THE QUAYS STORY
(Last update May 2023)
INTRODUCTION
The Quays CTS 33891 (Quays) was registered circa
2005, has 113 owners and is a mixed residential BC with mostly duplex &
semi-detached houses with the odd freestanding house, and 20 apartments in two
low-rise buildings. It is one of 15 subsidiary BCs in a layered scheme under a
Principal Body Corporate (PBC).
The Quays has a financial YE of 31 March and the 2020/21 AGM was held on
24 August 2021, after two approved postponements due to Covid-19 restrictions.
Some residents opposed to a proposed levy increase launched a divisive
and mostly anonymous campaign of misinformation (see Doc-Ref 100X). At
the AGM this campaign" by these residents resulted in purposely disruptive block-voting against almost all motions at the AGM. For example:
50 of a total 66 Owners abstained from voting to approve the previous AGM Minutes;
44 voted against the adoption of the Financial Statements,
44 voted against the appointment of the Auditor,
48 voted against the Administration budget, and 48 voted against the Sinking Fund budget.
The executive plus two other members of the sitting committee, who had
nominated prior to the financial year-end and would have been elected
unopposed, resigned & withdrew their nominations having no interest in
working with the “campaigners” who, in their opinion, did not have sufficient knowledge
or experience and would not work in the best interests of the Quays as a whole.
Peak Body Corporate Management (Peak) had been appointed BCM from
4/10/20 to 3/10/21 at the 2020 AGM but at
the 2021 AGM the vote to re-appoint
them was defeated 25:25:3 (Yes: No: Abstain:
respectively). Furthermore, even though Peak was contracted till 3 October 2021 and had an outstanding track record with the Quays, other EL subsidiary BCs, the PBC and other clients, the new committee decided to exclude Peak from that day forward.
CHAPTER 2 – EGM 30 September 2021
The Quays Body Corporate had been operating harmoniously and effectively since 2005 and we were in disbelief as to the actions of the new committee in ignoring regulations, before, during and after the EGM; especially when these regulatory breaches were brought to the their attention before and during the EGM as well as after. These irregularities have been acknowledged by the BCCM Adjudicator. See Adjudication Page.
The immediate exclusion of Peak after the 24/8/21 AGM, as described above, was in my opinion and experience, an overreaction and an error on the part of the new and inexperienced committee and resulted in most of the subsequent errors regarding the calling and conducting of the EGM on 30 September 2021. For example - Peak were not consulted or included in the VOCM calling the EGM, or in the preparation, noticing, budgets, financials and other requirements for the EGM. The new committee used a "consultant", Value Strata Management (Value), to prepare the notice and papers for the EGM. The Chairman/Treasurer, Darren McLean, indicated directly to Nick Jones, the principal of Peak, that he was not permitted to attend the EGM; which in my opinion (and his), led directly to multiple BCCM regulations being breached in the preparation, papers and conduct of the EGM.
For example - in the EGM Papers:
1. A VOCM dated 9/9/21 to hold the EGM went unmentioned in several subsequent items of committee correspondence to Owners and was never confirmed at a committee meeting, as is required. Timeline evidence of the “VOCM” has never been produced, despite being requested several times by me.
2. Notice of the EGM to Owners requiring notice by post were never sent.
3. There is not an Explanatory Note for Motion 3 – proposed third audit of the 20/21 financials.
4. Line details of proposed budgets were not included in the EGM Notice or papers.
For example - at the EGM:
The committee did not have an Owners’ Roll; or a list of unfinancial Owners ineligible to vote.
Consequently, the committee, also not knowing the “Definition of a body corporate debt”, allowed a possible maximum of 17 ineligible voters to cast votes. Six ineligible votes were in fact counted, including one from a member of the new committee.
As I result of these irregularities I did lodge a submission application to the BCCM in November 2021 and an Adjudicators Order was eventually received in July 2022. Unfortunately the long delay in the process negated any meaningful result. See Adjudication page.
CHAPTER 3 – The Value Strata Era (30/9/21 to 30/11/22) (Disaster 1)
Value was one of four BCMs proposed at the EGM. However, Mike Murray the principal of Value, was introduced and allowed to consult to the committee at the EGM. Value’s election as BCM was thus a foregone conclusion because of this favoured "consult" position and the “campaign” for a block-vote in Value’s favour. Value’s tenure as BCM would prove to be a disaster, in my opinion and direct experience wof Value.
Value's Record Compared to The Code of Conduct for Body Corporate Managers
A. Knowledge of Act including the Code of Conduct.
1. Failed to have confirmed the VOCM dated 9/9/21 to call the 30/9/21 EGM at any of the several subsequent committee meetings.
2. Failed to recognise a "body corporate debt" and thus permitted ineligible Owners to vote at the EGM on 30/9/21.
3. The Financial Statements for FYE 31/3/22 breached 3 BCCM (AM) Regulations - S165(5)(a), S165(2), S165(1)(a) &S166(5). They contained many glaring and significant errors and regulatory concerns that rendered the accounts as an unfair and untrue representation of the Quay’s financial position.
4. The Budgets for the FYE 31/3/23 breached 2 BCCM (AM) Regulations - S150(3)(a) & (b); and they were error-ridden, inaccurate and misleading.
B. Honesty, fairness & professionalism.
B. Honesty, fairness & professionalism.
1. On 15/12/21, I emailed to ask if an auditor had been engaged as per Motion 3 of the EGM held on 30/9/21. The Value Strata response was, and I quote:
"The Committee will not be responding to your enquiry on Motion 3 of EGM re Audit. The Committee will proceed at its sole discretion and at a time of its choosing. More simply put you fail to recognise that this motion used the word 'audit' in its general sense and not in the statutory context so as to invoke any section of the regulations. (i.e. solar audit; water audit; transaction audit etc.) It remains bewildering that you persist to assume you know the intention of that motion ('manner contrary to its intention') and the common understanding of all other owners ('the Owners' understanding')." (Doc-Ref 200BB4)
The above statement was a complete contradiction of reality given the wording of both the committee meeting resolution, and the EGM motion. See both below.
The wording of the committee decision to submit the above motion at the Committee Meeting held on 21 September 2021 was:
"5.1 The audit report for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 was tabled for review as the report was rejected at the Annual General Meeting held on 26 (sic) August 2021. The committee advised that a motion will be included on the Agenda of an Extraordinary General Meeting to have the accounts re-audited.”
Furthermore, the wording of the EGM motion was:" Audit of Accounts, Ordinary Resolution Submitted by Strata Committee, Motion 3. That the body corporate commission an audit of all financial transactions of the preceding financial year spanning 1/4/20 to 31/3/21 for a fee not exceeding $5000."The Value Strata response was self-serving, misleading, dishonest and unprofessional.
2. At the AGM held on 16/6/22 John Blake asked Value Strata to confirm that the numbers in the financial statements for the YE 31/3/22 were correct. Mike Murray replied that they were correct.
In fact, the numbers were not only incorrect but by Murray’s own previous comment on his incorrect allocation from the Peak handover numbers, he had confirmed so. In addition he had been sent irrefutable evidence of several errors prior to the meeting. In my opinion and experience it was mathematically impossible & illogical for those numbers to be correct in any sense. We are talking errors of a magnitude in the tens of thousands of dollars and in one case hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Value response was dishonest, unprofessional and not in the least in the best interests of the Quays.
C. Skill, care & diligence
1. Failed to put into effect the lawful decision of the Quays Body Corporate, Motion 3 of the AGM held on the 24 August 2021, to audit the statement of accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 2022.
This subsequently led to the committee submitting, unlawful and unaudited financial statements to the Owners at the AGM on 16 June 2022.
2. Failed to put into effect the lawful decision of the Quays Body Corporate, Motion 3 of the EGM held on the 30 September 2021, to audit the statement of accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 2021.
3. Failed to appoint an Auditor to audit the statement of accounts for the FYE 31/3/22 (at two EGMs).
4. Consistently failed to include documents in committee meeting agendas and/or to include tabled documents with meeting minutes; and, then failed to respond to requests for copies of tabled documents.
D. Acting in the Body Corporate’s best interest
1. Value failed to act in the Quay’s best interest when incorrect invoices were issued for water usage in March 2022. The charge rate was incorrect and the charge for GST was illegal. Value Strata proffered three different excuses as to why the invoices were OK, none of which were correct or honest.
Value refused to issue correct invoices & the committee were silent on the issue.
E. Keeping the Body Corporate informed
1. Failed to table any/all in/out correspondence at committee meetings and in particular official BCCM correspondence as follows:
a) Failed to table at any meeting and/or or circulate to Owners, the BCCM email and letter of 27/1/22 sent to the Quays BC.
b) Failed to table at any meeting and/or to circulate to Owners, the BCCM email, letter and Adjudicator's Order of 5/7/22 sent to the Quays BC. (Please see the Adjudication page)
2. Failed to issue minutes of the EGM held on 20/1/22 on time - issued on 20/2/22, 10 days late.
3. Failed to issue minutes of the Committee Meeting held on 17/2/21 on time - issued 19 days late.
4. Failed to record or confirm any VOCMs for the period 1/10/21 to 31/7/22.
5. Failed to give the correct address on all of several notices for the EGM to be held on 20/1/2022 and continued to use the incorrect address even after the Chairman/Treasurer, Darren McLean, had changed the venue.
6. Failed to give the correct address on all of several notices for the AGM held on 16/6/22.
7. Failed to attach a full set of by-laws with the distribution of the minutes of the EGM held on 20/1/22 and the missing two pages are yet to be sent to Owners, despite requests to do so.
8. Failed again to attach a full set of by-laws with the distribution of the minutes of the Committee Meeting held on 17/2/22 despite stating that "......a copy of the by-laws will be included along with these minutes." Again, this oversight is yet to be corrected despite requests to do so.
The committee, although aware, did not verify, check or act to correct any of these issues.
F. Rudeness
In January 2022 I sent an email to Value pointing out politely and innocuously that there were two anomalies (minor errors) in the minutes of the Committee Meeting held on 14/12/21. The unprovoked response from Mike Murray was "Andy, please seek the help you require." (Please see Doc-Ref 200B3)
The Mike Murray response was drawn to the committee’s attention, as was the email response to me from one of the committee who doubled-down on the comment from Mike Murray.
The committee failed to act on the abusive behaviour toward an Owner in both instances.
G. False pretences
In February 2022 I requested a copy of the voice recording of the committee meeting held on 14/12/21. I was charged $18.25 and all I received was another set of the minutes – minutes already in my possession as sent by Value to all Owners on 5 January 2022.
H. Selective responses
1. In April 2022 three owners requested confirmation that our BC Insurance had been renewed. One owner was ignored, another owner was asked why he wanted to know, and the third owner received a Certificate of Currency.
2. On 28/1/22 John Blake Owner Lot 3010 requested via email "a copy of the Committee's response to the BCCM application submission. Value Strata responded the same day in what was described by JohnBlake as a "dismissive tone and contemptuous of the adjudication process". (Please see Doc-Ref 200BB7)
Despite stating the intent to do so, Value failed to raise John Blake's correspondence at any subsequent committee meetings. The committee was presumably aware but failed to act.
I. BCM to demonstrate keeping of records
1. The Financial Statements for the FYE 31/3/22 were error-ridden, inaccurate and misleading in the extreme. They contained many glaring and significant errors and regulatory concerns that rendered the accounts an unfair and untrue representation of the Body Corporate’s financial position.
2. The Contribution Notices for water usage issued on 8/3/22 were erroneous in that Value Strata did not use the rate for water used by both the GCCC and the PBC; and Value Strata charged GST on a GST-Free supply, which is illegal. Also, with a due date of 22/3/22 Value Strata did not allow the required 30 days for payment. Value had proffered three different excuses for the errors but refused to correct the errors.
3. The Contribution Notice for levies issued to Owners on 19/6/22 for the period 1/8/22 to 30/11/22 by Value Strata was issued early, had an incorrect due date and the amounts levied were not as per the motions of the AGM held on 16/6/22.
4. At the AGM (16/6/2022) in relation to the committee-submitted amendment re Audit, Value Strata failed to conduct the voting count correctly - in that only those owners that had been voting from the floor were asked to vote (about 9), yet all 18 Owners present at the AGM were counted as FOR the motion to amend.
5. Failed to calculate levies correctly for the FYE 31/3/23. Levies were calculated using a 10% discount whereas a 20% discount has been allowed to all Owners. This will result in a levy shortfall for the 22/23 FY of $84,739; (AF $56k, SF29K).
As far as I am aware the committee did not comment, report, intervene or correct any of these Code irregularities as noted above in sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H & I.
Furthermore, warnings of Value's erratic and questionable conduct were given to the committee in May 2022 in the form of two emails, one of which referenced the publicly available BCCM ruling against Mike Murray (t/as Value) re Riverstone Crossing. The committee ignored these warnings and we are yet to hear if the Stansure reported irreconcilable difference of $15,000 in our financials has been found.
Please see - Doc-Ref 200GG7 (emails) and Doc-Ref 200GG8 (ruling)
CHAPTER 4 – AGM 16 June 2022
1. Motion 2 – the committee presented irregular, erroneous and unaudited financials and requested Owners to vote - in full knowledge that the financials were prepared incorrectly, both in terms of the regulations and accounting standards, and therefore they did not represent the true financial position of the Quays BC.
The committee were first advised of the errors in the financials on 31/5/22 (see Doc-Ref 300C).Owners were first advised on 6/6/22 (see Doc-Ref 400H).
How could the committee ignore these errors and especially not even notice that a $9,951.93 closing balance became a $270,687.83 opening balance, especially when it was brought to their attention, several times?
Yet, the committee went ahead and presented these unaudited financials to Owners and got them to vote despite this particular error and many more. How was this in the best interests of Quays Owners?
ELECTRONIC VOTING is easy and convenient but it entices Owners to vote quickly without necessarily devoting any time to fully comprehend what they are voting for. AGM Papers were sent out on 26/5/22 and as mentioned, the committee was advised of errors on 31/5/22 and Owners were advised of errors on 6/6/22, yet a majority of 39 out 51 Owners voted FOR the financials, including, one presumes, all members of the committee! See Doc-Ref 300G or go to FINANCIALS.
OWNER APATHY is a serious problem in body corporates - as witnessed by the above-mentioned vote. Please, when next voting, take your time and vote only when you believe that the information you have is true & correct.
2. The committee proposed an amendment to Motion 4 – viz., that the auditor be appointed for a two-year period, 1/4/21 to 31/3/23, instead of a one-year period to 31/3/23.
This Motion to Amend indicates in my opinion the probability that:
a) the committee was well aware that the financials they had presented for electronic vote and were now presenting for Owners’ vote at the AGM, were unaudited; and therefore contrary to the specific statutory requirement, being the Owners’ vote at the AGM on 24/8/21 for an audit. (See Motion 3 Doc-Ref 100A); and,
b) the committee was well aware that the financials they had presented for electronic vote and were now presenting for Owners’ vote at the AGM, were fundamentally flawed; and, they hoped to delay that audit of those 21/22 financials for another year. (See Correspondence page)
3. Motion 5 & 6 – the committee presented Administration Fund and Sinking Fund budgets subject to a 20% discount for on-time payment by Owners knowing full well that the budget levies calculated by Value included only a 10% discount.
This will result will be a levy shortfall for the year of approx. $85k; (AF -$56k, -SF29k).
CHAPTER 5 - Committee's contradictory behaviour
At the 2021 AGM a small group of Owners, the leaders of which would later become the new committee, encouraged and organised a larger group of Owners to vote against the committee-approved and twice-fully-audited FY 2021 financials; and then, at the 2022 AGM as a committee, presented a motion and allowed Owners to vote for unaudited, non-compliant & error-ridden FY 2022 financials!
Note: At the 2021 AGM Owners voted to have the 21/22 Financial Statements audited. However, the Committee failed to have those accounts audited and Owners should not have been asked to vote on those accounts at the 2022 AGM, especially given the inexplicable, illogical and incorrect figures presented in an unaudited format that did not comply with the regulations.
The 21/22 financials did not meet accounting standards or BCCM regulatory requirements, as advised to the Committee (and Owners) prior to the AGM. In my opinion the committee more than likely behaved negligently when they did not verify or act on this advice. And so, only after the AGM could I have the faults in the accounts confirmed by 3 Chartered Accountants and 3 CPAs so that the committee would be forced to act.
I do not believe nor am I aware at this time, that the committee has acknowledged any errors or apologised to Owners; or, acted efficiently and appropriately in attempts to correct errors and faults.
At the 2021 AGM a small group of Owners, the leaders of which, would later become the new committee, encouraged and organised a larger group of Owners to vote against appointing Dickfos Dunn Adam as our auditors; and then, at the 2022 AGM as a committee, presented a motion and encouraged Owners to vote for appointing Dickfos Dunn Adam as auditors for the FYE 31/3/23!
Note: The undated, unsigned, anonymous and selective letter box drop, asking Owners to support Darren McLean, Jock Alexander, Chris Mathew, Fiona Day and Margaret Comber, stated: "doubt exists as to the impartiality or independence of the current auditors". (See Doc-Ref 100X).
Even under the cloak of anonymity, this is an outrageous comment to make about an experienced, professionally qualified and registered company auditor and it clearly influenced the committee-elect and a majority of Owners at the 2021 AGM to reject DDA as auditors. Yet at the 2022 AGM the Committee proposed those very same auditors, without any explanation to Owners for the year-prior contrary recommendation.
CHAPTER 6 – YE 31 March 2022 Financials (Disaster 2)
BACKGROUND
At the 2021 AGM (24/8/21) Owners agreed to an audit of the FYE 31 March 2022- the committee failed to enact this lawful decision.
At the same AGM the motion to appoint an auditor was defeated by Owners – however the committee failed to include a motion to appoint a replacement auditor at two subsequent EGMs; and because of this failure we did not have an audit as legally agreed by Owners.
FINANCIALS
The financials for YE 31/3/22 passed at the 2022 AGM (16/6/22) - the committee approved and presented to Owners, unaudited and false financials that did not comply with any accounting standards or with the BCCM regulatory requirements.
This was despite being advised in detail, and demonstrated to in no uncertain terms, that the financials were incorrect and non-compliant in multiple aspects prior to the AGM - the committee, in my opinion, may well have acted negligently when they failed to verify, and/or act on this advice. (Please see the correspondence on the FINANCIALS page)
In my opinion and experience, it is very likely that there has been Financial Statement Misrepresentation. But, who committed the misrepresentation and was the misrepresentation Innocent, Negligent or Fraudulent is a question for a court to decide, if and when a disgruntled seller or buyer decides to seek compensation for a loss sustained as a result of any financial misrepresentation.
Finally, after being forced to face facts per the independent, professional confirmations regarding the irregularities in the financials, the committee took it upon themselves to appoint an auditor to review the accounts.
Note that they appointed the same auditor (DDA) that they urged you not to appoint at the 2021 AGM for the same set of financials.
While the long-awaited appointment of an auditor may have had good intent, it continued the trend, in my opinion, of the committee making illegal decisions. The committee has no authority to appoint an auditor, it is an Owners' decision to be made at a general meeting. And, I do not believe nor am I aware to date, that the committee has even advised Owners of their "unauthorised and therefore illegal" decision.
Furthermore, at the committee meeting of 12/12/22 the committee failed to properly table or confirm a VOCM record as to when, where and how the committee decided to appoint an auditor and at what cost and/or to confirm the minutes of the previous committee meeting. PLEASE SEE THE FINANCIAL PAGE FOR MORE DETAILS
CHAPTER 7 - Unauthorised decisions
A. Decisions by the committee that have not been recorded and/or confirmed as required by the legislation.
B. Decisions by Owners at General Meetings that the committee has not enacted.1. The authorisation of an internal review of the 20/21 financials conducted by Fiona Day, Christine Mathew & Margaret Comber and referenced in committee meeting minutes.
2. The establishment of the Quays Website, mentioned in several committee meeting minutes but without any reference to initial and/or ongoing costs.
3. The committee-submitted amendment to a statutory motion at the 16/6/22 AGM that the next audit cover two years to 31/3/23.
4. The appointment of an auditor for the 21/22 financials and at what cost and with what brief.
5. The approval (and the distribution to Owners) of the revised 21/22 financials.
6. VOCM on 8/11/22 re assignment of BCM Agreement not confirmed at Committee Meeting on 12/12/22.
1. AGM 24/8/21, Motion 3, Audit the 21/22 Financials (55 for the audit; 6 against) (note 1)
2. AGM 30/9/21, Motion 3, Audit the 20/21 Financials (48 for the audit; 11 against) (note 2)
Note 1. This audit has since been enacted, in October 2022, well after the June 2022 AGM and the voting on the 21/22 financials.
Note 2. The 20/21 financials were audited, twice. There appears to be no need for a third audit. However, the committee must ask Owners to revoke the original decision.
C. Decisions by the committee contrary to their authority.
1. The committee has, without authority to do so, appointed an Auditor for the 21/22 financials; and without any reference to obtaining Owners’ approval at a future general meeting.
2. The committee has, without proper consideration of the correct procedures and without regard of consequences, issued revised 21/22 financials and the auditor's report to Owners; and without any reference to obtaining Owners’ approval at a future general meeting.
While Owners might welcome these items that were well overdue, the result is that Owners now have two sets of 21/22 financials.
The first set, (v1) as approved by the committee and Owners at the last AGM, but with unaudited and incorrect figures.
The second set, (v2) unapproved formally by the committee or Owners, yet now audited and with corrected figures.Note: The approval of financials is a statutory decision which can only be made by Owners voting at a general meeting.
Furthermore, the committee failed to table or confirm a VOCM record as to when, where and
how they approved (albeit illegally) these revised financials, as is required by the regulations.
CHAPTER 8 – End of the Value Reign (July to December 2022)
13 Oct 2022 - Committee Meeting (Minutes issued 14 Nov 2022)
First committee meeting since 5 May 2022.
Owners in attendance were not recorded by name but gratuitously referred to as "and other lot owners with and without notice" in breach of AM Regulation 2020, s63(6)(b). Please see Doc-Ref 300K and Doc-Ref 300K1.
Stansure to provide references from existing and previous clients.
Owners have never been advised if these references were obtained and/or whether they were positive or not.
Tracey Adam of DDA attended and advised:
1. Value still to provide bank statement.
2. GST/BAS returns have not been lodged. (presumably for quarters ended 9/21, 12/21, 3/22, 6/22 & 9/22?)3. The audit of the 21/22 financials is still ongoing.
4. Committee to request up to date bank reconciliation from Value.
Items missing - Business Arising, Correspondence, VOCM Confirmations and a PBC Report.
22 Nov 2022 - Audited Financials for YE 31 March 2022 are issued by the Chairman/Treasurer, Darren McLean. However these financials are not approved by Owners at a general meeting. And there is no indication that the committee has approved these financials or approved the release of them to Owners.
Minutes of the previous meeting (13 Oct 2022) were not confirmed when a VOCM dated 8 Nov 2022 was confirmed in error, as the minutes of the previous meeting.
Business Arising - "Stansure to report to the Committee regarding the account discrepancies be (sic) the end of this week." It was mentioned at the meeting that the shortfall between our bank ledger and the bank statement was $15,000.
Financial - "Stansure were unable to confirm status of BAS lodgement and will advise the committee once setup has been completed."
General Business, Insurance Renewal - "......it was decided the Committee will source quotations along with obtaining an updated Insurance Replacement Valuation."
Next Meeting - ".....will be scheduled for February 2023.....".
Items missing - Correspondence, VOCM Confirmations and a PBC Report.
CHAPTER 9 – The Stansure Era (December 2022 to May 2023)
12 December 2022 - Committee Meeting (Minutes issued 21 Dec 2022)
Minutes of the previous meeting (13 Oct 2022) were not confirmed when a VOCM dated 8 Nov 2022 was confirmed in error, as the minutes of the previous meeting.
Business Arising - "Stansure to report to the Committee regarding the account discrepancies be (sic) the end of this week." It was mentioned at the meeting that the shortfall between our bank ledger and the bank statement was $15,000.
Financial - "Stansure were unable to confirm status of BAS lodgement and will advise the committee once setup has been completed."
General Business, Insurance Renewal - "......it was decided the Committee will source quotations along with obtaining an updated Insurance Replacement Valuation."
Next Meeting - ".....will be scheduled for February 2023.....".
Items missing from the meeting - Correspondence, VOCM Confirmations, PBC Report.
1 March 2023 - the PBC requests all subsidiary BCs to forward a PBC Chair's message.To this date I and several other Owners have not received this PBC Chair Newsletter from our Quays PBC Rep. and have given up asking for it to be resent.
1 May 2023 - Almost five months go by without a word from the committee and without the committee meeting "scheduled for February 2023".
9 May 2023 - Committee Meeting
First committee meeting since 12 Dec 2022.
Still no news on the missing $15,000.
The committee fails to obtain the updated Insurance Replacement Valuation as mentioned in the 12 Dec 2022 minutes. Why?
Items missing from the meeting - Business Arising, Correspondence, VOCM Confirmations and, a PBC Report. Worth noting that we have not had a report on the PBC Business since 5 May 2022.
CHAPTER 10 – will be developed from News and Chronology over time.