AGM motion incorrect wording legal problem???

Hi. Got an AGM coming up and one of the motions from one of the owners in the complex seems to have accidentally worded the motion the opposite of what they meant. They wanted to put forward a motion to continue some works, but instead of using the word continue they used a word that means to stop. This is basically what I'm talking about...

Motion X: Get quotes and agreement to "stop" the painting of the complex.

I've changed the motion from the exact wording and exact work details, but you get the idea.

I asked for clarification on this and was told it means to continue (by the person who proposed the motion -- via the BC company). What is the situation here?
I'm concerned because what if another owner voted thinking it means to stop and would therefore be voting to continue or vice versa. Is this a legal problem? Or will the chairperson at the AGM just dismiss the motion due to the poor wording?

Thanks.

 

Suggest you propose a modified motion at the meeting, or at least have an action point following indicating work is proceeding.

 

Why would you require a item at the AGM to continue with works previously budgeted, approved and orders presumably placed?

If it is proposed to undertake additional works, works outside of the scope anticipated except variations arising from investigatory works, then additional consenus should be reached and minuted accordingly.

 

The works in question started several years ago and finished several years ago. It was something cosmetic to improve the building but only one section of it. This motion, it seems, is to do the rest of the building with the same cosmetic make over to finish it off.

Update: MY BC company says that the motion is technically invalid because "it is more of a statement". That didn't quite answer the question I put to them re whether or not this motion will be dismissed at the AGM. Or maybe that does mean it will be dismissed. I'm just not knowledgeable enough in regards to such matters.

I've asked them for clarification and unless they got the sh*ts with me for being stupid, I'll hopefully get a reply.

One thing this episode has highlighted is that I need to learn how motions are written and how an AGM works in regards to motions.

 

If that's the case, then the strata managers should be requested to call quotes for the works and it can be approved at an AGM. If it is an improvement, there's no compulsion to undertake the works it's just a nice to have so there will be more interest in the issue as each owner will have a different opinion and vastly differing circumstances.

 

So the motion will be dismissed at the AGM. Which is the clarification I was looking for.

I wanted to actually vote against it anyway as I don't feel this is the right economic environment to be doing major works that will eat into a sinking fund or cause special sinking fund payments as it's not something that needs to be done. It would be nice in the future though.

 

Buy them a Thesaurus perhaps?