Tuesday, April 18, 2017

A bit of Audit nitty gritty


Cerene couldn't get in to disrupt (she. again, begged twice), but—as Indigopirate so observantly demonstrates—you didn't have to do a two-way to get the drift. 
_________________________

In the course of the 17 April 2017 PNB Audit Committee meeting, following lengthy discussion as to how to construct an RFP for potential auditors, as well as how to identify, invite, and/or approach potential auditors, the chair presented the following information provided by Sam Agarwal, Pacifica’s Chief Financial Officer.

All stations are behind schedule submitting the financial information necessary for the 2015 audit. They are being reminded and encouraged to provide the necessary information. The national office cannot proceed without this information. There will then necessarily be adjustments and corrections before information can be provided to the auditors. The national office is severely short-staffed and is encountering real difficulty recruiting qualified people. 

The National Office will likely need at least three to four weeks to bring the books to an audit stage suitable to present to the auditors.

The CFO says he will provide further details the next day, 18 April.

The CFO points out that an audit generally takes approximately three months, at the least.

The completion of the 2015 FY audit then would fall, according to this timeline, approximately four months away, that is, mid-August.

The stated deadline of the CA AG’s office of charitable trusts is 27 August.

In the then-following further lengthy discussion as to how to frame and construct the RFP for potential auditors, the committee concludes that the RFP will/must state a deadline for the auditors’ completion of the FY15 audit of mid-July, so as to provide them a ‘cushion’ of at least six weeks to review the auditors’ work.

One committee member points out that this isn’t enough time, since it allows the auditors only two months, not the three months CFO Agarwal said would be necessary at customary minimum.


The response to this was that the committee couldn’t be expected to expedite their review, and the issue of two-months vs three-months as to what would be necessary for the audit, appears to have been effectively unaddressed and unresolved.
Indigopirate


2 comments:

  1. There was an audit committee meeting a while back which included the auditor. He was used to dealing with audit committees of no more than five members which he made a point of saying during the call. He then found himself on a conference call with over ten people listening to points of order and answering questions he probably heard for the third time or couldn't answer because it was an open meeting. At least he got paid for his time.

    ReplyDelete