Can removing committee member be bought up under AoB?

[LannaGuy]

if there is an agm coming, or egm, can member raise under AoB a vote of no confidence in a committee member? i.e. it's not on the agenda because the chairman wont allow it

if it is possible and 50% of meeting vote against her is that legal and valid?

[KittenKong]

Of course. Also the committee could just select themselves a new chairman by majority vote in a committee meeting beforehand, and that new chairman could include the item.

All committee members and JPMs are automatically up for renewal every two years anyway.

(Dont assume that your chairman/committee/management company wont try and rig the voting. I've never seen so many cheats, liars and thieves as in condo building management here.)

[LannaGuy]

Of course. Also the committee could just select themselves a new chairman by majority vote in a committee meeting beforehand, and that new chairman could include the item.

All committee members and JPMs are automatically up for renewal every two years anyway.

(Dont assume that your chairman/committee/management company wont try and rig the voting. I've never seen so many cheats, liars and thieves as in condo building management here.)

but in our circumstance the item will not go on the agenda so you are saying it's ok for someone to stand up and call for a vote concerning a single member and maybe whole committee under AoB? if 50% owners approve that's it? Land office accepts that?

are you sure? I thought there were only certain circumstance where a committee member could be 'sacked' like 'corruption' or something like that? we just want one committee member off because we don't agree with what she is doing

[KittenKong]

Yes, anyone can stand up and ask for a discussion and a vote. That's what the meeting is for. I doubt that the Land Office will be in the slightest bit interested, unless there is a brown envelope involved.

Condo Act (re JPMs):

Section 35/1 The Manager shall not be lower than full twenty-five years old and shall not possess the following prohibitions:

(1) Being bankruopt
(2) An incompetent or quasi-incompetent person,
(3) Used to be dismissed, removed or discharged from government service, government or private organization or agency on charge of misfeasance,
(4) Used to be imprisoned by final judgment except an offence committed through negligence or petty offence,
(5) Used to be removed from the capacity of a manager because of corruption or his conduct is detrimental or defective on morality.
(6) Having unpaid debt being the expenses under Section 18.

......

Section 35 /2 The appointment of the Manager shall be in concordance with the resolution of the Joint Owner General Meeting in accordance with Section 49 and the Manager so appointed shall bring the evidences or Employment Agreement to the competent official for registration within thirty days from the date on with the Joint Owner General Meeting has passed the resolution.

Section 35/3 The Manager vacates office upon

(1) Death or the status of being a juristic person has come to an end,
(2) Resignation,
(3) The period prescribed under Employment Agreement has come to an end,
(4) Disqualification or possessing prohibitions set forth under Section 35/1,
(5) Failure to comply with the provisions under this Act or Ministerial Regulation issued under this Act or failure to comply with a condition set forth under the Employment Agreement and that the Joint Owner General Meeting has passed a resolution for removal in accordance with Section 49.
(6) The Joint Owner General Meeting has passed a resolution on the removal.

Condo Act (re committee members):

Section 37/2 A person eligible for appointment as a member shall not possess the following prohibitions:

(1) A minor, an incompetent or quasi-incompetent person,
(2) Used to be relieved from the position of a member by the Joint Owner General Meeting or removed from being a manager because of corruption or his conduct is detrimental or defective on morality.
(3) Used to be dismissed, removed or discharged from a government service, government or private organization or agency on charge of misfeasance,
(4) Used to be imprisoned by final judgment except an offence committed through negligence or petty offence.

Section 37/3 In addition to vacating office on the expiration of term, a member vacates office upon

(1) Death,
(2) Resignation,
(3) Not being a person under Section 37/1 or having the prohibitions set forth under Section 37/2,
(4) The Joint Owner General Meeting has passed a resolution in accordance with Section 44, relieving him from the position.

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.

[PattayaPhom]

Always like that quasi incompetent person bit....conjours up so many visions.

[briley]

It is my understanding that for any vote to valid it has to be on the agenda sent to all owners 7 days before the meeting.

So a vote in Any Other Business is just advisory?

I definately do not think a vote in AOB to change the committee would be accepted by the land office - and they have to register the committee.

[Delight]

The condo act is very specific with reference to 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.

If the JPM says OK –then OK it is.

Nothing else counts !

(Unless the meeting refuses to endorse the selected committee)

Edited December 7, 2015 by Delight

[KittenKong]

The condo act is very specific with reference to 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.

If the JPM says OK –then OK it is.

Nothing else counts !

(Unless the meeting refuses to endorse the selected committee)

Normally ineligible people would not bother to stand in the first place, and I doubt that many JPM's are really competent enough to work our whether people actually qualify or not.

Nor does the JPM have any voice at all in the selection procedure of committee members. Those who wish to stand can do so (assuming they are eligible) and only the co-owner vote counts.

The JPM's job is to file the paperwork.

[KittenKong]

It is my understanding that for any vote to valid it has to be on the agenda sent to all owners 7 days before the meeting.

So a vote in Any Other Business is just advisory?

I definately do not think a vote in AOB to change the committee would be accepted by the land office - and they have to register the committee.

The agenda has to be sent to co-owners in advance but it does not have to contain an exclusive list of everything that will be discussed or voted on.

AOB votes must be legal. That's what the section is for and if they werent legal there would be no point having the section. Also there would be no point having most meetings at all if the chairman decides the agenda and no one else can add to it.

[KittenKong]

Always like that quasi incompetent person bit....conjours up so many visions.

No shortage of quasi-incompetent people in my building. No shortage at all. Quasi-morons are also plentiful.

[Delight]

The condo act is very specific with reference to 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.

If the JPM says OK –then OK it is.

Nothing else counts !

(Unless the meeting refuses to endorse the selected committee)

Normally ineligible people would not bother to stand in the first place, and I doubt that many JPM's are really competent enough to work our whether people actually qualify or not.

Nor does the JPM have any voice at all in the selection procedure of committee members. Those who wish to stand can do so (assuming they are eligible) and only the co-owner vote counts.

The JPM's job is to file the paperwork.

You will agree that 37/1 and 37/2 do exist.

Who,in your opinion ,has the responsibility to ensure that they are both enforced?

[KittenKong]

The condo act is very specific with reference to 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.

If the JPM says OK –then OK it is.

Nothing else counts !

(Unless the meeting refuses to endorse the selected committee)

Normally ineligible people would not bother to stand in the first place, and I doubt that many JPM's are really competent enough to work our whether people actually qualify or not.

Nor does the JPM have any voice at all in the selection procedure of committee members. Those who wish to stand can do so (assuming they are eligible) and only the co-owner vote counts.

The JPM's job is to file the paperwork.

You will agree that 37/1 and 37/2 do exist.

Who,in your opinion ,has the responsibility to ensure that they are both enforced?

The JPM is probably legally responsible but as I mentioned I doubt that many JPMs here are competent to check, or even bother checking. I'm sure that the Land Office doesnt check either. But this is part of the paperwork filing and has nothing to do with the vote. To imply as you did that the JPM decides everything and that the co-owners just rubber-stamp his decision is wrong. For example, if 10 eligible people stand the JPM has no say in which one is not elected. Nor does the JPM have any say in the case that co-owners decide to limit the number of members to something below 9, unnecessary as that might be.

[huawei]

The condo act is very specific with reference to 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.

If the JPM says OK –then OK it is.

Nothing else counts !

(Unless the meeting refuses to endorse the selected committee)

Normally ineligible people would not bother to stand in the first place, and I doubt that many JPM's are really competent enough to work our whether people actually qualify or not.

Nor does the JPM have any voice at all in the selection procedure of committee members. Those who wish to stand can do so (assuming they are eligible) and only the co-owner vote counts.

The JPM's job is to file the paperwork.

You will agree that 37/1 and 37/2 do exist.

Who,in your opinion ,has the responsibility to ensure that they are both enforced?

The JPM is probably legally responsible but as I mentioned I doubt that many JPMs here are competent to check, or even bother checking. I'm sure that the Land Office doesnt check either. But this is part of the paperwork filing and has nothing to do with the vote. To imply as you did that the JPM decides everything and that the co-owners just rubber-stamp his decision is wrong. For example, if 10 eligible people stand the JPM has no say in which one is not elected. Nor does the JPM have any say in the case that co-owners decide to limit the number of members to something below 9, unnecessary as that might be.

This is true.

In effect the JPM does very little except sign relevant contracts and advise the building manager.

I would suggest that the concerns around the committee member be voiced at the meeting and made a point of record.

They will not put it on the agenda.

You will not be able to remove her, until re- election.

[briley]

It is my understanding that for any vote to valid it has to be on the agenda sent to all owners 7 days before the meeting.

So a vote in Any Other Business is just advisory?

I definately do not think a vote in AOB to change the committee would be accepted by the land office - and they have to register the committee.

The agenda has to be sent to co-owners in advance but it does not have to contain an exclusive list of everything that will be discussed or voted on.

AOB votes must be legal. That's what the section is for and if they werent legal there would be no point having the section. Also there would be no point having most meetings at all if the chairman decides the agenda and no one else can add to it.

I look at this:

SECTION 42/3 Calling a general meeting shall be made by sending out a Notice for the General Meeting specifying the meeting location, date and time and the meeting agenda as well as the details of matters to be presented in the meeting that shall be sent to co-owners at least seven days before the meeting date.

Which is why I think any vote has to be on the agenda sent to owners in advance.

Yes, that means whoever draws up the agenda has a lot of power. If an owner wants something on the agenda and they can not get it included their only option is to get 20% of owners to call an EGM.

As a secondary point if something is in AOB and not notified to owners how do you deal with Proxy votes? Often these are in the majority and should the proxy holder use these votes when they do not know the wishes of the proxy giver?

[KittenKong]

I look at this:

SECTION 42/3 Calling a general meeting shall be made by sending out a Notice for the General Meeting specifying the meeting location, date and time and the meeting agenda as well as the details of matters to be presented in the meeting that shall be sent to co-owners at least seven days before the meeting date.

Which is why I think any vote has to be on the agenda sent to owners in advance.

Yes, that means whoever draws up the agenda has a lot of power. If an owner wants something on the agenda and they can not get it included their only option is to get 20% of owners to call an EGM.

As a secondary point if something is in AOB and not notified to owners how do you deal with Proxy votes? Often these are in the majority and should the proxy holder use these votes when they do not know the wishes of the proxy giver?

I think it would be ridiculous to call an EGM in the middle of an AGM. "Other business" covers all eventualities and anything arising can and should be discussed at that meeting, regardless of whether it is on the agenda or not. The agenda is merely a guideline.

Proxies are not a problem. The proxy holder is present and should vote according to what he/she feels the co-owner wants them to do, even for items that are not on the agenda. This is the whole principle of a proxy vote. They could arrange to consult the co-owner by phone or text if they wish, but that is not required as the proxy voter entirely replaces the co-owner in the eyes of the law.

What you are describing is an absentee vote (ie a postal or pre--registered vote). As far as I know these are not legal here. The condo act certainly doesnt mention them.

[briley]

Kittenkong, Not disagreeing with you - I think this is another area where there are problems in the Condo Acts.

I did have an interesting time here when a group of owners called an EGM at exactly the same time and place as the AGM. But normally I would expect that the EGM would be asked for after the AGM if it does not cover the matter and the owners feel so strongly about the matter.

Our proxies split into 3 groups, those who give a blank proxy so the holder can do what they like, those that give their proxy holder instructions verbally or otherwise and those that give clear instructions on the proxy form. It does mean that some proxies can not be used if the item is not on the agenda.

There is also the point that the AGM does not have to have AOB on the agenda. (just realized I missed that in my previous post) Bad practice but not against the Condo act.

[KittenKong]

Kittenkong, Not disagreeing with you - I think this is another area where there are problems in the Condo Acts.

Cant argue with that. Most Thai law seems to be extremely vague and incomplete, often to the point of being meaningless.

I did have an interesting time here when a group of owners called an EGM at exactly the same time and place as the AGM. But normally I would expect that the EGM would be asked for after the AGM if it does not cover the matter and the owners feel so strongly about the matter.

In many buildings it seems common for the first AGM to not have a quorum and a second EGM is immediately called for a couple of weeks later. At this EGM the quorum rules are relaxed and so voting can proceed. I believe that at such an EGM anyone can put forward any point and have it voted on, exactly as happens in committee meetings.

Our proxies split into 3 groups, those who give a blank proxy so the holder can do what they like, those that give their proxy holder instructions verbally or otherwise and those that give clear instructions on the proxy form. It does mean that some proxies can not be used if the item is not on the agenda.

I doubt that is legal here. If the proxy holder chooses to vote this way or that way, it's up to them as they directly replace the co-owner. They could change a pre-written vote if they choose to as the voting slip is only valid when they present it. In some buildings the voting slips are not distributed before the meeting anyway. The condo act says nothing about that either. In fact it doesnt even specify that slips need be used at all.

There is also the point that the AGM does not have to have AOB on the agenda. (just realized I missed that in my previous post) Bad practice but not against the Condo act.

True, but I think that any voter can propose additional items anyway. Otherwise it simply isn't a proper GM.

[LannaGuy]

yes I thought the proxy holder 'represented' the owner and had full powers to vote anyway they wished unless a voting form was sent with the proxy form and was filled in. I dont think the law here, or anywhere, requires the proxy holder to go back to the owner for 'instruction'.

no point having aob if owners cannot bring up stuff and call a vote there and then although i dont think calling an immediate egm is possible or necessary as, if you have a quorum, you can have a vote on anything? i have been in many meetings where an item is 'altered' or new item raised and vote taken and land office took it all in their stride so i cannot see how a new item cannot be raised and legally voted on in aob.

[KittenKong]

yes I thought the proxy holder 'represented' the owner and had full powers to vote anyway they wished unless a voting form was sent with the proxy form and was filled in. I dont think the law here, or anywhere, requires the proxy holder to go back to the owner for 'instruction'.

Even if the voting slip is filled in before the meeting the proxy holder can change it to say whatever he wants (though individual building by-laws could make any altered ballots invalid, regardless of who has altered them).

The onus is entirely on the co-owner to chose a person he trusts to act for him as proxy. The proxy holder is not legally beholden to the co-owner: he replaces the co-owner.

[LannaGuy]

yes I thought the proxy holder 'represented' the owner and had full powers to vote anyway they wished unless a voting form was sent with the proxy form and was filled in. I dont think the law here, or anywhere, requires the proxy holder to go back to the owner for 'instruction'.

Even if the voting slip is filled in before the meeting the proxy holder can change it to say whatever he wants (though individual building by-laws could make any altered ballots invalid, regardless of who has altered them).

The onus is entirely on the co-owner to chose a person he trusts to act for him as proxy. The proxy holder is not legally beholden to the co-owner: he replaces the co-owner.

interesting point and makes sense but where is the law to back it up? (not saying you are wrong) I know people who have had dealings with land office and mostly they say 'who has most votes'? that is all the land office care about legal votes and proxies filled in correctly i think they would not care whether it was under agenda or aob

[KittenKong]

yes I thought the proxy holder 'represented' the owner and had full powers to vote anyway they wished unless a voting form was sent with the proxy form and was filled in. I dont think the law here, or anywhere, requires the proxy holder to go back to the owner for 'instruction'.

Even if the voting slip is filled in before the meeting the proxy holder can change it to say whatever he wants (though individual building by-laws could make any altered ballots invalid, regardless of who has altered them).

The onus is entirely on the co-owner to chose a person he trusts to act for him as proxy. The proxy holder is not legally beholden to the co-owner: he replaces the co-owner.

interesting point and makes sense but where is the law to back it up? (not saying you are wrong) I know people who have had dealings with land office and mostly they say 'who has most votes'? that is all the land office care about legal votes and proxies filled in correctly i think they would not care whether it was under agenda or aob

I think that's the point: there is no proper law.

The Land Office seems just to take the word of the JPM about what has transpired and no proof of any type seems to be needed beyond the numbers provided by the JPM. Given the astounding level of outright dishonesty and incompetence in condo management here, I find this quite extraordinarily lax on the part of the Land Office. Of course they are also only interested in doing as little work as possible.

[smutcakes]

The removal of the Committee member would not be accepted without it being stipulated on the agenda. Not to mention you are unlikely to have voting forms prepared for the agenda.

[huawei]

The removal of the Committee member would not be accepted without it being stipulated on the agenda. Not to mention you are unlikely to have voting forms prepared for the agenda.

Agreed how do you vote on something that's not on the agenda.

You need to prepare voting forms. These need to be counted and then lodged with the land department.

Given the nature of some committees and their relationship with a developer/ 3rd party it can be almost impossible to get an item into AOB. You can request it, but it is simply ignored.

You can quote the laws all you like, but as has been stated it can be manipulated if necessary.

As for voting for committee members if a co- owner is put forward and receives only one vote and it is under 9 he becomes a committee member.

[smutcakes]

The removal of the Committee member would not be accepted without it being stipulated on the agenda. Not to mention you are unlikely to have voting forms prepared for the agenda.

Agreed how do you vote on something that's not on the agenda.

You need to prepare voting forms. These need to be counted and then lodged with the land department.

Given the nature of some committees and their relationship with a developer/ 3rd party it can be almost impossible to get an item into AOB. You can request it, but it is simply ignored.

You can quote the laws all you like, but as has been stated it can be manipulated if necessary.

As for voting for committee members if a co- owner is put forward and receives only one vote and it is under 9 he becomes a committee member.

This one is a difficult one, and i have seen different land departments take differing views on this. I think LD's like to take a view that the more on the Committee is better, but when there is a contenious issue and some dont want a person on the Committee, they tend to point out the clause which stipulates all resolutions require majority vote of those in attendance. As i said i have seen Lands departments go both ways on that, normally selecting the option of least resistant. (ie the person who shouts less).

[KittenKong]

Agreed how do you vote on something that's not on the agenda.

You need to prepare voting forms. These need to be counted and then lodged with the land department.

You vote for something that is not on the agenda by including it under "other business". That's what it's for. If there is no "other business" section then a co-owner can make a point of order.

I see no mention anywhere in the condo act that voting slips have to be used, or that they have to be lodged with the Land Office. All I see is a mention that the result needs to be registered with the Land Office within 30 days.

[huawei]

Agreed how do you vote on something that's not on the agenda.

You need to prepare voting forms. These need to be counted and then lodged with the land department.

You vote for something that is not on the agenda by including it under "other business". That's what it's for. If there is no "other business" section then a co-owner can make a point of order.

I see no mention anywhere in the condo act that voting slips have to be used, or that they have to be lodged with the Land Office. All I see is a mention that the result needs to be registered with the Land Office within 30 days.

So you can do by a show of hands. Something as important as electing a committee member should be evidenced, if contested.

Whatever the law states there are best practices.

Btw, when I tried to include something in AOB at a meeting to be voted on. The then JPM insisted that something to be voted on must be included in the agenda. We kicked them and the developer out.

In my discussions with my lawyer at the land department I concluded that they are really only an administrative office and that " internal issues" are best decided at agm, egm,consumer protection or criminal court.

All in all, with the misleading information, lack of information, stealing etc..that can and does go on..the whole thing is a can of worms..a good committee can make any building viable and impact the value of a condo a bad one..can make it the worst one ever.

I rate a good committee and good financial statements ( audited) as a top priority when looking at a condo.

This point about a committee member needing to get a majority vote is one I have never considered. Basically as anyone who wants to go on is usually voted on with relish in my experience. In Fact trying to get them not to leave is more problematic.

[LannaGuy]

Agreed how do you vote on something that's not on the agenda.

You need to prepare voting forms. These need to be counted and then lodged with the land department.

You vote for something that is not on the agenda by including it under "other business". That's what it's for. If there is no "other business" section then a co-owner can make a point of order.

I see no mention anywhere in the condo act that voting slips have to be used, or that they have to be lodged with the Land Office. All I see is a mention that the result needs to be registered with the Land Office within 30 days.

So you can do by a show of hands. Something as important as electing a committee member should be evidenced, if contested.

Whatever the law states there are best practices.

Btw, when I tried to include something in AOB at a meeting to be voted on. The then JPM insisted that something to be voted on must be included in the agenda. We kicked them and the developer out.

In my discussions with my lawyer at the land department I concluded that they are really only an administrative office and that " internal issues" are best decided at agm, egm,consumer protection or criminal court.

All in all, with the misleading information, lack of information, stealing etc..that can and does go on..the whole thing is a can of worms..a good committee can make any building viable and impact the value of a condo a bad one..can make it the worst one ever.

I rate a good committee and good financial statements ( audited) as a top priority when looking at a condo.

This point about a committee member needing to get a majority vote is one I have never considered. Basically as anyone who wants to go on is usually voted on with relish in my experience. In Fact trying to get them not to leave is more problematic.

No show of hands as each owner has a differing ratio of ownership. Section 44 applies and each member has to get a majority of owners vote to stop unwanted, nuisance owners getting a seat through a vacancy. This is the only method of stopping someone who is not supported by the owners. Members join through a resolution of the egm/agm and each requires 50%+.

Edited December 9, 2015 by LannaGuy

[KittenKong]

No show of hands as each owner has a differing ratio of ownership.

Well spotted. Yes, a show of hands wont work well as the ratio affects the count.

However the act still doesnt say anything about voting slips so I dont see why these could not be used to allow for other business to be voted on also.

[KittenKong]

Btw, when I tried to include something in AOB at a meeting to be voted on. The then JPM insisted that something to be voted on must be included in the agenda. We kicked them and the developer out.

In my discussions with my lawyer at the land department I concluded that they are really only an administrative office and that " internal issues" are best decided at agm, egm,consumer protection or criminal court.

All in all, with the misleading information, lack of information, stealing etc..that can and does go on..the whole thing is a can of worms..a good committee can make any building viable and impact the value of a condo a bad one..can make it the worst one ever.

I rate a good committee and good financial statements ( audited) as a top priority when looking at a condo.

This point about a committee member needing to get a majority vote is one I have never considered. Basically as anyone who wants to go on is usually voted on with relish in my experience. In Fact trying to get them not to leave is more problematic.

Cant argue with any of that.

I had occasion to visit the Land Office regarding a bad management company and I agree that the LO basically just arent interested in getting involved with anything to do with condo management at all, no matter how dishonest and illegal the situation may be. "Have a meeting" they said. And if the management company wont do as it's told at the meeting? "Take them to court".

It's a very bad system that shows Thailand in the worst light possible.

[smutcakes]

I think in practical terms, any issue which requires registration of result at the LD. e.g. registration of Committee/removal of, election of JPM, it is necessary to have it in the agenda. For more mundane matters relating to daily running of the Condominium it is generally none of the LD business as they would never hear about it, and may be done with a show of hands in a meeting.

When registering documents with the LD, they always require the agenda of the meeting, and in some cases request the voting slips as well. I don't see how anyone can do the minutes when it is done by a show of hands as everyone has different voting ratios, so it would be incredibly difficult to calculate after.

Lanna Guy- Some lands departments take a different view on the majority requirement for Committee Members. I know of one high end condo in BKK which had 9 people trying to be on the Committee. The top 7 got above 50%, the bottom 2 did not. The LD registered them as Committee Members as well- as seemingly they took the view that more was better, and one of the bottom 2 was kicking up merry hell. As i mentioned earlier different LD's treat that differently.