Contributed by Vicky White
www.LifeDesignStrategies.com

It was just another one of those brown envelopes from Revenue Canada (the Canadian equivalent of the IRS)…until I read the fine print and realized I was being audited.

Predictably, I did what most people would do; I panicked!

Then I reviewed the facts: the letter wasn’t very friendly, telling me that most likely I owed them a huge amount of money; they listed a whole load of documents they wanted from me, going back over three years of my business, as well as the precise format of how they wanted them presented; and they told me that I had 30 days to get the materials together! The letter was signed by a Mr. Chan.

Of course, the brown envelope arrived one week before I was to fly to New Zealand to visit my family for a month! I bravely contacted Mr. Chan, told him I was off to New Zealand, and received an extension.

Meanwhile, everyone I spoke to told me horror stories about Revenue Canada, along the lines of “they’re out to get you”, “you can’t win”, and “they’re a law unto themselves.”

I did stress out for a couple of weeks before I remembered what I teach the clients I work with: there was a reason this was happening, and most likely I had a lot more control over the outcome than others were predicting. It further occurred to me that this audit was actually a gift – Revenue Canada was going to help me get my accounts in order and create a system that would enable me to grow my business!

The fact that I’d started a relationship with a former accountant a few months earlier just had to be some kind of divine timing! There definitely seemed to be a plan afoot and I felt that, whatever happened, I was being supported.

I made a decision to refer to “my friend Mr. Chan” whenever I mentioned his name or spoke about my tax audit. My financially experienced friend didn’t quite see it the same way, but he did spend countless hours with me over the next few months getting my accounts in order, documenting where I had made mistakes in my addition (huh?), where I had claimed things that were not claimable, and where I had neglected to claim things I could have!

The truth was, it wasn’t that I was trying to get away with anything. I’d been in Canada for just a few years, I’d been doing my own monthly accounts, and I’d been making assumptions about what I could claim. Definitely a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing! I did have someone complete my tax return each year, without realizing she was just transferring the figures I gave her onto my tax form without questioning anything. I could have done that myself! I was sending in tax returns that made no sense – no wonder they flicked up a red flag in Revenue Canada.

I learned several things in the process: I learned that renovating my new condo was not actually something I could claim; and that credit card statements are not receipts (after all, those expenses could be for anything). I learned a lot of things that were probably silly enough to show Revenue Canada I wasn’t trying to rip them off.

I convinced myself that Revenue Canada was there to help me. And I was convinced that my friend Mr. Chan was there to see that I was helped. He and I became buddies (in my mind, anyway) and I eventually delivered a box with the information they wanted, including a whole lot of receipts I had managed to get from coaches and service providers from past years. My friend Mr. Chan and I then had a little to and fro process with letters as he asked more questions and I explained what my business was all about and what my intentions for it were.

This whole process took six months and I can’t say it was fun, but in the end I felt I had been well treated. There was one expense I really think they should have allowed but I was more than happy with the $5000 tax refund I received a few weeks later plus the tax credit I was granted for the following year. I came away feeling as if I probably wouldn’t have had the same outcome had I gone through this process with the belief they were out to get me.

I now have a system I still use, I know how Revenue Canada likes things to be organized, and I know that if I was ever in a similar situation, it would take me half a day to get everything together to present to them. Revenue Canada did support me in creating the foundation for a strong business, for which I’m very grateful.

Questions for reflection:

• Do you think Vicky’s early shift in attitude about her predicament – before the full audit process was underway – made a difference in her outcome? How?
• Do you believe it’s possible to apply an “Upside perspective” to just about any situation in life? What exceptions would you make and why?

Two days ago I attended a nice Thanksgiving party given by a CIO friend, who like in previous years, had invited several CFO’s, corporate attorney’s and high level management people from high profile Fortune 500 companies in the New York region to his house.   After a few drinks and delicious turkey, conversations about the state of the economy, technology and the headaches of regulatory compliance ensued.   There where two auditors in the group and it felt as if we where the only ones who did not feel regulatory compliance is a headache.    My Merlot and turkey friends, perceiving that they had numerical superiority over us, went on to a typical “we hate the auditors” discussion, where we had the “pleasure” of hearing every criticism launched against auditors since the time of Heraclitus.   Thank goodness I too had access to the Merlot.   One of the discussions that has stayed in my mind is one about how “well appreciated” dumb auditors are.   And, this I’ve decided to share with you.

Most auditors learn early in their careers that auditing is not a popularity contest.  As a result they adjust to the fact that they are paid to investigate, search, test, snoop around, and in many cases confirm the existence of wrong doing and mistakes by members of the organization at all levels.    The auditor is usually the person who has ulterior motives for asking questions, and the one who usually does not bring good news.    The auditor by his/her simple presence disrupts the “normal order” of things, makes the staff feel uncomfortable and require that all evidence be double checked for accuracy and legitimacy.   Often, when those being audited most want the auditors  to “go away,” some action or words  deep in the crevices of the organization send a message to the auditors to dig deeper or further expand their questions.   In common language, auditors are a pain in the neck.

The intensity of hatred or dislike towards the auditor however varies depending on his/her ability to understand what he/she is testing or investigating.    The smart, experienced auditor tends to ask deep, relevant and timely questions, often not found in a strict audit script or checklist, which can open the doors to problems and issues hidden just below the surface.   The smart auditor is happy when he/she finds problems, because he/she sees himself as a solution or insurance policy against risk exposures to the company.  However, this feeling is not shared by those who “own” the problems and depending on company politics, the reactions can range from lukewarm admission, challenges bordering threats from some levels of management, to a long term stealth campaign against the auditor leading to his/her dismissal for supposedly  “unrelated reasons.”  Like a Whistle-blower, the good auditor walks a dangerous road.    During difficult times, the good auditor has few or no allies.

The dumb auditor on the other hand, usually sticks to a rigid script or checklist, and is not likely to expand his questions beyond the “scope” of the audit, preassigned or created with the approval of management.  The audit process of the dumb auditor tends to be quick, rarely discovering problems and always neatly on time.   His reports usually sound like this:  “We tested A, B, and C and found no exceptions.  Managements’ controls are working according to established policies and guidelines and” (here is the mandatory recommendation for improvement – so it looks like some work was done),  “we believe the Segregation of Duties process in AP can be tightened by implementing the following…..  Otherwise all is well.”   This cookie cutter report, used by both Internal and External auditors, is the type that makes its way to most audit committees today.    This is also the type of report, according to my friends at the Thanksgiving party, that management wants and pays handsomely for.   I found myself looking at the other auditor and realized that we where both nodding in agreement.    My friends in the party, all experienced dealing with auditors, pointed out that “Smart” auditors, or auditors with independent minds can not last long in a typical organization, because the very act of following their ethical, inquisitive and legalistic mentalities gets them into serious conflicts with management and they end up fired after short tenures. Also, good auditors have few champions in the organization who see value or gain in “protecting” someone who is serious in his/her responsibility to investigate or test anyone (including them) in the future if they have to.   This is simple human nature.    A “Dumb” auditor on the other hand, creates few waves, does not offend or criticize too much, uses neutral and complimentary language in reports, and keeps to his/her “scripts” as planned by management.   By playing dumb, this type of auditor is indirectly “winning friends and influencing people.”   His/her back is covered because he/she is needed by those who need coverage.  The dumb auditor has allies.

In light of current scandals, like the Bernie Madoff case, and the mortgage meltdown, it has become common for many to ask:  “And, where were the auditors while all this was happening?”  My answer has to be that most of the auditors involved where diligently doing their jobs as good “dumb” auditors do, so they can stay employed.   That is, they where auditing every nick and cranny that was within scope and within the “Risk Appetites’ of their organizations, as set by “management.”   But, what about the codes of conduct, the audit charters, the PCAOB, the SEC, the GAAS’s, ISACA and the IIA’s.   Don’t these organizations have some level of control over how auditors should conduct themselves and how they should investigate and follow up on questionable activities?   Are all of these structures useless? My answer is no.  These are not useless organizations, and without them, the problems cited by my friends in the Thanksgiving party would be much worse.   The codes of ethics, guidance documents, audit frameworks and standards created by these organizations are the only line of defense we auditors and audit committees have against the many Barbarians who dwell in the halls of corporate America today.    But, are these standards  and frameworks sufficient?  My feeling is that they are not, and here is why.   Money corrupts as every auditor knows.  When you follow the money you find the power.   Organizationally, there is an imbalance between the auditor and those he/she audits.  On the one hand you have a well meaning, ethical person who wants to do the right thing, making an average mid-level management salary, tasked with uncovering wrong doing among those at levels that can crush him/her with ease, and whose interests are the maintenance of the status-quo, a low profile and making sure the company’s stock value is not disrupted by doubtful auditor reports.   In most companies, those in the Director, V.P. and “C” levels (usually persons with net worth’s in the millions  of dollars and stock holders in the company) can easily muster the resources of the organization whenever they raise a red flag regarding a “trouble maker.”   The controlling factor here is not bribery, but the threat of dismissal.   So, in my opinion things boil down to a primal level for the auditor.   Ethics, integrity, morality, legality and professionalism on one side,  versus no job on the other. Unemployment, inability to pay the mortgage, damaged credit rating, children without college tuition’s, etc.   How many good auditors can consistently afford to be martyrs, and when it happens, who shows up at their door to help them pay the mortgage?   The fact that the majority of auditors are good, ethical, law abiding and take their oath’s of conduct and ethics seriously is a reflection of the social, religious and cultural values they share with the greater society, and less so on other types of controls  promoted by various groups.   As these cultural, religious and social values erode,  resulting from poor education, dysfunctional families, media aggrandizement of thieves, the belief that the  “bad guys” win and little understanding of civics, I suspect we will see more problems relating to poor auditor ethics and values.   In general, auditors are still good because they perceive that the society provides more positive reinforcements for good behaviors than bad ones.

In addition to the money and power challenges I noted above, there are issues dealing with the “Culture of Auditing,” which most of us are familiar with.    In my opinion, many of these favor the “Dumb” auditor.   Some of these also help explain why many Madoff type schemes go “Undetected.”  Here are the top fourteen that come to mind.  I am sure there are others:

1. Auditors are taught to find ways to give bad news in a positive manner.  Avoid bad news as much as possible.
2. Auditors should avoid using the words “Failure,” “Problems,” or naming specific individuals who fail or pose problems.  Instead they should call these things “Exceptions,” or “Positive findings Needing Improvement.”
3. Even when management has repeatedly ignored auditor recommendations and warnings, auditors are expected to be “flexible” and at best point out the issues as “still needing some levels of improvement.”
4. Auditors are bound by extreme discretion and confidentiality.  They are to be like flies on the walls.  Rarely seen and not too vocal on any subject or occasion.
5. Management has the last say in terms of what is possible by way of solutions to issues raised by audit.   The “Business” is the key determinant in whether a risk gets addressed as recommended by audit.
6. Auditors work on behalf of management, and are not to be seen as impediments or obstacles to managements’ decision making.   Aggressive auditors can inhibit management’s entrepreneurial spirit.
7. The auditor is there to protect the business from outside risks.
8. Management sets the “Risk Appetite” for the company.  Auditors work within those parameters.   Even when the parameters are not well defined (on purpose).
9. Auditors are supposed to uphold the utmost ethical standards, but often their superiors lie, cheat and have no scruples.   Some times the code of Ethics, zero tolerance statements, and even the Audit Charter are disregarded at higher levels, while zealously enforced at the lower levels.
10. Auditors are supposed to remain positive and un-moved, even when those audited usually assassinate their character, create rumors and gossip about their professionalism, plant fake or doctored evidence against them, and call for their dismissal.
11. Auditors are supposed to maintain meticulous notes and documentation, while many of their superiors rarely answer  email requests for clarifications, or document an opinion.
12. Auditors are supposed to advocate for and practice “meritocracy” being on a constant race to obtain and maintain professional certifications.   While it is not unusual to see many of their superiors having reached positions of authority because they have either slept, drank, bought or strong armed their way up the ladder.
13. When the Chief Audit Officer is weak, unstable and/or indecisive, audit work is reactive and there is unusual turn over in Internal Audit.   Expertise, maturity and professionalism has little time to take root.   “Dumb” auditors flourish in these environments.
14. In a recession and during cost cutting, some Audit departments let go of their “expensive” talent, keeping lower paid less experienced staff on hand until better times (and budgets) return.    “Dumb” auditors flourish in these environments also.

As I prepared to finish this article, I discussed it with my friend, the other auditor at the Thanksgiving party, and he felt many of the issues tackled here are highly controversial and uncomfortable.   He said I make many generalizations  like what constitutes “Dumb” or “Smart.”   He said that what I call here the “Dumb” auditor may really be the “Smart” one.  Every person faced with the sorts of challenges I mention has a huge reservoir of personal, professional and family reasons for taking one or another path, and those are known only to that person.   Passing judgment as I appear to do in this article may be too insensitive and simplistic.   The issues are just too complicated to put them in simple moral boxes.

I admit that my friend makes good points here, and I can only say that in this article my intent is to shed light on what is clearly a serious challenge with ramifications that go far above those of individuals.   This is a serious systematic problem  in the business world and many good minds in government and in professional organizations worldwide are working hard to find the right solutions.   In an ideal world, the typical auditor should not have to spend sleepless nights wondering whether he/she should play “Dumb” or “Smart.”

I  personally do not have a clear answer on how to solve these dilemmas for others.  I only know what my ethical, moral and social values are and I have first hand experience on the high costs and frustrations of being a “Smart” auditor.

If you are a new auditor, I hope I’ve alerted you to issues that may come your way sooner or later.   If you are an experienced auditor, I hope that by reading this you realize that you are not the only one who has seen these things.

To all readers.  I will appreciate it very much if  you left  your comments on this subject, so we can make this a more diverse  exchange.  Do you believe that “Dumb” auditors indeed have a longer professional longevity than “Smart” ones?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Falling Friehling: Madoff’s Auditor to Plead Guilty (blogs.wsj.com)
• We’re Paying The Legal Fees For Those Who Defrauded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (crooksandliars.com)
• The Jones Day Lawyers Looking to Take Down SOX (blogs.wsj.com)

NOW AVAILABLE ON AMAZON KINDLE!

MERS and Countrywide v Agin Trustee D Ct Mass Aff’d B Ct on Avoidance Mtg 20091117

NOTE FROM EDITOR SEEKING HELP: Rumor has it San Diego has stopped all foreclosures. I need this corroborated or debunked quickly. Can I get a little help here?

The case in this POST comes out of Massachusetts where the cases are not quite stopped, but almost so — AND where property title insurance companies are NOT underwriting ANY policy that covers a home whose mortgage was securitized.

Many thanks to MAX GARDNER for this case and best wishes for his speedy recovery. He’s one of the titans of this movement. we want him around!

The primary point that needs emphasis here is that as you read this case you will see that if you give the Court something SOLID to hang its hat on, you can get the results you want.

The mistake being made repeatedly out there is simple: either the homeowner or the lawyer goes in with a legal argument addressing the conclusions of the case instead of directing the Judge’s attention to the beginning of the case — discovery, motions to compel, TRO etc. based upon discovery requirements.

The obvious requirement that you need to know in your mind what you are talking about it so you know the significance of the issue legally seems to  have escaped all but a few lawyers. Many lawyers are taking half baked “audits” going to court and making legal arguments about a report they have not read, do not understand and which does not contains all the elements needed anyway.

You must educate the Judge not lecture him. You must NOT rely on securitization in your preliminary arguments because it sounds like legal maneuvering to get out of a legitimate debt.

Unfortunately these mistakes are being made even by people who have attended our survey courses. So we are expanding our offering by adding DVDs, Boot Camps and home study.

Our own efforts at providing forensic review and expert support to lawyers has been challenged by the growing demand vs manpower limitations. Consequently, we will embark on efforts to increase the bandwith or resources in terms of people through educational programs. We will then start to refer cases to forensic analysts and lawyers.

We  are starting courses to train, and certify forensic analysts who pick up even the most minute flaw in a document — like a document you you know in your heart is fabricated and forged but feel intimidated by the process of proving it.

In conjunction with specific courses on training forensic analysts we will also offer addtional courses on how to be expert witnesses, how to prepare expert declarations and affidavits and how to defend your expert declarations in deposition or in an evidentiary hearing. The course is also for lawyers who feel they could use a little support on direct and cross examination of experts.

Voici un nouvel article qui mérite attention si l’on se voit chargé de remettre un projet sur les rails.

Article original en anglais de Joanne Wortman: http://www.pmhut.com/rescuing-a-project-diagnosis

Joanne nous dit: J’ai déjà parlé de triage de portefeuille de projet. Le résultat de l’effort de triage est d’identifier ces projets le plus dans le besoin d’intervention immédiate. De même que dans le monde médical, l’étape suivante après le triage est le diagnostic; il est maintenant temps de se concentrer sur les projets du troisième groupe et exécuter un diagnostic de projet. Si vous êtes assigné au sauvetage d’un projet en échec, voici les premières étapes pour trouver la cause ou les causes premières des difficultés du projet.

1. Obtenez un historique minutieux du patient : les diagnosticiens médicaux qualifiés ne peuvent pas compter seulement sur les souvenirs du patient. Dans certains cas ils doivent interviewer la famille et des amis pour obtenir des informations sur des symptômes subtils. En essayant de diagnostiquer des projets en échec, vous ne devriez pas compter seulement sur les entretiens directs avec l’équipe de projet. Une vue multi-perspectives de la situation est nécessaire :

• Ayez une session à l’abri des indiscrets avec le sponsor du projet : Découvrez quels sont les problèmes-clés sur le projet et commencez à explorer des secteurs où une redéfinition du contenu ou du périmètre pourrait aider à remettre les choses sur les rails. Découvrez quelles réductions de portée vont probablement être acceptés par le business et celles qui pourraient exiger un effort de vente significatif ou une féroce bataille. Comprenez la politique de l’organisation pour que vous puissiez l’intégrer dans votre plan d’actions correctives.
• Parlez aux parties prenantes  du projet de leurs attentes originales, leurs soucis actuels et toute difficulté qu’ils peuvent avoir avec l’équipe de projet.
• Créez des canaux de communication confortables avec tous les membres de l’équipe de projet et creusez plus profond que les plans de projet, les rapports de progrès et les registres de problèmes. Découvrez ce qui cause de l’inquiétude dans l’équipe projet. Il y a souvent des indices de valeur à découvrir. Assurez-vous de bien explorer tous les secteurs qui seraient dissimulés ou rejetés trop rapidement.

2. Prenez les signes vitaux du projet :

• Vérifiez le pouls : Évaluez le taux de dépense des ressources. Consommez-vous le budget plus rapidement que prévu ? Quel est le nouveau coût total estimé ?
• Tension artérielle : Exécutez une évaluation de risque, en termes de ce qui pourrait arriver entre maintenant et la date de livraison qui aurait un impact significatif. Des approches diverses existent pour conduire cette évaluation. Le modèle Six Sigma FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) peut être adapté pour répondre à vos besoins, vous donnant une structure objective pour évaluer tous les endroits possibles où votre solution pourrait échouer et centrer vos actions correctives futures sur celles qui ont à la fois la probabilité la plus haute d’occurrence et la criticité la plus importante.
• Température : Créez une feuille de température (rouge orange vert) en ce qui concerne les jalons clefs. Cela devrait faire partie de votre rapport de statut régulier, avec une analyse des tendances de base.
• D’autres tests diagnostiques spécialisés selon nécessité – Évaluez la portée (l’originale et l’actuelle), passez en revue la stratégie technologique, la stratégie de développement, la stratégie de test, la stratégie de livraison et celle de gestion des modifications.

Après l’exécution de ces étapes, vous devriez avoir une meilleure compréhension des raisons pour lesquelles le projet est sorti des rails.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 28, 2009

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve mob boss, is running scared. He is deathly afraid an audit of his criminal organization.

“These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States,” Bernanke wrote in the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post.

Bernanke penned his tribute to central banking and globalism prior to his scheduled testimony before a Senate panel on his renomination to serve a second four-year term as Fed mob boss.

Bankster tool Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, tried to derail an effort to audit the Fed but failed. A proposal to audit the Fed’s monetary policy deliberations won a committee vote recently over Frank’s objections.

In his Mockingbird media editorial, Bernanke “conceded the Fed had missed some of the riskiest behavior in the lead up to the crisis. But he said the Fed had helped avoid an even more damaging economic meltdown and has stepped up its policing of the financial system.”

In fact, the Fed was specifically designed to create financial crises. It was all plotted in 1910 when minions of J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, the Rothschilds and Warburgs met on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. In 1913, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank was created as a direct result of that secret meeting. Said Congressman Charles Lindbergh on the midnight passage of the Federal Reserve Act: “From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”

In order to scientifically create an economic depression, the Fed prompted irresponsible speculation by expanding the money supply sixty-two percent between 1923 and 1929. The so-called Great Depression followed. This depression “was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence,” declared Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee. “The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”

In March of 1929, Paul Warburg issued a tip that the scientifically created crash was coming. Before it did, John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Joseph P. Kennedy, and other banksters got out of the market.

A few years later, the banksters and their minions met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and plotted the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The purpose of these two criminal organizations was to set-up a global Federal Reserve system and wage economic warfare on billions of people. The weapon they used was debt and the loss of sovereignty that follows.

In 1971, then president Nixon fit one of the last pieces into the puzzle — he signed an executive order declaring that the United States no longer had to redeem its paper dollars for gold. It was a great day for the banksters and the global elite. The gold standard ensured predictability and regularity in the economy and the banksters wanted to put an end to that. For the bankers, order and control is realized out of chaos and misery.

Fast-forward to the present day. Bernanke’s Fed has meticulously sabotaged the economy in order to create a crisis in classic Hegelian fashion. The corporate media tells us the crisis is the result of ineptitude and mismanagement at the Federal Reserve. Au contraire. Like the Great Depression, the even Greater Depression now on the horizon was scientifically created.

The Fed is the primary instrument the bankers are now using to destroy the middle class, hand over all public assets and resources to them, implement a crushing austerity, usher in a new era of global corporatist feudalism and build a sprawling planet-wide slave plantation based on China’s totalitarian model.

It is the ultimate dream of the banking cartel. It will be used as the foundation to build world government. Destroying the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is only the beginning.

Bernanke knows Ron Paul and the audit the Fed movement are extremely dangerous. That’s why he is pushing this facile “oops” theory. In order to fix things, the Fed will use its “knowledge of complex financial institutions” in order to supervise them, he writes in his Mockingbird editorial. Allowing audits of Federal Reserve monetary policy would increase the perceived influence of Congress on interest rate decisions, he says.

No, it would lay bare the criminality of the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke is worried he will be obliged to wear an orange jumpsuit in the wake of an audit.

As for Congress, Bernanke needs to read Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall have exclusive power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” not a criminal cartel of monopoly men who dream of a prison planet.

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/audit-the-fed-bernanke-and-the-bankers-are-running-scared/

Suicide Prevention Strategy Implementation Programme      National Mental Health Development Unit

Click on the title above to access the full range of resources

Abstract:

This programme commenced in September 2002 following the launch of the Suicide Prevention Strategy for England to support the target to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least 20 per cent by 2010. The strategy sets out a coordinated set of activities that continue to be taken forward and has evolved as new priorities and new evidence on prevention emerge. Implementation of the strategy is being taken forward by the National Mental Health Development Unit (NMHDU) in collaboration with a wide range of organisations and individuals.

Latest News

A revision of Preventing Suicide: A toolkit for mental health service has been published. The toolkit, originally published in 2003, has been amended to reflect recent policy changes and has had input from key stakeholders, service users, carers and experts

Download Preventing Suicide: A toolkit for mental health services

Download the Toolkit Standards

Download the Toolkit Audit tool

Download the Toolkit`s Ward Manager Checklist

If Lancashire Care staff would like any of the resources above please email: susan.jennings@lancashirecare.nhs.uk

3018877    การตรวจสอบการบันทึกประวัติทางการแพทย์    Medical Record Audit

การบันทึกประวัติทางการแพทย์อย่างถูกต้อง กระบวนการในการตรวจสอบการบันทึกประวัติทางการแพทย์

(Good medical recording, auditing system on medical records.)

(3018877 จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย)

As a presidential candidate, I thought Ron Paul was a little too far off the reservation.  But as a Libertarian/Conservative/NON-LIBERAL congressman he is rather effective at bringing certain issues to the forefront.

This is one of the issues that I think is WELL worth supporting.  Millions, Billions, and even Trillions of our dollars are going Lord only knows where with ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

It’s time for the government, and the Fed, to account for EVERY PENNY.

I encourage you to support this measure in any way you can.  Donate money, call/write/fax/e-mail/visit your elected officials, inform as many others as you can about this issue, whatever you can spare.

Trillions of dollars are being stolen from the U.S. taxpayer.

Right now, you and I are seeing the worst plundering of a country’s wealth in the history of civilization, led by an out of control Federal Reserve.

But together you and I CAN put a stop to it all.

With your help (including submitting the petition linked below to your Congressman and Senators) today, Representative Ron Paul, Senator Jim DeMint and Campaign for Liberty are ready to fight back, by taking the battle straight to the heart of the problem — the Federal Reserve itself.

Just think about the scope of the problem for a minute: The massive, outrageous amount of dollars committed to the economic bailouts in recent months totals:

More than the socialist New Deal … More than the entire Iraq debacle … More than the 1980’s savings and loan mess … More than the Korean War …

COMBINED.

When will it all end?

It’s time you and I put a stop to a renegade Federal Reserve by exposing the Fed’s out of control actions to the American people. And Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Jim DeMint have a bill before Congress to do just that, known as the “Audit the Fed” Bill (HR 1207 and S 604).

That’s why it’s vital you click here to submit your “Audit the Fed” petition in support of Congressman Paul’s bill.

You see, Audit the Fed already has almost 300 cosponsors!

Now is the time to make sure your Congressman and Senators feel the heat to support the Audit the Fed bill!

If you and I don’t act today, I’m afraid this crisis will end with the economic ruin of every man, woman and child in America.

Today, nearly 13 TRILLION in taxpayer dollars in bailouts and loans has been agreed to by Congress, the Bush and Obama Treasury Departments, and the out of control Fed.

So is it really any wonder more and more folks are starting to realize the Washington, D.C. establishment is hurtling us toward complete economic disaster?

Whether it’s watching a phony “stimulus” package get rammed into law or watching Congress pass a $700 BILLION bank “bailout” under threat of martial law, the American people are agitated and increasingly angry.

That means it’s a perfect time to unleash the pressure of MILLIONS of outraged Americans on the out of control Fed!

So please click here to sign the petition linked below urging your Congressman and Senators to cosponsor and seek roll call votes to pass the Audit the Fed Bill!

As I know you’re aware, the Federal Reserve is shrouded in secrecy.  Their meetings are off-limits to the public.  Their inner workings are off-limits to the public.

And just recently, the Federal Reserve told Congress “NO WAY” when asked to account for $2 TRILLION in taxpayer-backed loans!

Well, why do you think they refused?

They know coming clean with Congress and the American people on how they doled out that two TRILLION dollars would result in an anti-Fed firestorm.

So can you imagine the impact of a full-scale audit? You and I will finally be able to show the American people that the Federal Reserve System leads to:

*** Constant economic crises — the housing crisis and the resulting chaos is just one example of an economic bubble created by centrally-planned interest rates and money manipulation;

*** The destruction of the middle class — as fuel, food, housing, medical care and education costs soar, everyone who is NOT on the government dole is forced to make do with less as the value of their money slowly decreases;

*** Currency destruction — history shows us that riots, violence and full-scale police states can result when people finally realize our money isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on and REFUSE to accept it.

And unless you and I do end the madness in Washington, D.C., we may be closer than we’d like to think to learning that history lesson firsthand — right here in our own streets.

That’s why your commitment to helping pass the Audit the Fed Bill — and helping Campaign for Liberty fight this battle — is so vital.

Just a few months ago, there was no chance of passing any legislation like the Audit the Fed Bill.  So I guess there has been one “CHANGE.”

You see, with the piling up of trillions of dollars in out of control “bailouts” of Wall Street and international bankers, even many politicians in Washington want to show you they’re “being responsible.”

What better way for Congress to do this than by auditing the Federal Reserve to account for the trillions stolen from the U.S. taxpayers?

More and more Congressmen are already feeling the pressure and are signing up to support this bill.  I’ve even received word this bill could move in the next few weeks in the U.S. House.

When that happens, you and I must be ready to fight.

And, it’s both a bill we CAN pass, and one that is vital to exposing the massive corruption and dollar manipulation at the Federal Reserve.

You see, after regulating, taxing, spending, borrowing and printing us into what looks like the worst recession in decades, establishment politicians and power brokers are assuring us they’re working hard to “fix” our economic woes.  What is their solution?  You guessed it.  More of the same!

And even if the Audit the Fed Bill is defeated this time, just forcing a vote is a win/win situation.

Can you imagine how many politicians will pay the price at the ballot box in 2010 when you and I tell the American people their Congressman somehow lost trillions of taxpayer dollars and refused to even LOOK for it?

…

Sincerely,

John F. Tate
President

P.S. Please submit the petition urging your Congressman and Senators to cosponsor and seek roll call votes on Rep. Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill TODAY!

The title of this post isn’t an exact choice, but serves as a close enough illiteration in order to highlight a key challenge of the move by Waverley to the International Financial Accounting Standard.

One of the more nonsensical rules is that un-used employee holidays as at the end of the financial year, have to be added up, and represented as an accrual – in other words money that the council has to budget. Now of course, it’s not real money and, Waverley has quite a number of staff whose leave year starts at various calendar dates, rather than the same one across the board.

However, more important than this, is the fact that it’s possible that if the accrual for unused leave is big enough, it might theoretically mean that a council has to raise more money in council tax to cover this budget item, than it might have done otherwise! I’m being serious – it’s possible. And so, my comment about nonsensical rules: my mouth literally dropped open when I heard this on Tuesday evening.

Thankfully, this rather awful potential implication hasn’t passed the Audit Commission and CIPFA by, and so they are highly likely to include in their guidance (due out from CIPFA in mid-December) that this particular item will somehow be excluded from having a net impact on the council budget. Not sure how, but having seen some of the more creative public accounting rules in practice (depreciation) these past couple of years, I’ll sure they’ll find a way.

An accounting firm that misstated audited financial statements and then concealed the blunder was recently condemned by the Quebec Court of Appeal to pay more than $300,000 to a shareholder who relied on the statements to acquire a company.

Mallette S.E.N.C.R.L., the sixth largest accounting firm in the province with more than 50 partners and 550 professionals working across 21 offices located in small and mid-sized cities, was held liable for breach of a legal duty after the court found that it was accountable for the loss of future gains the shareholder could have earned. Also held liable were two of the firm’s partners – Gratien Nolet, formerly of Arthur Andersen, who performed the audit from 1999 to 2003, and Marc Dagenais, a tax expert.

“There was a breach of duty to inform by the accountant towards his client (contractual breach) and there was a second breach towards those he knew would rely on the statements he prepared and audited – that is, the company’s shareholders (extra-contractual breach),” said the appeal court in its 11-page ruling which overturned a lower court ruling. “The second breach was intentional. The appellant can claim compensation against the respondents for all direct and immediate damages it caused by its extracontractual breach.”

Under Quebec civil law, there are two types of liability: contractual, which is based on the failure to perform an obligation undertaken by agreement, and the other referred to as extra-contractual, which occurs when there is a breach of a legal duty. In short, the liability of an accountant is not limited to the person or organization with whom he did business. When a professional fault committed in the exercise of his profession affects a third party, the professional may be held liable. The plaintiff, however, has the burden of proving that the damages he suffered “are a direct consequence of the wrongful error.”

“The ruling highlights the need for auditors to take into consideration shareholders when they discover an anomaly,” said Germain Jutras, a Quebec City lawyer who successfully plead the case before the appeal court. “When they discover an error they must notify the board of the directors of the enterprise and the company’s shareholders, more so in this case given that the error was made by the accounting firm itself. Instead they kept the information to themselves.”

The case dates back to eight years ago when Claude Boire, a Quebec businessman and head of Couvoir Boire, one of the province’s largest poultry hatcheries, became a minority shareholder of another hatchery after purchasing 45 per cent of Nutribec Ltée.’s shares. A shareholder agreement between the two stakeholders contained a so-called “shotgun” clause, which allowed a partner to purchase all of the shares held by the other shareholder. If a shotgun clause is triggered, the shareholder who receives the offer must then agree to sell his shares at the price established and offered by the offering shareholder – or purchase the shares of the offering shareholder at the same specified price.

On September 2002, following an irreconcilable disagreement between the two partners over the future of Nutribec, Groupe DLPC, Nutribec’s other shareholder, triggered the shotgun clause, offering to purchase the shares held by Boire through his company, Agri-Capital Drummond Inc., for $3.4 million, based on an overall value for Nutribec of $7.5 million according  to the valuation made by DLPC. After analyzing the offer and the company’s financial statements, Agri-Capital turned down the bid and instead purchased DLPC’s shares, as required under the shotgun agreement.

Nearly a year before the deal was sealed on November 2002, Revenue Quebec conducted an audit on Nutribec, examining fiscal years 1998 and 1999. On October 2001, the tax authorities asked Nutribec for more information, and the company’s comptroller gave Mallette’s tax expert the mandate to deal with the situation. Shortly thereafter, Dagenais – the tax expert — discovered that a tax loss for the amount of $4.5 million had been claimed twice, in 1998 and 1999. Dagenais, however, did not inform Nutribec’s management.

“On the contrary, Dagenais and Nolet attempted to fix the situation during the course of their negotiations with Revenue Quebec,” noted Justice Pierre Dalphond of the Quebec Court of Appeal. The judge added that a “laconic note” was inserted in Nutribec’s 2001 annual financial statement, which stated that it was “impossible to quantify as of this date the impact” the losses would have so long as the audit and negotiations with Revenue Quebec were not completed.

In 2005, Agri-Capital sued the accounting firm for $2.4 million, asserting that had it been aware of the duplicate tax loss, it would not have purchased DLPC’s shares but rather would have sold its 45 per cent interest in Nutribec to DLPC. Agri-Capital also argued that it had been deprived of $1.3 million, that is the benefit it would have obtained from the $4.5 million tax loss.

“When my client analyzed the company’s financial statements, he determined that it would have been more advantageous for him to buy than to sell,” said Jutras. “However, had he known there was an error in the company’s financial statements he would have taken another decision and would have sold his shares and make an immediate profit of $2.4 million. Instead he was faced with a company that owed a substantial amount to Revenue Quebec.”

While the court of first instance held that Agri-Capital failed to clearly demonstrate it suffered harm, regardless of whether or not the accountants committed a fault, the Quebec Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion.

Informed by a ruling the appeal court made nearly 15 years ago, Lalumière v. Moquin [1995] R.D.J. 440 (C.A.), Judge Dalphond noted that the auditors of a company may be responsible delictually for any personal damages suffered by shareholders caused by their negligence even though there may be no contractual relationship between the auditors and the shareholders, provided that the damages suffered are distinct from the damages suffered by the company.

Justice Dalphond also pointed out that according to Chapter 5400 of the CICA Standards and Guidance Collection (CICA Handbook) upon the discovery of a material misstatement in audited financial statements auditors have an obligation to discuss it as quickly as possible with management, and when circumstances allow it, with the company’s board of directors.

“The note in Nutribec’s 2001 financial statements, which was handed to its executives and shareholders at the beginning of 2002, was not adequate because it gave an incomplete portrait, indeed deceptive, of the misstatement which was identified and known by the respondents,” said Judge Dalphond.

He underscores that a note in Nutribec’s 2002 financial statements points out that the company lost $75,000 in fiscal advantages for fiscal 2001. Judge Dalphond also points out that according to expert reports prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, “if the tax losses had existed, the evidence leads us to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, Nutribec could profited up to $313,000.”

Judge Dalphond concluded that Mallette was liable for for past and future losses  incurred by Nutribec’s sole shareholder, and ordered the accounting firm to pay $313,000 plus interest and expert fees totaling $16,000.

Pierre Cimon, a Quebec City lawyer with Ogilvy Renault who represented Mallette, refused to comment except to say that he has been given instructions by the accounting firm to file an application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.

“Canada is a federation, that we have different understanding what the country looks like, and that nobody has a monopoly on what our national myth; and ours are Cowboys.“

Dr. Barry Cooper is not just a professor of Political Theory at the University of Calgary. Counted among his interests are Canadian public policy, climate change, environmental policy, third party campaign advertising, classical political theory, filmmaking, hunting, and even fishing. He is a man of mystery, self-denying of his fame. When he is not enlightening students on his particular perspective on Canadian politics and political theory, he hunts and fishes with good friends Dr. Tom Flanagan, past advisor and campaign manager of PM Stephen Harper, and Dr. Ted Morton, current Member of the Legislative Assembly; both members of the Political Science department at the University of Calgary.
Dr. John von Heyking, our own resident Political Theorist in the University of Lethbridge Political Science Department, presented Dr. Cooper to speak for the Uleth community. Dr. Cooper was Dr. von Heyking’s Graduate program supervisor, thus there was only slight surprise on behalf of myself at the boys club familiarity Dr. von Heyking bared in his introduction.
After his talk (see page six for more), I sat down with Dr. Cooper to discuss his views on partisan academia, Albertan culture, and the Friends of Science.

Alberta, a distinct and separate culture
Meliorist: Why did you go into academia?
Cooper: Well, I was always smart and good at school. I was a jock too, but I enjoyed reading books. My dad was a surgeon, and he said ‘you can do anything, except be a lawyer’. This was a generation when doc’s and lawyers didn’t like each other, and he wanted me to be doctor but I quit Chem 300 in third year and I didn’t tell him until I couldn’t get back, and I didn’t want to irritate him again, so I decided to go to graduate school. Back then, if you had a fairly good GPA you could, there was lots of money available and I had good grades so I got a free ride and did graduate school in the States.
Meliorist: So, you have worked at other universities in Canada and you graduated with your Doctorates in the States, so what drew you back to Alberta to teach?
Cooper: When I was a kid, I used to spend summers here working. I went to UBC and when I was there, I worked on fish boats. I enjoyed working on fish boats, but there aren’t any fish boats anymore because there are not any fish. I preferred it actually, because I preferred to get paid. When I was working here [Alberta], I would get paid a dollar a day and I preferred to get a little more, so although it was more fun, it didn’t pay.
Meliorist: So, you came back to Alberta to teach because you missed the culture? You mention in your talk the ideas of Albertan, and western culture, the ‘cowboy spirit’. It seems very appealing to you.
Cooper: I was the first person, well, not literally the first person; but when I was a UofT and another guy was at York, I started teaching Canadian Political Thought in the same year, sometime in the mid-seventies. I began it because I couldn’t understand my students. I couldn’t understand why they were so obsessed with Quebec. They always thought about the West, as being, first of all, out there and not in. We’re in and they’re out. So then I said, we (Albertan’s) think of you as being backwards, back east. They didn’t think that was funny.
So, I started teaching this course on political thought to understand why I thought so differently about the same issues they discussed at length. It wasn’t about Liberal, Conservative, whatever, it was about that their assumptions were quite different, because I grew up with different stories. Both the literature and the literary criticism, they’re much different. In terms of the literary imagination, compared to Southern Ontario, which is what I call Loyalist, it’s anti-American. Part of the Laurentian value that Canada is bilingual, Quebec is like the two Canada’s of the nineteenth century. Upper Canada and Lower Canada, Canada East and Canada West. Those political structure reflected the garrison mentality, or survival. It was something that was foreign to the way I would think, and it would be expressed in detail in conversations I would have with students when I was in Toronto, and that puzzled me. So then, it became a kind of problem, an intellectual problem. How did this come about, that you have these very distinctive ideas, what I call myths in the book.
Meliorist: Alberta does have a very strong culture of being political vocal, and you seem to have a very strong history of being politically outspoken, especially when it comes to decisions made by certain parties. How does this affect your teaching, and your style of educating your undergraduate students?
Cooper: I don’t teach Canadian politics.
Meliorist: Do you think that students take your classes because you have been a controversial subject?
Cooper: No, no. I know that my colleagues in the Canadian government subfields would object pretty strongly, because most of what I think they do is not very interesting. If I were teaching a course on Canadian politics, the syllabus would be different. So, they’re not going to let me, even if I wanted to.
Meliorist: What would be in the syllabus?
Cooper: There would be a lot of literature. There would be books like Mallorys. It would be mostly focused on Alberta, versus the rest of the country. I would talk about what was wrong with Macpherson – and there’s a lot that’s wrong with Macpherson – and how that set the agenda for the way Easterners look at Alberta.
When I was in Toronto, we have these discussions, in public, and I would say ‘You don’t have a clue what culture in Alberta is like. Ya know, when was the last time you got on a horse?’ When he talked about the petty Bourgeois alienation of Alberta grain farmers, of which there was a certain amount of it, he said nothing about cowboys, and the grain industry is important, but culturally ranching is at least as important as farming.

Partisan political commentary and the role of academics
Meliorist: You have voiced very public opinions of partisan choices and government choices, not just the Liberal or Conservative parties. Do you see value in academics getting involved in trying to influence policy?
Cooper: It’s almost impossible to have the same command of information with respect to public policy, because so much of it is necessarily secret. As it is, with respect to interpreting texts. Most of what I have said about Canadian public policy is based on texts, like the Gomery report. It’s emphasizing certain statements that Gomery made, and what the significance of the statements were, or what the Prime Minster – particularly Chrétien – personally, I think he was a coward – but it wasn’t personal. He actually said these things. He said ‘Canadian Military are boy scouts with guns’. Well, that is an incredibly stupid thing to say, and it’s not just that I disagree, it is just stupid. The Canadian military are not boy scouts. They are guys that go out and kill people, to defend the country.
That nevertheless was revealing about the guy, why did he think that? Partly, it’s because of Quebec, not partly, I’d say quite a bit actually. It’s nothing to do with the number of Francophone’s in the Canadian forces, it’s likely about a quarter, likely less. Francophones join the military; they do, just like everyone else does. It has nothing to do with their culture, it’s their politics and the political advantage that Quebec politicians, whether they are federal or provincial see in being free riders.
Meliorist: You are a vocal member of several organizations that have feature – the now infamous – Calgary School, well known across Canada. It is a group of academics from the University of Calgary Political Science Department, and they have been very involved with influencing public policy, especially [Dr. Tom] Flanagan and [Dr. Ted] Morton. Does this influence the way that the political science department at the UofC operates? Does this influence the way you interact with your students or with the university itself.
Cooper: I’ve written two columns on the myths about the Calgary School, because on a lot of public policies we disagree as much as any group of people would. We get along with one another; some of us get along better than others. Morton and I just went hunting, and Flanagan and I go fishing. As far as I know, Flanagan and Morton don’t do either. I think I am probably good friends with more of them than they are with one another. There is not much internal coherence, what there is, is a certain intellectual challenge to the perceived wisdom with respect to the Canadian public life. It’s not really that it’s Conservative, I mean some are more liberal than I. There certainly are distinctions about social conservatives and social liberals; though I think we all think that you should not spend money you don’t have, so there is a fiscal conservatism there. Morton is much more social conservative than libertarian. There is not the kind of coherence that is often contributed, except with respect to be critical of the received orthodox. How that happened, I think it was serendipitous.
Meliorist: So, it is more of a coincidence then?
Cooper: A lot of coincidences, yah.
Meliorist: You guys have formed a pretty strong reputation for yourselves.
Cooper: Can’t help that. A lot of it is journalists. Jeff[rey] Simpson is the first guy that talked about this, and he was invited by Roger Gibbons, who was a typical liberal middle-of-the -road, average, mediocre academic. He invited Jeff to come up here and tell the bullshit. Before Tom got to working with Stephen [Harper], before Bercuson and I got to writing about confederation, about the late-eighties. He was so astounded that we were not giving the kind of Liberal, NDP view of things. He would talk to his friends in the Eastern media, and that’s where it came from. It’s anti-Albertan, its not like they admire all the great work that we have done. It’s a way of marginalizing and silencing any arguments.

On First Nation, Métis, and Inuit federal policy or, in his words: “Indian Policy”
Cooper: What I said today about Indian policy, that’s extremely upsetting to a lot of people. I know lot’s of Indians, and they say ‘Yah, yah, it is, this is what’s happening.” You can’t do anything about if you’re not focused on what the problem is, the problem is dependency, being dependent on bureaucrats.
Meliorist: So, then, what was your response to [Prime Minister] Stephen Harper’s statement at the G20 conference that Canada does not have a history of colonialism?
Cooper: I think that nonsense. What do you think the Mounties are? They were Red Coats. Where did they get their red coats from? Not from Canada. The British way of dealing with aboriginals in Canada is no different than their way of dealing with Aboriginals in India, or in Africa. Basically, it’s bureaucratic management. Unlike the Americans, who have fights. At least with fights, with Long Knives and the Apaches. I have American Indian friends who celebrate the destruction of the 7th Cavalry. They say, ‘at least we showed them once’, and it gives them a sense of pride. I mean, there are some Métis I guess who think that of Crazy Louis and Batoche, but not very many. I think most think that is was a terrible tragedy. I think it was an interesting minor skirmish, what the British used to call the turbulent frontier.

Partisan politics, Cooper backs Martin
Meliorist: Has being vocally partisan helped your academic career at all? Has it benefited you in anyway? Do you feel you have received any gain from this partisanship?
Cooper: No, I have not received any gain. For all I know, some other difficulties I have had may have been because of this, I don’t know. I certainly haven’t gotten any benefits from being critical of Chrétien, and I think Paul Martin really did initiate the change, it wasn’t Stephen Harper. I think he was basically a decent human being, in a way I can not say about Chrétien. Nobody has ever said what a decent guy Jean Chrétien was. That tells you something.

(Un)Friend of Science?
“…the University of Calgary had received a huge sum of money from the government of Alberta to deal with how are we going to sequester CO2, and this was like hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Meliorist: You are involved in the Friends of Science…
Cooper: No, I am not involved with the Friends of Science. I did one project for them. It was the making of the DVD.
Meliorist: Which landed you in quite a bit of hot water with the University [of Calgary].
Cooper: Yes, it did.
Meliorist: The audit did not come out favorably for you.
Cooper: No, the audit was fine. The audit said there were, there were some reporting procedures that had changed, not because of anything I did. They were changed because, well, there were two reasons they were changed. One is, the most important one, the University of Calgary had received a huge sum of money from the government of Alberta to deal with how are we going to sequester CO2, and this was like hundreds of millions of dollars.
Meliorist: When was this?
Cooper: A couple years ago, just before this other thing.
Meliorist: 2005 or 2006?
Cooper: Yea, and for reasons best known to themselves, they thought this project [Friends of Science DVD project], the total cost on it, I dunno, a couple hundred thousand dollars and I mean it didn’t come to me, it came to produce the DVD. The DVD was done by the Friends of Science. The University of Calgary would have guys like David Suzuki – I call them Climate Change Alarmists -  that’s a polite way of saying it.
They had given a number of lectures at the University with the University’s logo on it, and since the money for the DVD came through the University I thought it would be perfectly legitimate for the University logo to go on the DVD, I didn’t know that.
Meliorist: Didn’t you create the Trust Account in the University on behalf of the Friends of Science?
Cooper: Not on behalf of me, it was for the funders.
Meliorist: The Friends of Science?
Cooper: It was like, I’ve had SSHRC funding, people, friends, other foundations, they have given me research funds. I treated this like any other research fund[ing]. It was not political, it was the construction of a DVD. I ran it the same way, with the same kind of controls on it that I would with a SSHRC account. Apparently, this violated a policy of which I knew nothing. Senior administration said it did. I said, ‘if you guys say so’.
A lot of it [the DVD] was technical stuff. I was managing the production of this product. When I was called in by these guys, I was a little surprised until I realized they thought this was putting this enormous grant that they had not yet nailed down from the government of Alberta in jeopardy, that their behaviour was inexplicable. I still don’t know for a fact that’s why they did, because, they would never admit it. They just said there were accounting irregularities, I didn’t have sufficient controls, the logo was used without permission. It was so vicious, I am not naturally suspicious, but there was so much, it made no sense really. I looked to me as if it was just another research project, it didn’t look that way to them.
The final thing was that Friends of Science took some advertising. They were in Ontario, there were some radio stations, some commercials, ‘if you’re interested in some of the facts about climate change that you won’t get from CBC’, or whatever it was, ‘go on our website’. The Vice President and a lawyer, the general council for the University – she was a very pretty woman – they were extremely upset about this, because these things appeared during the 2005 (sic) election campaign, and some guy who was on the David Suzuki Foundation board in Vancouver complained during the elections.
Meliorist: Because it contravened the Elections Act?
Cooper: Because he alleged it contravened the elections act.
Meliorist: Right, but the Friends of Science didn’t register as a third part advertiser?
Cooper: No, they didn’t, and they didn’t do it for a very good reason, because it wasn’t third party advertising, because every party opposed the Friends of Science position, every party. I’m a expert witness on third party advertisement. The lawyer said ‘this was third party advertisement, didn’t you know it contravened the elections act’? I said, ‘look, I know more about the Canada Elections Act pretty near anybody in the country, I’ve been an expert witness on third party advertising, this was not third part advertising. There is no way in God’s green earth’. They said, ‘we’re going to have get outside opinion’, and I said ‘well, you have the best opinion in the room’, she said, ‘no’. The guy [presumably, the outside opinion] said it was kind of ambiguous. They went to a [Elections Act] tribunal, and they said no, this was not third part advertising, but no one told the university, but they told Friends of Science this. One of the guys sent me a PDF of the letter they got from Elections Canada, so I sent it to the Provost and the pretty lawyer.

Perhaps the oil company I work for isn’t the biggest acronym culprit I know – perhaps it’s a combination of the government and the accountancy profession.

Last night I attended the Audit Committee at Waverley Borough Council. I’ve pretty much found the right area to serve I think – the committee’s responsibilities are a close match to both my day-to-day work and my competencies and, I do actually see it as incredibly important that such an oversight role is robustly and consistently performed.

Anyway, this meeting we had our external auditor along – the Audit Commission – answering questions and presenting information on the International Financial Accounting Standard, which will start applying to the UK public sector over the next couple of years onward.

Now, I’ve no intention to go into detail here – not least as I’m no expert. But, I did want to say that I’m delighted both with the quality of our Audit Commission manager and, with the project management at Waverley to make this transition happen. All evidence is that we’re now being well served in both these areas.