If a SC proposes a motion at a forthcoming AGM asking the residents to give a vote of confidence in the SC and its sub-committees is there a requirement, either legal or ethical, for the members of those committees to recuse themselves from taking part in the vote on the motion due to a potential conflict of interest.
This is a new one on me! The ultimate “vote of confidence” at an AGM is the election of a new committee (and committee members are not recused from that).
If you think your committee is indulging in Trump-like requests for self-congratulation, propose an amendment to the motion at the AGM that the committee also records issues with which owners have not been happy. It’s really just an extension of the original motion, so it should fly.
But everyone can vote if they want to. You could however call for a poll vote which would record who had voted and in which way.
If this has come from the committee itself, it sounds like they are under siege and looking for a little TLC. You could ask that committee members abstain so that the views of owners are more clearly reflected in the vote.
Or you could start gathering proxies form digruntled owners.
But it’s strange. Should be an interesting discussion.