Committee Members / Condo Act ?if

[moonseeker]

Dear all:

Legal question for the experts:

Large Condo Juristic Person, difficulty finding willing & suitable members. Condo Act stipulates 3 - 9 members. Not more then 2 terms, unless no suitable replacement found.

What, if we add 3 new members this year? Can previous members with 2 terms stay on legally with voting right up to the number of 9 or less, as otherwise we are leaving it up to a very small group of 3 people to make important decisions?

I am aware that much in the law here is theory, unless or even if you contest violations :-)

How should we proceed at the AGM in this case?

Thank you kindly. MS>

[ballbreaker]

Condo rules and regulations should state number of committee members approved by owners at AGM. If that number is 9 some current members can continue to serve to make up for lack of 9 new volunteers.

[moonseeker]

Thank you. R. & R. states 5 members, which contradicts the present Condo Act. Not a clear situation really.....THX. MS>

[ballbreaker]

Condo Act means minimum of 3 and maximum of 9 on committee. Your R & R says 5 so you should only have 5 on committee. That number can be changed to something between 3 and 9 at next AGM if majority of owners approve.

[moonseeker]

Condo Act means minimum of 3 and maximum of 9 on committee. Your R & R says 5 so you should only have 5 on committee. That number can be changed to something between 3 and 9 at next AGM if majority of owners approve.

Thank you. Can these be 3 new members & 2 old ones, which already served 2 full terms? Or are they excluded and there will be only 3 legal new members.Thank you. MS>

[smutcakes]

Condo Act means minimum of 3 and maximum of 9 on committee. Your R & R says 5 so you should only have 5 on committee. That number can be changed to something between 3 and 9 at next AGM if majority of owners approve.

Thank you. Can these be 3 new members & 2 old ones, which already served 2 full terms? Or are they excluded and there will be only 3 legal new members.Thank you. MS>

Just elect the 2 that have been on already. If there are no complaints or other people wanting to be on the Committee the LD will accept it.

[briley]

The Condo act takes precedent over the rules and regs of a Condo. The Condo act says maximum of 9 - that is the number to use regardless of what your rules and regs say.

[moonseeker]

The Condo act takes precedent over the rules and regs of a Condo. The Condo act says maximum of 9 - that is the number to use regardless of what your rules and regs say.

Thank you Briley. Fully agreed & understood. BUT, can we still add "old" members to the min. numbers of 3 or do we have to leave it at 3 new members? THX> MS>

[KittenKong]

The condo act and the rules and regs have to be taken into account together.

The condo act specifies any number between 3 and 9. If your building regs (or your co-owners at an AGM) care to fix some specific number between 3 and 9 (say 5) then that fits in very nicely with what the condo act specifies, but there is no requirement at all to fix any such number. So no problem there.

The condo act also specifies that the term is a maximum of 2 years at which point a new election must be held. It also specifies that a maximum of 2 terms is permitted unless no one else wants to stand. So as long as you have 3 new persons standing after 4 years I dont see how any who have already served 2 terms can stand.

The whole point of this law is to prevent evil people (and God knows there are enough of them here) from entrenching themselves on a committee or as JPM for more than 4 years at most.

[smutcakes]

The Condo act takes precedent over the rules and regs of a Condo. The Condo act says maximum of 9 - that is the number to use regardless of what your rules and regs say.

I disagree. If their registered rules and regulations state 5 people to be in the Committee, and this was within in an agenda to a Co-owner meeting, voted on and approved by the not less than 50% of the total Condominium to be the number of people in their Committee then this is perfectly legitimate, and for that Condominium the regulation of 5 people is perfectly valid.

If they want to change that to 3,7,9 etc they would need to do that by amending the regulations of their Condominium. They have set the number within the parameters of those set out in the condo act, and the exact number within those parameters has been agreed and registered in their regulations. It is a perfectly valid and legal thing to do.

[smutcakes]

The condo act and the rules and regs have to be taken into account together.

The condo act specifies any number between 3 and 9. If your building regs (or your co-owners at an AGM) care to fix some specific number between 3 and 9 (say 5) then that fits in very nicely with what the condo act specifies, but there is no requirement at all to fix any such number. So no problem there.

The condo act also specifies that the term is a maximum of 2 years at which point a new election must be held. It also specifies that a maximum of 2 terms is permitted unless no one else wants to stand. So as long as you have 3 new persons standing after 4 years I dont see how any who have already served 2 terms can stand.

The whole point of this law is to prevent evil people (and God knows there are enough of them here) from entrenching themselves on a committee or as JPM for more than 4 years at most.

You are always taking the negative view from your own experience, and presuming everywhere else is the same. That is not the whole point of the law at all. The law is there like in most companies to ensure there is transparency, opportunities for others etc not wholly to prevent evil people.

There are many condominiums who really appreciate the hard work of their Committee Members, and many Co-owners prefer their Committees to stay on for more terms than the specified two terms.

I don't believe there is any time limit restriction on how long someone can be JPM. Unless they break some rules, it is up to their contract or a vote by a Co-owner meeting.

[KittenKong]

You are always taking the negative view from your own experience, and presuming everywhere else is the same. That is not the whole point of the law at all. The law is there like in most companies to ensure there is transparency, opportunities for others etc not wholly to prevent evil people.

Those with rose-tinted glasses can believe that if they will. I dont.

Many people simply don't appreciate the scale of dishonesty and corruption and incompetence in buildings here.

There are many condominiums who really appreciate the hard work of their Committee Members, and many Co-owners prefer their Committees to stay on for more terms than the specified two terms.

That's possible, and the condo act provides for that. What's the problem?

Edited January 9, 2016 by KittenKong

[KittenKong]

I don't believe there is any time limit restriction on how long someone can be JPM. Unless they break some rules, it is up to their contract or a vote by a Co-owner meeting.

I checked the act and you're right. There is no particular mention in the condo act about this and it's down to the building rules and co-owner decisions at a GM.

Personally I think it would be better if the condo act specified a maximum of 4 years also, with the same condition that someone can serve again if no one else can be found to do it.

[smutcakes]

I don't believe there is any time limit restriction on how long someone can be JPM. Unless they break some rules, it is up to their contract or a vote by a Co-owner meeting.

I checked the act and you're right. There is no particular mention in the condo act about this and it's down to the building rules and co-owner decisions at a GM.

Personally I think it would be better if the condo act specified a maximum of 4 years also, with the same condition that someone can serve again if no one else can be found to do it.

I second guessed myself a bit before i wrote the post. I seem to remember years ago that there was a restriction, but perhaps i was thinking of times when it was up to renew a JPM contract. Obviously some people do not have a contract to be JPM so they would just run and run until someone wanted to change.

[ballbreaker]

Condo Act means minimum of 3 and maximum of 9 on committee. Your R & R says 5 so you should only have 5 on committee. That number can be changed to something between 3 and 9 at next AGM if majority of owners approve.

Thank you. Can these be 3 new members & 2 old ones, which already served 2 full terms? Or are they excluded and there will be only 3 legal new members.Thank you. MS>

Your R&R states 5 members so if only 3 new owners apply then 2 existing members can apply even though they have already served 2 terms.

The English translation of Condo Act says:

"A member vacating office may be re-appointed but shall not be eligible to hold office exceeding two consecutive terms unless other person cannot be found to hold office".

[briley]

As normal I think the Condo act is not clear.

On reflection I do not know if the Condo act says the number of committee members must be 3 or more up to a maximum of 9 members or if it allows a Condo to set any number between 3 and 9. I have always felt the former not the latter. My translation says:

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

When it comes to committee members serving more than 2 terms again I feel this is always possible provided there are vacant spaces in the 9 allowed. So you can vote in 4 new members and 3 more who have already served 2 terms.

It is possible for owners to refuse to re-elect committee members. It has often been argued that electing a committee member is a motion and as such requires a majority vote of those present to elect them. Some have even argued that you have to get more than 25% of all the owners to be elected, similar to electing a JP.

Since the JP can be a company it does not really make sense to limit them to 4 years, do you have to keep changing company every 4 years? But I understand when one individual is JP and becomes a dictator then the owners must act to oust them. Not impossible if the majority of owners think the JP is acting against the interests of the building. The only time I hear of it being 'impossible' to get rid of a JP is when those owners can not even get 20% of the owners to support a change, ie a small group want to do things their way?

[KittenKong]

Since the JP can be a company it does not really make sense to limit them to 4 years, do you have to keep changing company every 4 years? But I understand when one individual is JP and becomes a dictator then the owners must act to oust them. Not impossible if the majority of owners think the JP is acting against the interests of the building. The only time I hear of it being 'impossible' to get rid of a JP is when those owners can not even get 20% of the owners to support a change, ie a small group want to do things their way?

Imagine a situation in which barely 25% of the co-owners ever attend a meeting or nominate a proxy. Imagine a situation where an unscrupulous management company or JPM or committee manages to control a large percentage of those proxies, perhaps because they are in cahoots with some co-owner who owns many units or some rental agency that manages many units. Without some sort of limit they could stay in control for ever.

So I think it's a very good idea to have all elected persons automatically excluded after x years (the number being debatable of course), with the proviso that if no one else stands they can stand again.

The US president is unable to serve for more than two terms (assuming the first was for more than 2 years) for the same reason and this is quite common in other countries too. The countries where presidents are allowed to serve more than a small number of terms tend to be the ones where corruption and abuse is massive. That's no surprise to me at all.

[smutcakes]

Since the JP can be a company it does not really make sense to limit them to 4 years, do you have to keep changing company every 4 years? But I understand when one individual is JP and becomes a dictator then the owners must act to oust them. Not impossible if the majority of owners think the JP is acting against the interests of the building. The only time I hear of it being 'impossible' to get rid of a JP is when those owners can not even get 20% of the owners to support a change, ie a small group want to do things their way?

Imagine a situation in which barely 25% of the co-owners ever attend a meeting or nominate a proxy. Imagine a situation where an unscrupulous management company or JPM or committee manages to control a large percentage of those proxies, perhaps because they are in cahoots with some co-owner who owns many units or some rental agency that manages many units. Without some sort of limit they could stay in control for ever.

So I think it's a very good idea to have all elected persons automatically excluded after x years (the number being debatable of course), with the proviso that if no one else stands they can stand again.

The US president is unable to serve for more than two terms (assuming the first was for more than 2 years) for the same reason and this is quite common in other countries too. The countries where presidents are allowed to serve more than a small number of terms tend to be the ones where corruption and abuse is massive. That's no surprise to me at all.

So you might have a great and honest JPM being replaced by a corrupt one.

[KittenKong]

So you might have a great and honest JPM being replaced by a corrupt one.

That's possible, though I would rather have that than a corrupt JPM that I could never get rid of.

The same argument applies to presidents also, and I feel the same about that.

[briley]

Over electing a JPM every 4 years it does depend on your location.

In Chiang Mai there are only a limited number of companies that can manage a condo - just 3 to my knowledge.

And 2 of them I do not like.

So would we have to swap our liked company for an unliked company every 4 years?

(Excuse my grammar!)

[KittenKong]

Your JPM does not have to be in any way connected with your management company (though it can be). In fact I think that the JPM should never be connected with the management company, simply because if it is then the management company ends up being its own boss which to me is not desirable.

I can see advantages in having a co-owner act as JPM, if one is prepared to do it.

I also know of buildings where the JPM is salaried but is neither a co-owner nor part of the management company, and in Bangkok this seems to be quite common arrangement with professional people acting as JPM in several different buildings.

[smutcakes]

Your JPM does not have to be in any way connected with your management company (though it can be). In fact I think that the JPM should never be connected with the management company, simply because if it is then the management company ends up being its own boss which to me is not desirable.

I can see advantages in having a co-owner act as JPM, if one is prepared to do it.

I also know of buildings where the JPM is salaried but is neither a co-owner nor part of the management company, and in Bangkok this seems to be quite common arrangement with professional people acting as JPM in several different buildings.

One of the positives of having the management company and JPM the same is that when something goes wrong they cannot blame it on the JPM and management company and vice versa.

However the person who carries out the JPM function should not be involved with the day to day management team within the company.

I have found in BKK in cases where there is an external JPM, typically it is a lawyer. However the most they are paid is about 25K per month, so you are not going to get much love and attention for that. One of the issues of getting qualified JPM is that Condominiums cannot pay high fees, and as such for most lawyers or anyone it is more trouble than its worth.

In my experience in Bangkok the most common set up is for the management company to perform the function. It is difficult to find anyone else to do it.

Edited January 9, 2016 by smutcakes

[moonseeker]

As normal I think the Condo act is not clear.

On reflection I do not know if the Condo act says the number of committee members must be 3 or more up to a maximum of 9 members or if it allows a Condo to set any number between 3 and 9. I have always felt the former not the latter. My translation says:

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

When it comes to committee members serving more than 2 terms again I feel this is always possible provided there are vacant spaces in the 9 allowed. So you can vote in 4 new members and 3 more who have already served 2 terms.

It is possible for owners to refuse to re-elect committee members. It has often been argued that electing a committee member is a motion and as such requires a majority vote of those present to elect them. Some have even argued that you have to get more than 25% of all the owners to be elected, similar to electing a JP.

Since the JP can be a company it does not really make sense to limit them to 4 years, do you have to keep changing company every 4 years? But I understand when one individual is JP and becomes a dictator then the owners must act to oust them. Not impossible if the majority of owners think the JP is acting against the interests of the building. The only time I hear of it being 'impossible' to get rid of a JP is when those owners can not even get 20% of the owners to support a change, ie a small group want to do things their way?

Exactly, not clear. Maybe clearer in Thai version??? As unclear as the votes required for electing members. In another condo I serve on, which by vote allows multi-term members to stay on, we use the majority system, absence of clear Condo Act definition. The land-office told us way back (many years), when few condos even had a translated Act or committee, to vote on any unclear issues and go ahead, if majority of present owners want go for a certain issue. This would in case of very unlikely court action result in a compromise. We have never been questioned about the deposited Minutes of any AGM since.

Section 44 The/ (A?) 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.

The initial question remains open. Thanks & nice weekend. MS>

[briley]

One advantage of a rather unclear Condo Act is that different buildings can have different management structures.

So each building can sort out a structure that suits them - and that can vary a lot as this thread (and others) have shown.

In our case we employ a management company that provides the JPM and their expertise etc. The committee actively works with the management company,

All the staff are Condo staff. They worked for the Condo before the company came and will continue to work for the Condo after the company goes. It sounds difficult since the staff are the responsibility of the JP, but do not work for the JP -- but it works for us.

I have experience of one management company that tried to insist on doing everything. They would manage, provide JP and the condo staff would work for them direct. If we wanted to change management company we would have to get new staff for every position since they put a clause in their contract saying we could not employ 'their' staff without a massive penalty. You would have to have a lot of trust to use such a company.