Re: Grand Theft “paperwork”

Thanks for the comments Jimmy.

I am not sure if the EC actually mailed the agendas or just went and stuck them in the communal box with the pigeon holes (as they have with other notices) but your comments on the difference are most noteworthy. The first set of EC minutes will show the cost of the mail out and that will reveal if it was mailed or not.

Tampering with the mail is a criminal matter and someone is claiming to have reported it to police.

I would agree that if the AGM notices were never mailed, just pigeon holed, then there is arguably no crime.

I would agree the only obligation with mailboxes is that found in s114 of the SSMA and that relates to the OC’s mailbox only; not the owners. I would agree the AGM needs to address the matter of individuals mail.

I have talked to the local post mistress and explained the big green box at the front of the SP is the OC’s mailbox, not the individual owners. Owners mail should not be getting put in it.
There are even 4 owners who have their own mailbox at the entrance.

There have been several motions at previous AGMs to purchase a bank of boxes but all have failed as the prime objective of a low levy always overrides such motions. As much as i find the relocation of the “mail” a poor act it does bring to the fore the long standing problem of mail security. This year the mailbox motion may pass.

It isn’t only general information “floating” around as the AGM notice also contained 2 CTTT applications with a closing date for submissions of the 12th of July and the latest levy notice for the particular unit. There is a lot of information in the notices and that anybody could just walk off with 40 or 50 copies isn’t good enough from the self-management.

It really is a poor situation and many owners have PO boxes because of the long history of mail tampering. This doesn’t help when it comes to voting for a motion to purchase a 100+ box system. These people will not vote for mailboxes when they already have a secure system.