Month: June 2021

Breaking the law to comply with the law – and PNB Chair Alex Steinberg chooses not to apologise for the sorry tale of the FY2020 audit … the pressure of a threatened CA Attorney General investigation: 30June was never about the CPB

PacificaWatchLeave a comment

[Here just the headline & some cursory details. Will be finished Su4July – better still, do it once 10 comments are made.]

~

At the W30June PNB Coordinating Cttee, PNB Chair Alex Steinberg sheepishly disclosed that earlier in the day the FY2020 auditor’s report had been sent to the California Attorney General.

The audio of the meeting has yet to be posted at https://kpftx.org/archive.php, but for the livestream, dutiful PacificaWatch minions in all signal areas were transfixed by their crystal sets, hanging on every word. The meeting’s job was to agree the draft agenda for the next PNB meet, Th8July, & it was unusually short, lasting ~14mins after roll-call. The electric moment came when Cttee Chair Chris Corey was already in conversation with PNB Chair Alex, & at 2:08 after roll-call he slipped it in, asking if the auditor’s report had got to Sacramento.

[UPDATE: no audiofile available as of Su4July – just like the FY2020 auditor’s report, both may be posted after by-laws referenda voting closes on W7July.] [. . . audiofile posted a few hours before the referenda polls closed, W7July. It was a bonus drop: TechGuy forgot to cut the stream, so the discussion for the Th8July closed session is included. Oh. (Audiofile has been copied, & will be posted before that PNB meeting. Meanwhile it’s still public: https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/coordinating/210630/coordinating210630a.mp3 (31:57 total).)]

~

. . . elaboration, incl.:

Charity corp audit cttee duties: “[t]he audit committee shall confer with the auditor to satisfy its members that the financial affairs of the corporation are in order, shall review and determine whether to accept the audit” (emphases added), § 12586(e)(2): the cttee has to do this: it’s mandatory work, it can’t be delegated to the board of directors, or to a group of directors, or to an individual director – even to the Chair of the board. Given that the PNB Audit Cttee hasn’t met since M26Apr2021, & so failed to “confer with the auditor”, failed to “review […] the audit”, & failed to “determine whether to accept the audit”, will the AG decide that the financial statements have been improperly submitted, rejecting them, & take the appropriate action under the law because Pacifica failed to discharge its legal duties? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12586 . . .

Charity corp duty to the public & to the CA AG: “[t]he audited financial statements shall be available for inspection by the Attorney General and by members of the public no later than nine months after the close of the fiscal year to which the statements relate. A charity shall make its annual audited financial statements available to the public in the same manner that is prescribed for IRS Form 990 by the latest revision of Section 6104(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and associated regulations.” (emphases added), § 12586(e)(1); for the cited section (especially (d)-1(a) and (d)-2), see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/301.6104(d)-1, & click on ‘next’ for (d)-2. (Contra the PNB talk, the law isn’t all about the AG: it’s also about the plebs, the great unwashed, including the Pacifican cash cows, & the 77% of members who abstained in the Mar2020 proposed new constitution referenda.) The FY2020 auditor’s report hasn’t been published by Pacifica in the place where it’ll end up, linked from https://pacifica.org/finance_reports.php. . . .

It’s because of this stickly law thing that there’s this somewhat worrying 22Dec2020 two-page letter from Xavier Becerra, the California Attorney General, never mentioned in any recorded Pacifica meeting – guess the topic is a clue: “RE: DELINQUENCY NOTICE AND WARNING OF ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES AND LATE FEES, AND SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF REGISTERED STATUS” (original emphases, p. 1). Oh. No: double oh.

CT-451 1st Delinquency Notice, at bottom of ‘Filings & Correspondence’, via https://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y (search with ‘Pacifica Foundation’) . . .

Xavier’s moved on to higher things, replacing Alex ‘I’ll do whatever it takes to keep my job, even stamp on Nancy Messonnier’ Azar as US Secretary of Health and Human Services. Nancy’s ignored warning, 25Feb2020, when Trump was visiting Modi in Delhi, downplaying it all: “disruption to everyday life may be severe […] I had a conversation with my family over breakfast this morning and I told my children that while I didn’t think that they were at risk right now, we as a family need to be preparing for significant disruption of our lives” (7:56), said with noticeable urgency – not panic – at her CDC media teleconference, at a time when the CDC were reporting that there were a mere 14 confirmed COVID-19 cases in the US (12 had recently arrived in the US, & 2 had known contact with an infected person). What fuelled Messonnier’s arousal was presumably what was made public the next day by the CDC: the first apparent case of asymptomatic transmission within the US, in California – https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0226-Covid-19-spread.html). The 25Feb2020 transcript (with embedded audiofile), https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html; & audio, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19-update.mp3 (it’s also embedded (as a courtesy – or to increase exposure?) in the webpage announcing the upcoming teleconference, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/a0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html). At the time, Nancy was the CDC’s Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. (Her bro is Rod Rosenstein – yes, who appointed Mueller as Trump-Russia investigator.)

And with Xavier’s letter we have the point. The ‘Pacifica 30June hullabaloo’ doesn’t revolve around some CPB deadline: it must have been this CA AG letter, following up on his 22June & 18Aug letters, & no doubt others, that made it plain to the PNB that the Office of the AG would no longer play softball: it had become apparent to all that if Pacifica remained delinquent, or lapsed again, then the AG would open an investigation into Pacifica. This reality has been consistently concealed from the members, the staff, the listeners, the creditors.

Xavier put the effect of losing charitable status this way: “[a] delinquent organization may not engage in any activity for which registration is required, including solicitation or disbursing of charitable assets.” (original emphases, p. 2). “[D]isbursing of charitable assets” means, for example, passing on cash held by Pacifica Foundation, Inc. to an outsider, so to a creditor, be it an employee or NETA or FJC. All assets acquired when the organisation was a charity are frozen: their ownership can’t be changed. Triple oh.

Also, the AG will have to give the California Franchise Tax Board a call, threatening Pacifica’s tax-exempt status (p. 1).

Lastly, Xavier, as his personal Xmas prezzy, reminded the directors that the state will come after their nest eggs: “[c]haritable assets cannot be used to pay these avoidable costs. Accordingly, directors, trustees, officers and return preparers responsible for failure to timely file the above-described report(s) are personally liable for payment of all penalties, interest and other costs incurred to restore exempt status” (original emphases, p. 2). Quadruple oh. (To this one can add the personal liability arising if Pacifica was broken up with its restricted endowment funds still being in deficit: at 30Sep2019, the unaudited deficit per the FY2019 auditor’s report was $579 207 (p. 19; p. 21 of the PDF – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2019.pdf). Even shared by 30 directors, that’s ~$20k each. Worryingly, Pacifica has never published a time-scheduled plan as to how this not insignificant deficit is to be eliminated – this increases the probability that elimination will be occurring elsewhere.) . . .

Chair Alex used odd language in his reply to Chair Chris, referring not to the auditor’s report but to “they’ve” – so presumably these three docs:

(a) FY2020 auditor’s report (as they include financial statements; due no later than 9mths after year-end, so 30June – the above § 12586(e)(1) … the law gives no discretion to the AG, or anyone else, to grant an extension: “Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004 FAQ[.] 8. Does the extension for filing IRS Form 990 also apply to the completion date for the audit? No. The statute does not provide for an extension of time.” – https://oag.ca.gov/charities/laws#integrityact. After all, this is the age of consumer protection, where peeps can expect their charity spending to bring smiles to faces – even to others. Protecting the public not just from those who use a charity to perpetrate fraud, but also from the well-intentioned who happen to be so hapless that they can’t even keep their accounts in order, letting the public know where their money’s going, whether the charity is on its last legs, a transparency that may help to hold decision-makers to account, perhaps the most important one. The state, eh?, always interfering, sticking its nose everywhere);

(b) the 2019 IRS annual informational return (IRS Form 990; using the FY2020 data; “[f]ile Form 990 by the 15th day of the 5th month after the organization’s accounting period ends” (p. 6), so 15Feb – https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990.pdf); &

(c) the annual renewal of Pacifica’s charity registration (RRF-1, that’s Registration Renewal Fee; using the FY2020 data; due “no later than four months and fifteen days after the end of the organization’s accounting period” (the form itself, p. 1), so 15Feb; “[t]he purpose of the Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report (Form RRF-1) is to assist the Attorney General’s Office with early detection of charity fiscal mismanagement and unlawful diversion of charitable assets” (p. 3) – https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/charities/charitable/rrf1_form.pdf. Speaking of which, effective 1Feb2020, the form has a new topic (as question #9), highlighting duties required by California Government Code Section 12599.8, effective way back on 1Jan2013, falling upon financially distressed charities, those like Pacifica with year-end negative net assets without donor restrictions (Politese for net liabilities of that kind) but custodians of restricted net assets (these are disclosed, starting with the 2019 Form 990, on lines 27 & 28 of the balance sheet section, Part X – previously, there were separate lines for temporarily & permanently restricted net assets). Pacifica first had to answer this question in its 17Aug2020 filing, using FY2019 data, rejected because the audit hadn’t been done. Oddly, not in the Registry’s depository are two docs: a re-submitted complete RRF-1, & a re-submitted complete 2018 Form 990 (using FY2019 data; “[o]ur office received the DRAFT copy of the IRS 990. We can not accept DRAFT copies of the form” (original emphases & capitalisations) – the 22Dec2020 missive from Xavier, repeating what he had said in his 18Aug2020 rejection letter (also in the depository). Unfortunately, Pacifica is still only posting the rejected form, signed 11Aug2020 – https://pacifica.org/finance_reports.php).

§ 12599.8: “For any year that the balance sheet of a charitable organization shows that it holds restricted net assets, while reporting negative unrestricted net assets, the organization shall provide an explanation of its compliance with its charitable trust responsibilities and proof of directors’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage to the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts.” – https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12599.8

. . . speaking of which: “Report Out from PNB Closed Session of April 15, 2021. The PNB met in closed session to approve the D&O insurance for Pacifica” – https://pacifica.org/documents/pnb_exec_210415.pdf (dated 22June2021 – not within 10 days of the meeting, so a violation of CPB’s interpretation of federal law, of the Comms Act of 1934: “[t]he Act requires stations to document and make available to the public the specific reason(s) for closing a meeting within a reasonable time after the meeting. CPB also requires that the written statement be made available for inspection, either at the CSG recipient’s central office or posted on its station website, within 10 days after each closed meeting” – https://www.cpb.org/stations/certification/closed-meetings)

(Chair Chris didn’t seem to notice Chair Alex’s use of the plural.) . . .

~

PacificaWorld is governed not by the rule of law but by the rule of decision: PacificaWorld is a Reich of Carl Schmitt. The ruling PNB clique makes the decisions, unbounded by the by-laws, & in practice even unrestrained by either state or federal law – until now, that is.

That’s why the breakers will start a write-in campaign to Sacramento, to the California Attorney General.

The rebellion – not the civil war – continues, on a new front.

Advertisement

. . . looks like it’s all over: NES Peñaloza tells Director Sagurton that both referendum quora have been reached – with over 10 days to go

PacificaWatch2 Comments

. . . Jim tells Jim it’s all over – WBAI Community Advisory Board, Su27June2021 . . .

At this afternoon’s WBAI Community Advisory Board, Director James Sagurton (WBAI listener-delegate) was oblivious to the world, talking on the phone as if he was in a private conversation with Jim Dingeman (WBAI stalwart). Thing is, Jim still had the Zoom room open.

In the first hour of the CAB there was just Jim & the WBAI Local Elections Supervisor, Renata Sago (les-wbai2021@pacifica.org). Nattering away, about dis n dat, as Mansoor would say.

Then Director James (also Chair of the PNB Finance Cttee) came onto the call. Niceties exchanged, then down to business. James had a lot to say. NETA, Pacifica’s bookkeeper & accountant, had given stuff to the auditors, only to have it rubbished – and returned. Like a drug deal gone wrong. No way will it get done by 30June.

Making things worse, opined James, is Chief Financial Officer Anita Sims protecting KPFK’s business manager, Barry Brooks.

Plus the palaver about KPFK’s new station manager, Moe Thomas, not getting the codes he needed. And the hullabaloo at KPFT, about the wide-ranging programming changes being seen as whitewash.

Then James dropped a bombshell: National Elections Supervisor Renée Asteria Peñaloza had told him that quora had been made in both the listeners & staff by-laws referendum. He didn’t note that this was a lil inaccurate: as the NES can neither open the ballot envelopes nor check individual online votes, she can’t know the number of valid ballots received, only the number of apparent ballots.

But anyway, oh.

~

With quora coming in less than 20 days, with more than 10 to go, the die is cast. Why? Only one side has been putting in the work.

The breakers have been focused on the referenda; the anti-breakers on the LSB elections.

The breakers have been mobilising their constituency for months and months and months; the anti-breakers have been preoccupied with manoeuvring on the PNB & the LSB’s.

The breakers have been beavering away getting the vote out; the anti-breakers from April started talking about talking about what to do & how.

The breakers, motivated; the anti-breakers, just going thru the motions.

Men against boyz.

~

Unless the anti-breakers can scare peeps to vote by W7July, & with turnout down, one can expect the breakers to win the listeners referendum. And maybe even win the staff referendum at three of the stations, but lose the staff referendum itself coz of the turnout at WPFW & WBAI. That would mean the breakers fail – this time.

But it would mark a sea change. Then all the breakers have to do is come back again, but with a proposed constitution that doesn’t require a staff referendum: all they have to do is word it so that a class of members isn’t materially adversely affected compared with the other class.

It’s a wonder they didn’t do that this time round. But then this is PacificaWorld.

~

[NES Peñaloza has publicly given no progress reports, either before voting or since it has started. She hasn’t disclosed the size of the 10 elector rolls, either as initially given to her by station managers or as they have been amended. Nor revealed how turnout has proceeded – but not being a humble member, a Pacifica director is able to . . . – Animal Farm lives on. https://elections.pacifica.org/]

~~~

CPB big bucks Community Service Grant Program closed on W19May – so why this PNB & NETA talk about some 30June deadline? . . . Earliest CSG payment is now Oct2022, the month when FJC must be paid $3.165m

PacificaWatchLeave a comment

. . . for CPB’s radio hand-outs, for 93% of the money, “[n]ew applications are no longer being accepted” – https://www.cpb.org/grants/Radio-Community-Service-Grant-Application-Fiscal-Year-2022-New-Applicants . . .

So why has the Pacifica National Board, & NETA, the bookkeeper & accountants, been going on about a 30June deadline? A deadline set by whom? Requiring what? Rewarded with what?

No local station board delegate or PNB director has given any details, even a teeny-weeny one, in a publicly recorded meeting. Nor has anyone asked. Repeat: no-one has even asked.

How can this be? Is this some kind of secret society? Funded ~$11m by the members, listeners, & others, year, after year, after year?

~

And when was the 19May deadline made public?

. . . so, then, if not before – https://www.cpb.org/file/297328/download?token=okRKWpM9 (page 1 of 22) . . .

As noted months ago on this blog, in early Jan2021, when discussing the expected completion dates of the FY2019 & FY2020 audits, a remark was made about the 26Oct2020 PNB Audit Cttee:

[n]o-one mentioned a crucial deadline: what may be mid Aug2021, applying for the big bucks disbursed from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s Radio Community Service Grant Program, CSG. The annual date keeps changing: 13Aug2020, 24June2019, 11May2018, 12May2017, 16May2016. There’s never much time to apply: the last two application forms were dated the month before, July2020 & May2019. It’s also first-come, first-served: ‘[e]ligible applicants are accepted into the Radio CSG Program in the order their applications were received’.

https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/auditor-s-reports/auditors-reports-summary-notes-2/auditors-reports-summary-notes/ citing https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/rfp/7af2bbff/Grant%20Guidelines%20Radio%20CSG%20for%20FY%202021%20-%20New%20Applicant%20Guidelines.pdf (p. 2) – the same wording is used for the competition just ended, https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/rfp/ce8434e0/Grant%20Guidelines%20Radio%20CSG%20for%20FY%202022%20-%20New%20Applicant%20Guidelines.pdf (p. 2)

Instead of mid Aug2021, it fell on 19May.

~

And how big is the Radio CSG fund? In FY2021 it’s ~$92.1m (unrestricted $69.3m + restricted, for national programming, $22.8m); in FY2022 it’ll be ~$96.2m ($72.4m + $23.8m). Yes, CPB funding is rising, at last – to $465m from a stagnant ~$445m, FY2012-FY2021 (which suffered a 19% drop in real terms). And with a 3:1 TV-to-radio grants split, in FY2021, ~$99m went to radio; with 70% going to unrestricted CSG, & 23% to restricted CSG.

https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2021-Operating-Budget.pdf (p. 2); https://www.cpb.org/appropriation (press ‘radio’); https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/appropriation/FY-22-24-CPB-Budget-Justification-5-24-21.pdf (28May2021, p. 67; & applying the allocation formula); & https://www.inflationtool.com

And how much did Pacifica used to get from the CPB? FY1993-FY2012, it varied from $1.946m in FY2006 to $1.098m in FY1994 (in June2021 money, that corresponds to $2.576m (32% inflation) & $1.962m (79% inflation)). As a proportion of Pacifica’s revenue, it was 10.8% in FY2006 ($18.016m), & 14.1% in FY1994 ($7.797m); by comparison, in FY2011, the CPB’s $1.154m was 8.2% of revenue ($14.135m).

https://pacifica.org/finance_reports.php

(Notes: (a) FY2012 was the last full year of CPB monies coz the 2nd instalment, due in Mar2013, didn’t arrive as Pacifica fell out of compliance – https://current.org/2013/06/pacifica-misses-cpb-deadlines-holding-up-funding-for-stations/; (b) oddly, & without explanation, no disclosure was made in FY2008, 2009, 2012, & 2013; & (c) the fed fiscal year-end is the same as Pacifica’s, 30Sep.)

~

Today, the PNB Technology Task Force met: “[p]urpose: [d]iscuss 2021 CPB requirements, for June 30th deadline application” – https://kpftx.org/.

A PacificaWatch minion attended. They stressed that the application deadline for the CPB’s Radio Community Service Grant Program had passed on 19May, giving the link cited above. Twice they asked what this 30June deadline is, its purpose, what has to be provided. Twice the Chair, Jim Dingeman (associated with WBAI, but not a LSB delegate), responded, but, unfortunately, proved unable, or unwilling, to answer these obvious questions.

There was no point asking a third time.

~

There are many CPB hurdles to ride, even before a Pacifica application is deemed eligible. The Jan2021 blog discussion just mentioned covered a few (all the evidencing links are there, https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/auditor-s-reports/auditors-reports-summary-notes-2/auditors-reports-summary-notes/):

• when Pacifica submits an application to the CPB it has to already be compliant with both CPB rules & federal law (22May2020 CPB letter to ED Lydia Brazon & PNB Chair Alex Steinberg);

• an obvious, elementary one, is that whenever a deliberative meeting is closed to the public, a written explanation is not just published but done so within 10 days; currently, for calendar year 2021, only one is posted on the Foundation’s website, https://pacifica.org/notices_home.php – and that’s from Feb, of a LSB meeting!

• evidence of streaming each open meeting, or of having had a conference phone call accessible to the public, so including evidence that online joining details were published beforehand (obviously, a posted notice of an upcoming meeting is something quite different; as is a published audiofile of proceedings: the open meeting requirement is about attending, witnessing, so whilst it’s happening);

• evidence of community advisory boards meeting publicly “at regular intervals”, per Communications Act of 1934, § 396(k)(8)(A) . . . by early Jan2021, the Pacifica meetings archive provided no evidence, none at all, that any of the five CAB’s had met in 2020 – https://kpftx.org/archive_2020.php; &

• a biggy: having enough listeners . . . Note, a mid May2022 application needs Nielsen listening data from spring 2020 & spring 2021. These are for Apr-May-June, but those for the 1st quarter are known, for each station. So, obvious questions: how far off is each station? what strategy is each station manager pursuing to rectify their situation? crucially, what are the intermediary, measurable goals in each strategy? what is the URL of each published station listenership strategy, so that Pacifica is transparent in this key matter, making it easier to hold the station manager & the station programme director to account for both their action & inaction? when did ED Brazon instruct station managers to address this matter strategically, rather than piecemeal & ad hoc at best? What are the answers to these obvious questions? Importantly, will any Pacifica decision-maker, a LSB delegate or Pacifica director, ever ask them?!? . . . another Godot moment in PacificaWorld?

Also, CPB is doing unannounced website audits, praps Feb thru Sep2021:

I also want to inform you that we will be undertaking a new initiative this fiscal year to further address station accountability. Specifically, we will be conducting limited scope evaluations of station requirements to post information to its website of various Communication Act and transparency requirements per our Annual Plan. The evaluations will be unannounced engagements conducted by our office of the information posted to your website and are not full scope audits of your CSG agreements. These limited scope evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency[‘s] Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation. [new paragraph:] These engagements will begin any time after January as staff is available and will continue throughout the fiscal year.

CPB Inspector General Kimberly Howell to “Station Officials”, Jan2021, p. 2 – https://cpboig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2021-02/ig_message_jan_2021.pdf

ED Lydia Brazon will be aware of this. Also Otis Maclay, Pacifica’s Compliance Officer – amongst other jobs.

Yes, Pacifica receives no CPB monies, but it has to be fully compliant before any application is even looked at.

~

On top of all this, there’s also the Pacifica decision-makers, local & national, always going on about ‘getting the audits done’. They offer no awareness, whatsoever, that they fail to make a crucial distinction between form & content: between an auditor’s report & audited financial statements. The two pertinent facts: the latest auditor’s report is for FY2019, dated 29Apr2021; the latest audited financial statements are for FY2016, dated 31May2018. FY2016 ended on 30Sep2016 – almost five years ago.

Audited financial statements are deemed by the auditor to be, in the jargon, fair, that is, materially accurate. Hence the auditor saying of the FY2016 financial statements provided by Pacifica, “the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The Pacifica Foundation as of […]” (p. 1b; p. 4 of the PDF – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2016.pdf). (This opinion included a scope limitation, making it a qualified opinion, but we’ll let that complication pass.)

This contrasts with FY2017, FY2018, & FY2019 when the new auditors, Rogers & Company, given what they found, had to say, ‘fair? not fair? materially accurate? materially inaccurate? . . . can’t say, can’t say one way or the other, so we’ll have “to issue a disclaimer of opinion” – but thanks for the $100k or so . . . better luck next time’.

Why is this difference so important? What grantors want, nay, what they demand, is audited financial statements – not auditor’s reports. They want financial statements vouched for by auditors, so deemed materially accurate by a competent, trusted third party – not bald statements offered by a wannabe grantee. An applicant needs credibility, nay, proven credibility. Grantors demand substance, verified substance.

Here, in managing risk, the CPB has even less latitude: they disburse taxpayers’ money. They’re accountable to Congress, to those nice Republicans in the House & Senate – https://cpboig.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-05/IG%20Semiannual%20Report%20-%20March%2031%2C%202021_0.pdf. To cover their proverbials, the CPB will require audited financial statements from Pacifica, & not those from FY2016, half a decade ago – in all likelihood they’ll insist on a minimum of two sets, moreover, consecutive ones. And when might they come?

Well, the FY2020 audit is likely to be completed in August, perhaps July. 30June is unlikely, not least because the trial balance that generates the financial statements wasn’t produced until this week (CFO Anita Sims, Th3June2021 PNB – no audiofile posted as of today . . . UPDATE: CFO Sims: “on, urgh, June the first, George [Walter, NETA Senior Controller] was able to deliver to the auditors the trial balance – the re-sent – and also the, argh, [derived] financial statements” (24:30), “so we are on schedule. Urgh, we’re hoping that their process will take about two weeks [sic]” (25:04) . . . about two weeks??? . . . so finishing Tu15June??? – https://kpftx.org/archives/pnb/pnb210603/pnb210603a.mp3).

Let’s be frank. Let’s call a spade a spade. The only way to conjoin ’30June’ & ‘auditor’s report’ is with a nod & a wink: rush the sampling; stamp the statements with a disclaimer of opinion; praps a 5% discount on the agreed price; &, keeping things in-house, come back in November for one more year, even if the auditors can hardly stomach it. Business. Scratching. Win-win. Capitalist ‘professionalism’, capitalist ethics, in action.

The FY2020 statements will almost certainly get a 4th disclaimer of opinion from the auditors because there hasn’t even been an inkling that the many outstanding pension audits (perhaps six) have been done since 29Apr2021, when the general auditors last gave their opinion: “[a]s of the date of the Independent Auditors’ Report, April 29, 2021, audits of the plans for years 2019 and 2018 had not been completed” (p. 1; p. 3 of the PDF). And this deficiency was the sole reason for giving the disclaimer: “[w]e were thus unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the correct pension accruals, penalties, and fines for the years ended September 30, 2019 and 2018” (‘Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion’, p. 1; p. 3 of the PDF). https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2019.pdf

The point is, there’s so much uncertainty with the material accuracy of the pension accounts (so based on the personnel & payroll records, sigh), that the auditors found themselves unable to accept an estimate of the liability from NETA, which would have allowed the auditors to give a scope limitation to the offered financial statements, assigning them a qualified opinion: instead they felt they had to give a disclaimer of opinion. No-one on either the PNB Audit Cttee or the PNB has ever asked why, of either CFO Sims or the auditors. It’s as if they’re unaware of what’s happening, unaware of the decision-making involved. Incroyable. Unglaublich. Unbelievable.

The pee-pee, the pension problem, isn’t new. There were warning signs. The FY2016 auditors gave a scope limitation to those financial statements because, at 31May2018, when their report was issuable, “(a) audits of the [pension] plans for 2016 had not been completed, (b) an audit of one of the plans for 2015 had not been completed, and (c) an audit of one of the plans for 2015 was not required” (pp. 1a-1b; pp. 3-4 of the PDF – https://pacifica.org/finance/audit_2016.pdf). Oh. So by 31May2018, the last ones finished were FY2014. Oh. This was the scale of the deficiency made public three years ago. (Since then, thankfully, there has been progress: completed are those for FY2015, FY2016, & FY2017, as inferred from the cited 29Apr2021 statement by the general auditors.)

The directors since the end of FY2015, 30Sep2015, have been seriously remiss in their exercise of oversight re (a) the preparation for the annual pension audits, & (b) the conduct of those audits. They have never given an adequate explanation of (1) why the problem of pension administration arose during FY2015 (even the dates of completed pension auditor’s reports aren’t publicly available), & (2) why the dual persisting problem of pension administration & pension audit wasn’t, & hasn’t been, remedied.

And who was in charge late 2015 & thru 2016? A duo: in the seats of power were Executive Director Lydia Brazon, stepping up as the then PNB Chair, accompanied by newly installed Chief Financial Officer Sam Agarwal. Sam is gone . . . Ms Brazon is the current executive director. https://pacificaradiowatch.home.blog/non-financial-pacifica-data/pacifica-officeholders-pnb-chair-executive-director-chief-financial-officer-secretary/

So, given that the FY2020 audit is likely to get yet another disclaimer, the earliest Pacifica can earn two sets of audited financial statements will be re FY2021 & FY2022, with the latter’s auditor’s report being issuable, at the very earliest, mid Jan2023. That would allow Pacifica to apply, c. May2023, for the fiscal 2024 CSG Program, with a first payment, the 70%, in Oct2023 (30% coming in Mar2024).

So, treading water for at least another two years, 2⅓ years. Inshallah.

But Pacifica may be able to persuade other grantors with just one set of audited financial statements. Inshallah.

~

So what is this 30June deadline?

~~~