Condo Committee Chairman

[Barack]

Our condo project had it's annual AGM and I was voted on the Committee. How is the Chairman selected? I was the number two vote receiver amongst the condo owners. Also, I am an advocate of committee members meeting without the presence of the developer's Juristic Manager present so we can provide proper oversight and speak amongst ourselves freely. Of course it is understood we will have formal Committee Meetings with the developer's Manager and Lawyer present as per the Condominium Act. Any problems?

P.S. One last question, can the developer's Juristic Manager (as approved by the condo owners) sign legal contracts without the Committees oversight, review and recommendation?

[KittenKong]

Committee members decide amongst themselves who the chairman will be. Votes cast by co-owners could be considered a guideline, but no more.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to me to discuss things in committee without the JPM/manager being present, and then to discuss them again in a full meeting.

The JPM can basically do what he wants (apart from sign cheques). I think this is one of the big things wrong with the condo system here.

[Barack]

Committee members decide amongst themselves who the chairman will be. Votes cast by co-owners could be considered a guideline, but no more.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense to me to discuss things in committee without the JPM/manager being present, and then to discuss them again in a full meeting.

The JPM can basically do what he wants (apart from sign cheques). I think this is one of the big things wrong with the condo system here.

My thinking was the condo coowners by their votes have shown a preference and should have some kind of impact on the Chairman election. For example, the highest vote receiver is offered the Chairmanship and if declines then number two is offered and so on and so on. This prevents quabbles and politics from day one.

Regarding contracts, my view is contract oversight is mandated by the Committee or they are not doing their job. To let the JM controll the bidding process without Committee guidance is just asking for problems. I anticipate some large roofing repairs and I don't want to see large contracts issued without Committee input. Finding this in legal or written form is a question.

[KittenKong]

My thinking was the condo coowners by their votes have shown a preference and should have some kind of impact on the Chairman election. For example, the highest vote receiver is offered the Chairmanship and if declines then number two is offered and so on and so on. This prevents quabbles and politics from day one.

I'm inclined to agree but there are no rules about this. The committee just has to decide amongst themselves, as I mentioned. A vote is probably simplest.

Regarding contracts, my view is contract oversight is mandated by the Committee or they are not doing their job. To let the JM controll the bidding process without Committee guidance is just asking for problems. I anticipate some large roofing repairs and I don't want to see large contracts issued without Committee input. Finding this in legal or written form is a question.

I agree with that also, but Thai condo law does not support that. The JPM does have the legal right to do what he thinks best, regardless of what the committee says. In Thailand I think that is just asking for trouble.

[Barack]

Thanks KK for your input as I am not on firm ground when discussing these matters but Section 33 of the Condominium Act seems to give broad powers to the JPM and then at the same time gives the Committee (Section 38-1) shall retain the authority and duty as follows: (1) to control the management of the condominium juristic person;

[briley]

I agree with KittenKong but would add that the committee does have overriding power over the JP.

As committee you can call an EGM and sack the JP.

The committee (IMHO generally the chairman) should work with the JP to manage the building. Yes the JP is the boss person but you can get rid of the JP with the owners approval. The committee should have a check on the finances in that any cheque should be signed by the JP and a committee member. But the committee can change the signatories to make it JP only or committee only. Darn stupid thing to do but then committees can and do do stupid things (and then normally complain!)

Back to the OP - yes the committee chooses the chairman by majority vote. The person with the highest vote in the AGM might not be the best to be chairman.

Whether to have the JP at the committee meeting is up to the committee. The law does not require them to be present. With a good committee / JP relationship it makes sense for them to be there to give input into any discussion. It could be different with a JP-developer, in my case the last time I saw the developer was 12 years ago!

I was surprised to see the OP refer to the JP's lawyers being present. Two questions, why are they there and who pays the lawyers fees?

[KittenKong]

I agree with KittenKong but would add that the committee does have overriding power over the JP.

As committee you can call an EGM and sack the JP.

The committee (IMHO generally the chairman) should work with the JP to manage the building. Yes the JP is the boss person but you can get rid of the JP with the owners approval. The committee should have a check on the finances in that any cheque should be signed by the JP and a committee member. But the committee can change the signatories to make it JP only or committee only. Darn stupid thing to do but then committees can and do do stupid things (and then normally complain!)

True enough, but with some caveats. The committee can call an EGM at any time and if enough co-owners agree then the JPM can be removed. However the committee cant actually force the JPM to do anything (he can choose simply to ignore the committee if he thinks that's best).

And if the JPM has made friends with some groups of co-owners then it may be impossible to remove him by vote, especially if proxy votes are being manipulated. And, unlike a committee member, you cant even be certain to be rid of him after a maximum of 4 years.

I think it would be criminal negligence on the part of a committee to allow a JPM to be a signatory at all, but I bet some do. Retaining all signing powers on cheques is the only way that the committee can really control the JPM.

[smutcakes]

As already mentioned, Chairman of the Committee should be selected through a vote in the first Committee Meeting. It does not bode well for the working of the Committee if they cannot even get that done without argument.

There is no regulation stipulating that the developer or JPM have to be present in Committee meetings (unless they are also on the Committee), if you dont want them there, just dont invite them.

The JPM should have little or no role in day to day activities of the Condominium, the Committee along with the management team should oversee day to day affairs. The JPM role should be restricted to purely a signatory on documents carrying out the resolutions of the Committee. Obviously there are times when there is conflict, particulalry in new Condominium's when the developers appoint one of their people as the JPM. Normally this period just has to be 'managed' as best s possible, and when the developer sells out their interest it would be possible to get an independent party to carry out the role, although it is not easy to find qualified people or companies willing to do it due it being a high risk, low reward position.

[KittenKong]

The JPM should have little or no role in day to day activities of the Condominium, the Committee along with the management team should oversee day to day affairs.

Should, yes. But often the JPM is the management company, which means that they are hands-on 24/7 (albeit possibly wearing a different hat).

I think this is a very bad idea.

[smutcakes]

The JPM should have little or no role in day to day activities of the Condominium, the Committee along with the management team should oversee day to day affairs.

Should, yes. But often the JPM is the management company, which means that they are hands-on 24/7 (albeit possibly wearing a different hat).

I think this is a very bad idea.

It depends, if you have a reputable company carrying out your management, the JPM would be the company, not an individaul, and the signatory would be someone seperated from the management side of it.

From my experience the management companies dont want to be the JPM anyway, its is forced on them as it is difficult to find anyone else to do it.

There are benefits to having the management company and JPM being one and the same.

[Barack]

Update, the Committee (no developer's JPM present) selected the Chairman and Vice-chairman using the highest vote receiver methodology. Worked well since nobody new the other's members strengths, weaknesses, qualifications, etc. The JPM will now present the results to the Land Office for registration.

Thanks for helpful posts.