Is Your Body Corporate Committee Suffering from a "Rudd Conundrum"?
BY: TIM SHEEHAN
 |  |
Don't read any further if you are looking for views on the merits of Labor -v- Liberal / National. Buy a Newspaper for that or go to Twitter (which seems to be a new way - see my later comment about journalists and emails). This is an article on the ethereal nature of success in the political process, and it does not contain a single attempt to be witty.
On the morning that I wrote this article I was sitting in a hospital waiting room, so I had time to watch the Kevin Rudd - Julia Gillard leadership change transpire on television. The night before I had stayed up watching the drama of the late night meeting between Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard.
It is amazing what now passes as reporting/news. Most of the coverage on Wednesday night consisted of reporters reading emails from their blackberries / iphones. The emails were sent to them by mates, other reporters or "insiders". However, that is another issue. What I want to write about is the nature of politics.
I don't want to be a social commentator but there are differing views on the causes of both why Mr. Rudd came to power and how he ultimately came to be deposed as leader by his own party colleagues.
Did Mr. Rudd come to power because the Australian electorate decided Mr. Howard had to go, or did the electorate decide that the policy alternatives offered by Mr. Rudd where the right mix for Australia in November 2007? Did Mr. Rudd's colleagues decide that he had to be replaced as leader because the Australian electorate decided he wasn't the right man for the job, or did they decide that his policy mix was wrong for June 2010? Were the policies wrong or was the communication of the policies so poor it made the policies wrong? How can one person be so popular in March and so unpopular in June? Is popularity that important for success?
The way the Rudd - Gillard drama played out made me question whether there are any lessons for us in body corporate land flowing from the historic installation of our first female Prime Minister. Unquestionably there are!
Firstly, every person who decides to put their name forward for a body corporate committee is volunteering to become involved in the politics of their community titles scheme. Unfortunately or fortunately most committee positions are not decided by election. They are decided because the person who stands is the only person who puts their name forward.
That is a potential problem. Surely a system whereby you "get the job" simply because you agree to "do the job" cannot result in the best possible outcomes for the lot owners? In such a system anybody who volunteers is consequently able to run their own personal agenda, with little push back. I have seen that result in some horrendous outcomes for lot owners. Contrarily, I have seen some individuals join body corporate committees to prosecute personal agendas, but after assuming the committee position they have realised their greater responsibility to the owners, and they have listened to all points of view and worked hard to formulate and then implement policies which weren't their initial views. These new policies result in good outcomes for their body corporate communities. These committee members have done this work, and continue to do this work, without payment and definitely without glory. I truly admire these people.
In the rare cases where there are contested body corporate elections, mostly the outcome is curious. There is usually very little politicking or canvassing for support.
It is a mystery how people decide who they vote for. Most people don't vote anyway. Probably not because they don't care. Probably because they don't have a reason to distinguish between the candidates.
Even more rarely is a body corporate election decided on "issues". I think it would be positive if there was more robust discussion on the issues.
I don't want to put off anyone who is considering sticking up their hand to join a committee because we have too few volunteers. However, if you are becoming involved in the politics, then you should ask yourself "why do I give up my time? What do I wish to achieve for our body corporate community?" Is it sufficient reason to stand simply because you believe you might be able to do a better job then the current committee?
If you are already on a committee then you have to ask: Is what I am trying to achieve really in the best interest of the majority of the lot owners today? What are the things that really matter to lot owners and how can we achieve these outcomes for the lot owners?
Here is my only attempt at a pearl of wisdom in this piece of prose. I am going to call it "the Rudd Conundrum": I contend that both success and failure, popularity and unpopularity are intrinsically linked with an ability to communicate clearly, and I really question whether most body corporate committees are communicating at all, let alone communicating clearly.
Every body corporate committee should avoid the Rudd Conundrum by asking the following questions:
Have we communicated our goals for our body corporate community clearly?
How did we communicate them?
Did our fellow lot owners listen?
What feedback did they give us?
Wisdom over. Next edition I return to wit - or an attempt at wit.
