WE DON’T NEED NO (MANDATED) EDUCATION!
The requirement in NSW for body corporate committee volunteers to undergo compulsory education in strata law is a fresh take on the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
While there is no plan for Queensland to follow NSW in forcing committee members into the strata schoolroom, that won’t stop some from looking south and pondering whether we should follow suit.
For many years, bodies corporate have been seen as the fourth tier of government, after federal, state and local.
A strata committee has considerable power in the running of a community, with the ability to enact and enforce by-laws that have a large impact on the lives of people in those communities.
So, given the complexity of the law, surely this is an argument that all committee members should have a base-level understanding of strata, and compulsory education would be a good thing.
Management rights holders are required to have certification to let apartments as well as hold various other qualifications – wouldn’t life be easier if committee members underwent some training as well?
This is where good intentions can come a cropper.
A body corporate depends entirely on volunteers – and volunteerism is on the wane.
People’s lives are busy and complex. Getting them to volunteer their time to serve on a body corporate committee is difficult enough without the added requirement that they undergo compulsory training as well.
This additional burden could have the perverse outcome of reducing the effectiveness of committees by making them even less attractive to serve on than they already are.
It may be better to accept the lesser of two evils: to have some under-educated people on a committee than to have no people at all.
The Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management is unique to Queensland – no other jurisdiction has a similar body to oversee strata law.
The Commissioner’s website contains an Aladdin’s Cave of free resources for strata committees and resident managers on the smooth and efficient running of a body corporate.
In the interests of both encouraging people to volunteer (don’t add barriers) and in better educating those who do volunteer (here’s an array of resources to help you), surely the best way forward for Queensland is to keep the current system in place.
There is a principle known as Chesterton’s fence: never remove a structure before understanding why it was there in the first place.
This applies nicely in the case of mandated education for committee volunteers.
It will be interesting to watch how this plays out in NSW. Already some interesting debate is occurring, led by Francesco Andreone in his online commentary.
Enthusiastic volunteers with access to a wealth of resources to inform their decisions seems a more logical path than introducing yet another barrier to people joining a committee.
To misquote Pink Floyd from their legendary The Wall album: We don’t need no (mandated and disincentivising) education…
Article Contributed by Rob Lalor, Director at Hynes Legal.
Leave a Reply
Such interesting feedback everyone. There are no right or wrong answers, but when the next time to chat law reform comes around we will make sure that these responses go into the mix if government is considering adopting the NSW approach. By then we should have more on the ground evidence about how that is working too.
There is a striking irony in the 15th August edition of Smart Strata, where we have one article, by a strata professional, arguing against mandatory education for Cmttee members and a 2nd article, also from a strata professional, advocating for more informed decisions by Cmttee.
members. Maybe it is just the mandatory element which causes concern in some quarters? I can understand this in personal libertarian terms, but we need to remember that while Cmttee members are volunteers, they are not conscripts.
Qs about the skills and knowledge of volunteer Cmttee members have been lurking in the background in QLD for some time now. Debate is always healthy, and inevitably will be enlivened by the NSW initiative. But it will also be fueled by a growing awareness that the QLD ‘one size fits all’ model, as it is now and has been for so long, is no longer fit for purpose for many of the current and proposed schemes. Something has to change.
The industry has grown exponentially in terms of the overall number of schemes, and although small schemes still dominate, the profile is nevertheless changing re size and complexity. To suggest that what is good enough for managing a 6 pack is also acceptable for managing complexes with 50+ units, especially in a building survey format, is difficult to accept. Where the cut-off point is exactly I do not know, but there has to be a point where professional skills and standards become mandatory for Cmttee members, or at least some of them.
They call them complexes because they are complex. The buildings themselves are complex, the law is complex, and the people issues are complex. And we need to remember that the Cmttee is dealing with other peoples’ money and assets. This, in my humble opinion, requires higher standards and capabilities than managing your own budget in your own home in the ‘burbs.
A simple test for you. Find some Cmttee members who have been in the job for at least 4 or 5 years and ask them to explain some of the fundamentals, eg the 2 Spending Limits, what they are and how they intersect with other financial limits and ‘restricted issues’; what are ‘restricted issues’; the separation of responsibilities between common property and private lots, and the variations thereto; the four types of general meeting resolutions, how they are counted and when employed ( 3 out of 4 is reasonable).
Do your experienced Cmttee members step up to the plate, or do they turn to you in bovine incomprehension and ask….Keh?
The priority for compulsory education and qualifications in the first instance in Queensland should be Body Corporate Managers not the volunteer committee members.
Is there any other comparative trade, profession or role in modern society with the responsibilities that body corporate managers have where totally unqualified people can set themselves up to manage and provide advice and be paid for it? Not even a Cert 2 is needed. Real estate agents, for example have to undertake qualifications. My experience is of being provided with much dodgy ill-informed advice and direction from Body Corporate Managers with very limited understanding of the meaning/application of the regulations and providing advice based on their ‘experience’ and what they have seen other body corporates do.
This appears to me to be a matter of principle. It should not be mandated.
As an educated person, I have always felt that doing one’s best has logically required one to study the topic for at least a basic understanding and level of competence.
I am the chairperson/secretary of a BC Committee for 70 units and have been grateful for the BCC modules that are available online. They take some time to go through them, but can be done at one’s own pace.
I am self-motivated to complete them because I feel it is the right thing to do. They are sufficient for my purposes. I don’t need a government body to tell me that.
Big Brother tactics have always worked against individuals who strive for inner strength and therefore harmonious relationships.
Well said Rob. I agree we need well meaning volunteers. On 2 of the 4 Committees I am on, there are other lawyers but usually debate will get us to the right decision. Some committee members are dog ignorant and seem to be there only to promote their prejudice’s and personal animosities, but usually they are not re-elected. Committees need good Strata Agents but not all are competent and committees should never take as gospel, everything the Strata Agent might say. Always question and ask for the reference. I always remind committees that we are non paid, amateur, volunteers and cannot be expected to have expertise in plumbing, building construction, engineering, fire issues, – or the law. Where technical matters arise, get the advice of paid professionals in that field.
1. In practice anyone who holds responsibility will educate themselves on a needs basis. Life is complex enough to be educated on all that could be potentially required. There are plenty of resources online and offered free and fee for service when issues arise. Happy with General 101 online training but more than that I’d decline positions.
2. These Government initiatives are often marketed without evidence. What’s the driver?
This is about control! Make it difficult for people to be on the committee so that they won’t be. This will then give the government the opportunity to take over running the various Strata Communities. No different if your a tenant in a rental whereyou are told what to do by the Realestate agent who are told by the government corporation, what they can or can’t do, test this test that to be in compliance or else. If you commitee is not compliant the corrupt pseudo government will take control!
Great article Rob!
I agree compulsory training is silly for the reasons you’ve explained. Perhaps some sort of incentivisation for voluntary training would be a better first step.
As for your Pink Floyd quote, that reminded me of my ill-fated tour with a tribute band in the 90s that led me to lose all my money and pushed me to pursue a career in the law! Shine on you crazy diamond!
As a corporate lawyer who has been on a number of BC committees I would welcome some obligation on Committee members to get educated. The frustrations I have experienced dealing with owners who have never read the by-laws let alone the Module or Act know no bounds. Often the professional managers (eg BCS) are similarly ignorant compounding the problem. So often Committee members base their views on what they ‘reckon’ rather than identifiable facts or on their own personal interests. Better to have fewer educated members than a plethora of ignorant volunteers.
Depends what is meant by “education”!! Lawyers are educated in Law but that takes years. Committee Volunteers may be willing to take a 30 minute online “education” on Body Corporate Law but I doubt many would. But if they were, what would be the benefits? Even BC Lawyers don’t necessarily agree with how BC Laws should apply. “:Educated” Committee Member are unlikely to agree either!
In Queensland, we have Strata Managers who can advise Committee Members on BC Law in the first instance and BC Lawyers if more detailed advice is needed. If no resolution, then matters can be put to an Adjudicator. Adjudicators’ decisions ultimately guide Committee decisions.
Great majority of Committee decisions do not involve legal matters so why make “legal education” compulsory. Persuading Owners to stand for Committee is already hard. Most Owners don’t have a positive view of BC Committees. Maybe the effort should be towards educating Owners on the benefits of BC Committees. Certainly, there could be online facilities that explain the legal framework supporting BCs but making that education, or any other education, mandatory will only add another barrier to Owners getting involved in BC Committees .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this article. I am the secretary of our body corporate (a small, seven-unit complex) and have also worked in real estate for the past twenty years, predominantly selling units and townhouses.
I have always taken responsibility for keeping myself as up to date as possible with body corporate issues and regulations. As secretary, I believe I have an obligation to be well informed so I can act in the best interests of our entire complex. That said, if compulsory education were enforced, I believe we would struggle to attract committee members.
I feel that well-structured, free education—such as Smart Strata—should be offered to new committee members upon acceptance of their nomination.
From a real estate perspective, I have unfortunately seen situations where personal viewpoints overrode legal obligations, leading to division between owner-occupiers and landlords. This issue is particularly common in larger complexes.
I hope these observations are helpful.
Should definitely be compulsory. The commissioner also needs to actively monitor that regulations are properly followed. Currently trying to get anything done as regulated is a nightmare and the whole process seems aimed at inhibiting any attempt to get anywhere. Eg. committee meeting minutes that simply say “correspondence was tabled” or “managers report was tabled”, tells owners absolutely nothing.