WHEN THE VOTE SAYS ENOUGH: WHAT A SURF CLUB CONTROVERSY CAN TEACH STRATA COMMUNITIES

A recent controversy at the Mooloolaba Surf Life Saving Club provides an interesting lesson in community governance — and one with some surprising parallels to strata communities and committee membership.

Recent media reports revealed that the membership renewals of three long-serving surf club volunteers were not accepted. No reason was publicly provided, and the decision subsequently generated considerable discussion and a petition seeking their reinstatement.

Importantly, there is no suggestion here that the affected members did anything wrong, nor do we know what motivated the club’s decision. The club has maintained that individual membership decisions are made in accordance with its constitution and are not matters it publicly discusses.

But the situation raises an interesting governance question:

When people have the right to choose who represents them, are they required to explain why they chose someone — or why they didn’t?

In a body corporate, that question can be particularly relevant.

Your Nomination Does Not Guarantee Your Election

Committee positions ultimately belong to the body corporate, not the people occupying them.

At each annual general meeting, owners have the opportunity to determine who they want representing them. Where an election is required, candidates are put to a ballot and the votes determine the result.

Owners don’t have to explain why they voted for one candidate instead of another. There is no requirement to provide an unsuccessful candidate with a performance appraisal or a list of reasons. Sometimes the result itself sends the message.

A committee member might have served for years, attended countless meetings and genuinely believe they have acted in everyone’s best interests. Then they nominate again — and the owners elect someone else. The natural question might be “Why didn’t they vote for me?”

Perhaps a more useful question is: “What might the community be telling me?”

Good Intentions Don’t Always Equal Good Representation

Someone can genuinely believe they are acting in the interests of the scheme while the broader ownership sees things differently. There doesn’t need to have been one dramatic incident. Confidence can be lost gradually through conduct such as:

• Pursuing personal agendas – repeatedly focusing committee time and resources on issues that matter greatly to one person but have little support from the broader ownership.
• Spending other people’s money too freely – seeking unnecessary reports, legal advice or projects without sufficient regard to the levies owners ultimately have to pay.
• Holding up maintenance or getting it done on the cheap – the reverse can be equally problematic where necessary expenditure is continually resisted simply to keep levies down.
• Turning every disagreement into a battle – treating differences of opinion as conflicts that must be won rather than issues that need to be resolved.
• Acting as though one committee member is “the committee” – independently instructing contractors or managers, making commitments or attempting to exercise authority that belongs to the committee collectively.
• Making community life unnecessarily unpleasant – aggressive emails, personal attacks, public criticism and confrontational meetings can eventually outweigh whatever technical expertise someone brings to the table.
• Refusing to accept collective decisions – there is nothing wrong with disagreeing and having that disagreement recorded. Continually reviewing a lawful decision to try and get a different answer because it wasn’t the outcome you wanted is something quite different.

None of those things necessarily means a committee member is a bad person or has acted with bad intentions. It may simply mean the owners want something different.

The Silent Majority Can Be Very Quiet — Until Election Day

This is particularly relevant in strata communities because the people we hear from most are not necessarily representative of the majority.

A handful of owners may generate most of the emails, dominate meetings, argue on social media or regularly tell others what “everyone in the building” thinks. Meanwhile, a much larger group may say very little.

They are still watching. They see the disputes, read the correspondence, receive the levy notices and observe how people conduct themselves. Then the AGM arrives and they receive a ballot paper. Suddenly the owner who has barely said a word all year has the same opportunity to participate in choosing the committee as the person who has sent 150 emails.

The loudest voice throughout the year does not necessarily have the most support.

Not Being Elected Isn’t a Finding of Wrongdoing

This is an important distinction. A committee election is not a disciplinary hearing. Owners do not have to establish that a candidate has done something wrong before deciding they would prefer somebody else.

An owner might simply believe another candidate will be:

• more collaborative;
• more commercially experienced;
• more financially aligned;
• better at communicating;
• less confrontational;
• more independent; or
• simply better suited to what the scheme needs for the next 12 months.

They don’t have to dislike the unsuccessful candidate, they just have to prefer someone else. That is how elections work.

Don’t Demand an Explanation — Read the Result

Losing a committee election can understandably be disappointing, particularly for someone who has devoted considerable time to their community. But demanding that owners justify how they voted is unlikely to achieve much.

A more constructive response is to consider what the result might be saying:

• Have relationships with other owners or committee members deteriorated?
• Has too much time been spent fighting rather than solving problems?
• Have personal priorities overtaken community priorities?
• Has communication become unnecessarily aggressive?
• Have owners become concerned about expenditure or decision-making?
• Or does the community simply want a change?

There may be no single incident and no dramatic explanation. Sometimes enough owners have simply reached the same conclusion: We would like someone else to represent us.

Committee Membership Is Borrowed, Not Owned

Being elected to a committee is an opportunity to serve the community for a period of time. It is not an entitlement to remain there.

The best committee members remember that. They listen, communicate respectfully, challenge ideas without attacking people, spend other people’s money with due consideration, recognise the limits of their individual authority and accept collective decisions even when they disagree with them.

Most importantly, they understand that the owners will eventually have another opportunity to decide whether they still want them representing the community.

The Mooloolaba surf club controversy involves a very different organisation and legal framework, but it provides a useful prompt for thinking about community governance.

Sometimes people want a detailed explanation for why they were not chosen. Sometimes there isn’t one single reason. And sometimes, when the people you represent are given the opportunity to vote, the vote is the explanation.

Article Contributed by Grant Mifsud, Partner at Archers the Strata Professionals.