AGM votes - majority or unamimous

The president of our small Community is proposing to pay himself 500€ pa.  Does it need a unamious or majority vote at the meeting. There are a few against it.

There is a fair amount of work involved in carrying out the duties of President. If your president is doing a good job and is not taking kick backs from suppliers paying him is not unreasonable.

With regard to your question a majority of those present or represented at the meeting is all that is required for this type of proposal provided the meeting has been properly called and his proposal is on the agenda.

If the majority are in favour but you are concerned you could propose an amendment accepting the proposal provided it is reviewed each year at the AGM.

Personaly i am in favour of presidents doing the job because they want too.

A small rmuneration to cover expense is fine, but if you pay them too much somebody will come along and do it for the money.

It is a difficult balancing act i would admit.

Also i don't believe a president should be setting his own remuneration.

Just my opinion as a serving president.

My understanding is that El Presidente cannot receive any remuneration other than expenses we have had 9 presidents and not one of them received a penny outside of expenses as for backhanders I would sack him on the spot if I found this out.

As a principle, being the President is an obligation that you have ( in turns) as owner member of a community of owners.

Said that, if the community agreed so by unanimous consent, there is no legal obstacle for a remuneration.
 

Thanks for the prompt reply.  There will not be a unamimous vote in favour, so no renumeration, no rise in fees.

It is a pleasure. I love posting on EOS and bringing this simple informatio to you.

I picked this one up - as it is from earlier in the year - because our president is asking our community to pay him 1200€ per year.

I note in the forum  there is a varioation on opinion eg unanimous or a majority.

I thought that items/costs etc that are vital for security, habitation and other matters vital to the welfare and safely of the community can be passed by a simple majority whilst other lesser vital items need a 3/5 majority and those who objected do not have to pay for this non-vital service/cost.

Any comments would be most helpful - thanks - vista verde

My understanding is that for the president to receive a remunation the vote should be unanimous. Other votes are usually by majority.

Replace the president with one that's not after money.

I have a guide to community law written by a legal expert  in my Spanish property which states the position almost word for word as stated by Maria in her earlier post-the community may  make an allowance to a President by unanimous consent.

 My personal view for what it is worth is that the role of the President  is of such   significance within the community that any change not provided for in relation to his role or functions would appear to be a matter of fundamental importance requiring unanimous consent

This issue is likely to arise from time to time and  hopefully posters will keep us up to date

This message was last edited by Nostradamus on 27/04/2014.