There are several comments made on Spanish Cove Free Speak that I feel I must reply to.
1. My filming of the meeting was because Cove Connections was/is hopeful of being able to post the entire meeting for those who missed the meeting to see. The camera was running continuously except when the batteries died. The entire meeting could not be filmed because I had only brought one set of replacement batteries and that was not sufficient. No editing of the tape was done by me, or anyone else to the best of my knowledge. If anyone would like to see the tape I will make the sd card available to them to take home and return to me after watching the approximately 1 hour of the meeting I was able to tape. You can see that there are 3 files on the card–the first is about 25 minutes. The camera stopped because the battery was weak, I restarted it and it recorded another couple of minutes. After replacing the battery there is about a half hour of meeting recorded. The taping was done in the open. No one requested that the meeting not be taped
As far as the accusation that I am still supporting Charlie. In a public Board meeting I addressed the Board, admitted I was wrong in my original support and went so far as to say that I felt the Board should pursue filing a complaint so that Charlie would have a permanent record for what he had done.I have said before, and continue to believe that Charlie did wrong, and that he misused POASC funds for his own personal benefit. I do feel that much of the blame falls on Boards in existence between 4-03 and 6-09 who failed to take steps to create strong internal controls. Stop blaming Ben Bonnet and Sue Huff. Ben was turned down by both the Finance Committee and the Board on proposals aimed at improving our internal controls. He also spoke to our outside accountants regarding expanding the audit. The Board and Finance Committees thought it unnecessary and to costly. Sue Huff was never even an Authorized signature on the POASC account due to lies told to her and to Frank Lenox by Charlie. As to myself in 2003, after the Karen Black experience I, as a member of the Finance Committee proposed the codifying of all the recommendations made by the Auditors. My proposal was turned down by the then chair of the committee as not necessary. I resigned from the Committee in protest. I have long advocated an expanded audit annually, and the formation of a "membership" internal audit committee. I am today a member of the Ad Hoc Committee writing internal control procedures and will advocate strongly we expand the audit and have some form of membership internal audit procedure. Dick Junkins, who leads the Ad Hoc committee has long been in agreement with both of these necessities.
In closing, outside of the item now being investigated by the Fairhope Police I do not feel that a crime was committed because all purchases were authorized by the Chairperson signing the check paying for the purchases, thus in effect approving them. Under our rules the Chairperson has the authority to approve any budgeted purchase up to $1500. Gas is an budgeted item. In addition, the manager has the authority to spend up to $500 as he/she desires with no ones approval. That is why I feel that there was gross misuse of funds, but not a crime. Charlie was morally wrong in what he did and I condemn him, but much blame falls on the Boards during his tenure as manager.
January 16, 2010 10:31 AM
Tags: Board, Finance Committee, Free Speak, Response
Jim,
Thanks for your comments and, unfortunately, allegations abound in Spanish Cove these days. I’m sure Sue would be glad to answer your questions if you call her directly.
Hope all is well, BW, Sandra
It seems like C. Davison was more interested in getting F. Lennox to sign the checks while he (F. Lennox) was more inclined to let S. Huff sign them. At least they (all) agreed that checks needed to be signed….eventually. It’s been said that S. Huff wasn’t an authorized signature on POASC accounts, so perhaps C. Davison was aware of this when he told her that F. Lennox needed to sign them. On the other hand, management may have decided F. Lennox overstepped by authorizing S. Huff for check signing duty. Ultimately, I suppose a vote by the board of directors determines the source of authorized signatures.
Jim, I do not know what difference it makes, and my answer is based on what it appears to me, not actual fact. I believe the lies occurred to them individually. Sue was told that Frank wanted to sign the checks. Frank was told that Sue was not available when needed to sign them. Remember, I was not present and am repeating only what I have been told.
Mr. Danson & all, please forgive me for the following question, but you said, “Sue Huff was never even an Authorized signature on the POASC account due to lies told to her and to Frank Lenox by Charlie.” I must admit to being interested in learning if the lies you mention were committed in the presence of both S. Huff & F. Lennox on the same occasion, if the same lies were told to both S. Huff & F. Lennox on different occasions, or if F. Lennox states that C. Davison lied to him prior to communicating this misinformation to S. Huff, or vise versa.
Having worked under Charlie Davison for more than a year, I’d be curious to learn more about his “morally wrong” use of SC credit cards. I’ve heard criticism about everything from regular purchases of donuts to occasional expenses for gift certificates. I do recall enjoying a few complimentary donuts while working for SC and to receiving a $25 gift certificate for Christmas in December of 2008. Other than that, I often wonder about the other questionable expenses…which are a problem. It’s said that “much blame falls on the board”, so I hope some changes with SC’s SOP have & will be made. Although they’re volunteers, is it customary for board members to receive some sort of formally written job description detailing expectations/duties? For instance, is stated somewhere in SC literature that credit card statements should be reviewed every few months to identify discrepancies, so that board members can vote on the proper usage of $500 worth of discretionary spending which is apparently at the Manager’s disposal?