According to the 2009-01-28 minutes, it states a motion:
No irregularites have been found in our books however Treasurer, Steve Earley feels its important to have the books of the organization audited on a regular basis.
Motion: "Conduct an internal financial audit, with review by Wegner, to validate our numbers, procedures and approve them".
I can't agree more that its important to have the books of the organization audited on a regular basis.
However, color me stupid, but an "audit" is defined as "an official examination and verification of accounts and records, esp. of financial accounts", and as I understand from CPAs, that such an audi has to be held against some accounting standard, like GAAP, so using the term "internal audit" where no standard is specified leaves the quality of the "internal audit" open to interpretation. Worse, "review by Wegner" doesn't mean that Wegner certifies the results of the audit as a CPA would when "certifying the results of the audit" as all publicly traded companies are required to..
I'd hope for an "internal review", and an "external audit" to have no question of "irregularites"...
As a side question, has anyone *ever* externally auditted the ACNA books, or has any CPA every certified an audit of the ACNA books? If not, then what shape at the books actually in?
03-08-2009, 05:13 PM
This includes the election results from two years ago. Just a vote tally upon Wegner printed letter head.
When I went to the ACNA office the ACNA had the ballots redacted so I couldn't see who (or the membership number) when I was attempting to match actual ballots to the Wegner paper tally.
Now the CPA would generally do as the customer asked, but there are fiduciary responsibilities placed upon an accountant or CPA firm.
So what baffles me is why wouldn't a CPA firm "certify" the results, unless they didn't actually count all the ballots.
So would this "audit" be certified?
IS Steve asking for the noun or the verb of the word "Audit"?:
1. An examination of records or financial accounts to check their accuracy.
2. An adjustment or correction of accounts.
3. An examined and verified account.
v., -dit·ed, -dit·ing, -dits.
1. To examine, verify, or correct the financial accounts of: Independent accountants audit the company annually. The IRS audits questionable income tax returns.
2. To attend (a course) without requesting or receiving academic credit.
To examine financial accounts.
Lastly, is he looking at the current ACNA financials, or is this a carryover from the RMC review mentioned in the past minutes?
03-08-2009, 05:28 PM
Off the top of my head, they did change accounting method a few years ago.
Keep in mind folks:
THESE ARE PUBLIC INFO = NOT PRIVATE.
If anyone wants to get copies of them, there are two places you can go
1. ACNA office in Oconomowoc WI
2. Me for a public link.
I've BEEN to the ACNA office.
Karen didn't allow me a copy of the 990's, but to look at them.
I found out upon my return home that they are open for public inspection and are supposed to be.
FACT: "Public Inspection IRC 6104(d) regulations state that an organization must provide copies of its three most recent Form 990s to anyone who requests them, whether in person, by mail, fax, or e-mail. Additionally, requests may be made via the IRS using Form 4506-A, and PDF copies can often be found online on sites such as Foundation Center's 990 Finder and Guidestar.org."
You can even print a copy for yourself from the intraw3b as I have post visit.
03-08-2009, 07:10 PM
According to Minnesota statute 317A.461, covering 501(c)3 -
BOOKS AND RECORDS; FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
Subdivision 1.Articles and bylaws; minutes.
A corporation shall keep at its registered office correct and complete copies of its articles and bylaws, accounting records, voting agreements, and minutes of meetings of members, board of directors, and committees having any of the authority of the board of directors for the last six years.
A member or a director, or the agent or attorney of a member or a director, may inspect all documents referred to in subdivision 1 or 3 for any proper purpose at any reasonable time. A proper purpose is one reasonably related to the person's interest as a member or director of the corporation.
And, with regards to your visit Scott:
A member or a director who is wrongfully denied access to or copies of documents under this section may bring an action for injunctive relief, damages, and costs and reasonable attorney fees.<ul><li><a href="https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=317A.461">https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=317A.461</a</li></ul>
03-09-2009, 08:57 PM
If Wegner performed an audit, they would not also perform a review. A review does not require the in-depth scope of an audit, therefore, the CPA only provides limited assurance of the books and financial statements. That said, in a review the CPA must find that no material modifications are required for the company to conform to generally accepted accounting practices. (GAAP)
An audit requires extensive examination of internal controls, verification and substantiation procedures for all financial processes and usually contact with creditors and debtors to confirm amounts owed.
The biggest difference is that a review offers no assurances whatsoever on internal controls, procedures, security and risk. A review may possibly bring irregularities to light, but usually it's only through luck, material divergence or ineptness.
So, though I could be wrong, Wegner did not perform an audit. I do not know who did. However, unless it was a CPA, it was not truly an audit.
The questions that I have are: who performed the audit? Was it the treasurer? Was it the ED? Was it somebody outside the organization? What standards were applied? GAAP? IIA? What testing models were employed? What materiality limits?
I don't think any of these will be answered here. I think the only way to understand any of this would be to contact national directly and ask them. Otherwise, it's all guesswork and, given the temperament of some of the individuals who participate on this board, myself included, such guesswork would not be presented in an impartial light.
After all, there may prove to be legitimate explanations for everything here. If so, the board deserves to be lauded for being proactive.