IS IT TRUE onn pages 16 & 17 of the 2012 audit there is a section under Note 8 called restatements and there is a table that follows?…in that table there is a net of just over $29 Million in adjustments to the 2011 books made after the fact and tabulated under the heading “PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENTS”?…it looks very much like the Winnecke Administration basically hit the reset button by changing the initial conditions to get the books to balance for 2012?…the SBOA apparently let them get by with the large “prior period adjustment” without taking into account the FASB (Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board) policies on PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENTS?…The 2011 books which can’t be audited per the SBOA now hold all of the skeletons in the City of Evansville’s finances?…it looks like the machine has swept this under the rug unless 2011 can be reopened as it has never been audited period?
IS IT TRUE the FASB states clearly in Section III of its document on audits titled:
Reporting Corrections of Errors and Changes in Accounting Principles
Amending SFFAS No. 7, Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources
that “the unforeseen result is that reporting entities that have material errors in their prior period financial statements are unable to present them for comparative purposes without creating both a dilemma for auditors and confusion for users. The dilemma for the auditors is that they would have to qualify their opinion on the prior period financial statements whether or not they had been restated. If prior period statements were presented that contained a material error, auditors would have to qualify their opinion. On the other hand, if prior period statements were presented and balances had been corrected for an error, auditors would still have to qualify their opinion because such restatement would not be in accordance with the existing standard. The confusion for the user derives from the difficulty inherent in comparing the financial statements for two or more periods when the effect of the error is not shown in the prior periods’ financial statements.
IS IT TRUE we will be looking further into just how clean the claimed clean audit really is in the near future?
IS IT TRUE Mole #41 who has a CPA called the newsroom at Channel 25 yesterday to ask them questions about their reporting of the “CLEAN” audit and they admitted to NOT reading the report?…they also admitted just cutting a pasting what the Mayor’s office gave them onto their website without question?…Mole #41 told them the content of the City of Evansville audit for those who read and understand audits was the worst audit report he has ever read in his 30 years as a CPA?…he told them they needed to call a local CPA or US/IU/UE’s accounting deportment and get an independent viewpoint?…his opinion of the Channel 25 news crew is that there is nothing nefarious going on but they are all just 20 something interns who are clueless and have no funding, no follow up, no skepticism of the powers that be when they blow sunshine up everyone’s rear end?
Why am I not surprised by the C&P response to mole #41. Nothing nefarious? Perhaps the “criminal” aspect of that word is too strong but I think the definition of the “wicked” aspect of nefarious applies in the context of “morally bad”. For a company that is supposed to have professionals and said individuals conveniently do a cut and paste coupled with not reading the document the statement from which it was made leads me to think at least the morally bad aspect of nefarious applies.
Nefarious applies to the mayor’s exploitation of the news interns. I’ve seen them, what a bunch of empty=headed children. He bored those children to death with his “press conference” and when he woke them up afterwards and told them what to say, they did as they were told like the sheep they have been raised to be.
HOWEVER, each of these “news” services could recant their story and make it right, if they had any integrity at all.
People! QUESTION AUTHORITY!
Comments are closed.