Last week’s post was all about strata correspondence and how e-mails seem to be ever-missing from strata records when it comes time to do a strata records inspection.
I suggested several reasons for why e-mails might be missing, and trying to come up with a conceptual one-word summary for this, I’ve settled on:
misalignment
We have to dig a little deeper than usual on this one, as “misalignment” is a complex word. So, we’ll start at the base and work towards my chosen definition:
align: To organise in a consistent, defined way
misalign: To align incorrectly
misalignment: The state […] of being misaligned
All of that leads us to my chosen definition for today:
- The state of not being organised in a consistent, defined way
In the case of e-mails in the books and records, I’m going to use “misalignment” as an attribute of the human stakeholders in regards to the legislative requirements (the “defined way”), rather than as an attribute of the items in the books and records themselves.
And that is because humans can be “misaligned” to those requirements in different ways, which I’ll get to shortly, but I’m more interested firstly in something all humans have when aligning with anything:
intent
Is the human intending on being misaligned to the legislative requirements?
Or are they intending to meet the obligations they have under those laws?
We are none of us mind readers. We can only judge on what’s before us, and the actions of those around us.
When I see evidence of missing items in a strata scheme’s books and records I do not jump to a conclusion of malicious intent.
However, being aware of how intent affects our ability to undertake inspections of those records is important when forming opinions on the management of a strata scheme.
We may struggle to get access to records even if there is no intent to “hide something”, but when there is such an intent, our inspection becomes that much harder.
Let’s look again at the list I provided last week about possible reasons for e-mails being excluded from the books and records:
- a misunderstanding of which correspondence is “owners corporation-related”
- a misunderstanding of privacy legislation
- disparate systems and processes used by strata managing agency
- separation of committee correspondence from strata management agency systems
- an intention to not include some or all e-mails in the books and records
- portals, discussion groups, wikis, etc. not monitored or run by the strata managing agency
I think it would be broadly accepted that “misunderstandings” are not an intent to mislead or exclude, but opinions based on a false view of what the relevant requirements are. I dealt with the issue of owners corporation-related correspondence last week.
Representations that e-mails are not included due to privacy or other reasons may be made with an intent to deceive, in which case they would be misrepresentations of understanding – a statement that, for example, privacy laws apply to owners corporation-related e-mails may be made with the full understanding that those privacy laws do not, in fact, apply.
Similarly, knowledge that owners corporation-related correspondence is occurring over e-mail which the strata manager is aware of, but doesn’t see, does not remove the strata manager’s obligation to inform the committee of the need to include those e-mails in the books and records.
How the strata management agency’s systems and processes support such inclusion is left as an exercise for individual agencies’ compliance managers to establish.
Speaking of agency systems, it’s not always the case that e-mails are easily able to be transferred from the agency’s e-mail system to whichever system is used for the records of owners corporations.
E-mails include attachments and other attributes which, for example, “printing” the e-mails to PDF and storing those PDFs does not replicate.
Either the storage system needs to understand e-mails and their components and allow them to be added easily, or .msg or .eml files need to be stored in the system (in which case it’s then left to the inspector to figure out how to open those files).
And then either by explicit intent (choosing to exclude of some or all e-mails), or simple “disconnection of systems” (committee-run portals or just correspondence not seen), further electronic correspondence falls between the cracks.
There is no easy answer. Gentle requests to the strata manager for e-mails might be met with misunderstandings of the law, intentional expressions of a chosen position as if they were “misunderstandings”, or just an inability to present information from one system in that used for inspections.
While the absence of e-mails in the books and records does not automatically mean a scheme is being mismanaged (by the strata manager and/or the committee), attempting to grasp the intent behind that absence can help to move things in the right direction, and to inform our view of whether other issues may be present in the scheme.
But until there’s more action taken to ensure it is widely understood that e-mails are required to be included in schemes’ books and records, they’ll probably continue to be the largest missing component in any strata inspection.
A bit of a change of tack next week, as I look at just what “strata inspectors” do, and what a “strata report” is.
Strata Report Giveaway!
Yes, the offer still stands! I will prepare a free strata report (valued at $385!) for a strata scheme in NSW (remote inspection for management agencies outside Sydney metro area) to the first commenter or contact via the details below who can correctly identify why I use the dummy strata scheme SP735328 (other than its unlikelihood to ever be issued!).
This prize is transferable, so if you or someone you know is looking to buy in strata and needs an independent, professional, and thorough strata report, get solving, get in touch, and maybe get some brownie points!
Featured image: “Phrenology head from The Household Physician, 1905” by William Creswell, used under CC BY 2.0 / Cropped from original
Leave a Reply