After more than a year and after all the emails and questions I've asked of the Squatters Run body corporate Council
about the BluBox loan,
it was only when I inquired at last Saturday's AGM as to why the "loan" was not listed under "Assets"
in the "Statement of Financial Affairs" that council member Ray Temperley stated that it was "not a loan" adding that a loan
would infer that it had to be repaid. Council member Richard Gallimore further added that they [the council] had never told
anyone that it was a loan.
For the record:
In an email, dated 27 August 2013, I received the following response from Richard Gallimore (and copied to all council members)
to a question I asked council.
My question was:
"How much will Council (on behalf of all owners, including KT) initially be paying for this system [i.e. blubox]?"
Richard Gallimore's response was:
"The purchase cost of the system has been borrowed from the sinking fund."
He continued to say:
"This means that the cost will ultimately be borne entirely by those who wish to avail themselves of the Foxtel service.
Owners who do not connect will not bear any of the cost."
And then in an email sent to all Squatters Run owners on 25 September 2013 from "Squatters Run Council President Richard Gallimore",
in reference to the BluBox:
"Council's mechanism for funding the infrastructure cost to enable this to occur ensures that those owners who want the service
will pay for it, while those who do not, are insulated from the cost. The loan from the sinking fund is therefore
independent of the usual levies each owner has to pay to cover the operating costs and maintenance of the building.
From googling "meaning of loan" - loan : noun
"a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest."
And googling "meaning of borrow" - borrow
: verb
"take and use (something belonging to someone else) with the intention of returning it."
With the host of questions I had asked the body corporate council over more than 12 months, about the BluBox,
there had been a multitude of opportunities prior to last Saturday's AGM, for the Squatters Run body corporate council to correct or clarify
their use of the word "loan". Never was it put to me (and I would presume any other owner outside of council) that the "loan" was not a loan.
None of the other council members at the AGM, who had been involved in the "loan" since the last AGM, said a word for
or against the statements made by Ray Temperley and Richard Gallimore. One ex-council member, who had resigned over the handling of
the BluBox, argued contrary to the councillors' statements.
How can I believe anything said or written by the Squatters Run body corporate council? What's next?