altering the regulations of the Condominium.

For this example lets say a Committee of 7 was approved and the building regulations altered and registered to reflect this.

You then have an AGM with Election of the Committee on the Agenda and 13 applicants raise their hand in the meeting for the position.

Voting is taken and then the top 7 of those would be placed in the Committee provided they had the vote of the majority in the room. If the building had not specified a 7 person Committee then the top 9 would be in the Committee provided each individual had over 50% of the voting in the room.

I really have no idea what you are getting at on the whole voting en masse thing. Each individual is put forward and elected or not elected by the voters in the room.

Admittedly land departments do often vary on whether candidates need to get over 50% of the vote or not, especially if there are vacancies on the Committee and a vote on fixing the number of members has not been taken.

Separate to this discussion the process of reducing the max.number of committee members to less than 9 is in my view acting outside the law.

The laws specifies 'up to max. 9 members '-not 'up to a number not greater than 9'.

Using this approach you could logically have a max size committee of 3. Crazy !

If there 13 applicants for the 9 places -then a system ,not specified in the Act would have to be designed. to generate the 9 max.. You may call this the preliminaries. You could use a system of voting i.e an election -or a system akin to musical chairs(that s with music and chairs). Or any system you like

The law does not specify that any candidate should be fit for purpose .They only have to satisfy 37/1 and 37/2

If they did(have to be fit for purpose) then an election system that you prefer would be the only system

Even with the potential committee members ,now named , they still have to be voted in -as a committee i.e en masse.

Of course if the number of candidates is less than 10 then the resolution is to appoint the lot. The voters can say no . Not to an individual -but to the whole committee.

So to summarize

If the applicants are greater than 9 then preliminaries are required to reduce the number to 9

If less than 10 then the whole bunch ,as a bunch are accepted -or not.

What is difficult about that given that no skill is required of committee members

Edited December 10, 2015 by Delight

[huawei]

Stupid question ( maybe) but how do you vote for a committee on mass? Especially if more than 9 are nominated.

A committee can never be more than 9 members. So any thing more would not constitute a committee.

A system to reduce the number of candidates to 9 has to be devised.

It is not detailed in the act.

In our condo. 10 people stood as is their right. Who has the right to exclude anyone from wanting to be on a committee. The votes were counted..top 9 elected.

[smutcakes]

Well every AGM/EGM i have been to, and there are many, candidates have been presented to the meeting. I and everyone else will then write on their voting sheet which candidates i want to represent me on the Committee. If there were 8 candidates, i might only nominate 5 names, or i might nominate all 8, or maybe only 1.

The voting papers are then collected, the votes counted, and those persons with votes in excess of the 50% of those in the meeting will be elected to the Committee, where it be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,8.

Of course i can vote for individuals, not a Committee on Masse. I simply write the names of the candidates i prefer, and not vote for those i don't want. If other persons also do not vote for certain candidates, that candidate would not have above 50% of the meeting and would not be elected to the Committee, whether their is available space or not.

[huawei]

I am with smutcakes all the way. Having lived in 4 different condos all committees were elected the same way. The form to be on the committee has to be sent out 7/14 days prior and submitted with resume. At the agm they identify themselves to everyone and give a small speech.All are put forward..requests for individuals to become a committee members are clearly advertised in the elevators and at the front desk...the biggest issue has been the complete indifference...I am sorry but I don't get how you can get it down to 9 when some co- owners don't even know each other..seems open to manipulate action..

A condo can reduce the committee size if that size is stipulated in the rules and regulations of the condo, or only a certain number are voted on. Why is 3 crazy..I have been in committee meeting where it's hard to get a quorum..some away on business, conflicting schedules etc..

[LannaGuy]

Stupid question ( maybe) but how do you vote for a committee on mass? Especially if more than 9 are nominated.

A committee can never be more than 9 members. So any thing more would not constitute a committee.

A system to reduce the number of candidates to 9 has to be devised.

It is not detailed in the act.

In our condo. 10 people stood as is their right. Who has the right to exclude anyone from wanting to be on a committee. The votes were counted..top 9 elected.

as long as each of the 9 received 50% of the meetings vote is the law

[Delight]

I am with smutcakes all the way. Having lived in 4 different condos all committees were elected the same way. The form to be on the committee has to be sent out 7/14 days prior and submitted with resume. At the agm they identify themselves to everyone and give a small speech.All are put forward..requests for individuals to become a committee members are clearly advertised in the elevators and at the front desk...the biggest issue has been the complete indifference...I am sorry but I don't get how you can get it down to 9 when some co- owners don't even know each other..seems open to manipulate action..

A condo can reduce the committee size if that size is stipulated in the rules and regulations of the condo, or only a certain number are voted on. Why is 3 crazy..I have been in committee meeting where it's hard to get a quorum..some away on business, conflicting schedules etc..

That which you are describing is in effect the preliminaries.

That is to say an election -which is different to a resolution.

If the candidate number is less that 10 -would you still have an election or just a resolution as specified in the Act ?

(Reference committee size. 3 is a good number if the 3 are in a position to attend and no body resigns

But to commit the condo to never having a committee larger than 3 is crazy.

I have never been convinced about the merit of reducing the size of a committee. I fail to see the benefits. I also see it as illegal. That said I am going off topic)

Edited December 10, 2015 by Delight

[KittenKong]

The laws specifies 'up to max. 9 members '-not 'up to a number not greater than 9'.

Using this approach you could logically have a max size committee of 3. Crazy !

You dont seem to be paying attention. The first sentence of the OP's original message in this topic explains that this is precisely the situation in his building.

One of the questions in this thread is whether or not that decision to limit the number to 3 was legal and/or necessary.

Besides which the law says between 3 and 9, without giving any other indication. So any number between 3 and 9 is permissible.

If there 13 applicants for the 9 places -then a system ,not specified in the Act would have to be designed. to generate the 9 max.. You may call this the preliminaries. You could use a system of voting i.e an election -or a system akin to musical chairs(that s with music and chairs). Or any system you like

Nothing needs designing as the system already exists: votes are counted and those with the highest counts are elected, in order, up to the maximum. Why reinvent the wheel?

The law does not specify that any candidate should be fit for purpose .They only have to satisfy 37/1 and 37/2

If they did(have to be fit for purpose) then an election system that you prefer would be the only system

Even with the potential committee members ,now named , they still have to be voted in -as a committee i.e en masse.

No, that isnt the case at all.

Of course if the number of candidates is less than 10 then the resolution is to appoint the lot. The voters can say no . Not to an individual -but to the whole committee.

So to summarize

If the applicants are greater than 9 then preliminaries are required to reduce the number to 9

If less than 10 then the whole bunch ,as a bunch are accepted -or not.

What is difficult about that given that no skill is required of committee members

What is difficult about it is that you have invented it out of thin air.

[KittenKong]

If the candidate number is less that 10 -would you still have an election or just a resolution as specified in the Act ?

You seem to think there is some difference. There isnt. This is just an example of poor use of English in the translation. The resolution of the meeting is the result. Meeting results can only be arrived at by a vote. The vote must be at least 50% in favour, except where other specific provisions apply. This is clear from the act.

(Reference committee size. 3 is a good number if the 3 are in a position to attend and no body resigns

Three might be a good number if they all agree and if the management and JPM are trustworthy and competent. Three committee members is not even enough to monitor management if they are incompetent.

But to commit the condo to never having a committee larger than 3 is crazy.

Any such decision would only apply for the duration of the mandate in question (ie 2 years). At the next election the decision to restrict the number would need to be made again, if desired, and also the decision of which number to restrict it to.

To make a permanent change to the building rules (which is perfectly legal) would require a 75% vote in favour which, in most buildings, is unlikely to happen.

I have never been convinced about the merit of reducing the size of a committee. I fail to see the benefits. I also see it as illegal.

I also dont see the merit or the need. But it is not illegal. A GM can vote to only elect people named Fred if it wants to, as long as that decision gets a majority vote according to the rules.

[smutcakes]

But to commit the condo to never having a committee larger than 3 is crazy.

Any such decision would only apply for the duration of the mandate in question (ie 2 years). At the next election the decision to restrict the number would need to be made again, if desired, and also the decision of which number to restrict it to.

To make a permanent change to the building rules (which is perfectly legal) would require a 75% vote in favour which, in most buildings, is unlikely to happen.

I have never been convinced about the merit of reducing the size of a committee. I fail to see the benefits. I also see it as illegal.

I also dont see the merit or the need. But it is not illegal. A GM can vote to only elect people named Fred if it wants to, as long as that decision gets a majority vote according to the rules.

I agree with most of your points, except that a 75% vote to amend the building regulations would be needed. The highest requirement in the Act is 50% of total Co-owners (not just those in the meeting).

Actually i believe to dissolve the Condominium you need a unanimous decision.

[KittenKong]

A GM can vote to only elect people named Fred if it wants to, as long as that decision gets a majority vote according to the rules.

I agree with most of your points, except that a 75% vote to amend the building regulations would be needed. The highest requirement in the Act is 50% of total Co-owners (not just those in the meeting).

Actually i believe to dissolve the Condominium you need a unanimous decision.

Yes, that was the reason I wrote "majority ... according to the rules".

In my building a vote to change the rules permanently requires a 75% majority of the total ownership (not just those present).

However a one-off vote at a second AGM just requires a simple majority of those present, regardless of how many they are. Voting to apply a specific number between 3 and 9 to the committee as a one-off does not alter building rules, which merely state "between 3 and 9". Such a vote just defines that rule.

My objection to applying a fixed number is that it is unnecessary, anti-democratic and probably just some devious trick by interested parties (management/JPM) to manipulate the committee structure to their benefit.

If I was a management company I would much rather have a committee of 3 to deal with than a committee of 9, as the committee of 3 would probably be much easier to manipulate. Especially so if one or two of them were my shills.

Never underestimate the true extent of deceit and underhandedness in some Thai condo buildings. Sometimes it seems that absolutely everyone is on the make.