HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

And after many a summer dies the swan. Tithonus - Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

Members who were at the AGM on 31st March 2006 found themselves unable to ask any questions of those who were supposedly in charge during the period when BS-K brought the Association to the edge of ruin, by his cavalier approach to business, of which he seems to know nothing, and of finance, of which he knows even less. He was not there, having resigned as a member. Dave Brandon, witness to one of the disastrous leases, was not there. Nor was the Treasurer, Peter Freeman, who was a signatory with BS-K of one lease. Nor was Keith Smith who, as General Secretary, issued the Annual Report containing what were shown, as we claimed at the time, to be false accounts. Nor was Chris Rawson, formerly Assistant Treasurer, the man who issued the false invoice to BS-K maquerading as NACLCC, knowing it would not be paid.

Neither were our auditors ISP Chartered Accountants able to be there, for the second year running. Never mind. The vote got rid of them. Posthumously, perhaps, but we got rid of them.

Had we tried to get anything done before that, you might ask. Well, yes, we had. On the 10th June 2005, we wrote to the Institute of Chartered Accountants to complain about ISP's manifest incompetence. Some seventeen letters later - one, in desperation to the ICA President which did just about move the logjam - we at last received advice, on 14th September, of the Investigation Committee's findings. Too late to be useful of course. We needed swift action so that resignations from the ACU&S Council could have been forced, when ACU&S might still have been salvable. It is small consolation, but in March 2005 we did tell you so. We do not expect apologies, of course, least of all from people like Peter Turner.

ICA found that the audit had not been conducted in accordance with the following Auditing Standards: SAS400 "Audit Evidence" and SAS460 "Related Parties." The Committee found that ISP should have carried out procedures that would have:

1. ascertained the payment terms regarding the invoice and assessed the likelihood of recoverability of the debt (this may have involved obtaining a copy of the latest filed financial statements to consider the financial status of the company);
2. ascertained the period of time over which the seminars were taking place and ensured that the income had been appropriately matched with the costs of the seminars:
3. reviewed general correspondence to understand the background to the sponsorship agreement:
4. made enquiries as to why the narrative to the accounts did not refer to this significant income given that it represented a large part of the income of the organisation for the year.

It is amusing to note that several references to BS-K just call him Mr King. ICA are not as stupid as you may think.

You may be baffled by the reference to seminars in (ii). Although the sponsorship was needed (desperately!) to pay for the laptop/projector leases, the invoice to NACLCC referred to seminars. It is just another example of the lies and misepresentation which is the usual currency of our Apostle/ICUS friends.

As for the "general correspondence" in sub-paragraph (iii) on the background to the sponsorship agreement - as there was no agreement, ISP would have resigned on the spot presumably, and the whole story could have been different.

What about the narrative to the accounts sub-paragraph (iv)? We wanted to ask about that ourselves but Freeman was unable to make it to the AGM. Perhaps Merseyside chaps can ask him before they follow his advice about joining ICUS.

In accordance with ICA's bye-laws, ISP can consent to a disciplinary order being made against it, or it can make representations - more! - on either the finding or the terms of the proposed order. It sounds rather like the chance to fight a speed camera rap; lose and it really costs you. If ISP accepts, then there is a press release.

Tune in again next week, as they say.