Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Daniels' Administration Whitewashes CIB Audit, Big Surprise

The State Board of Accounts spent about two minutes writing up this whitewash of the CIB's past audit reports mere days after Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law the new state budget that included the controversial $21 million a year tax, spend and borrow plan for the CIB. Here's what the rubber-stamp auditors at the State Board of Accounts wrote in a letter dated July 7, 2009:

We have reviewed the audit reports prepared by BKD, LLP, Independent Public Accountants, for the period January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008. In our opinion, the audit reports were prepared in accordance with the guidelines established by the State Board of Accounts. Per the Independent Public Accountants’ opinions, the financial statements included in the reports present fairly the financial condition of the Capital Improvement Board of Managers, as of December 31, 2007 and 2008 and the results of its operations for the periods then ended, on the basis of accounting described in the reports.

The Independent Public Accountants' reports are filed with this letter in our office as a matter of public record.
Thanks for your contributiion to the CIB Ponzi scheme, Gov. Daniels. Hope your buddy Jim Morris makes all the money you set out to help him and others make at our expense.

Here's the language included in the budget bill:

The state board of accounts shall audit annually the accounts, books, and records of the board and prepare a financial report and a compliance audit report. The board shall submit to the city-county legislative body financial and compliance reports of the state board of accounts. The board shall post the reports of the state board of accounts on the board's Internet web site. The city-county legislative body shall discuss the financial and compliance reports of the state board of accounts in a public hearing.

5 comments:

Jon said...

State board of accounts audits are primarily for malfeasance, theft and whether or not you are using the proper state accounts. They do not audit the reasons and rationale of where the money was spent nor the amount of money spent.
The fact that the CIB follows generally accepted rules of accounting and the state requirements is not the issue.

Advance Indiana said...

If you read those audit reports, you would have no idea how precarious the financial woes of the CIB actually are. There was certainly a disconnect between what's in those audit reports and what we've been told by the CIB's management the past six months.

Jon said...

So what purpose is there in an unaudited section of an audit? I did briefly peruse the document and was amazed at the amount of obfuscation the document offered. All we really need is an executive summary, aka statement of changes of financial positions; what do we own, what do we owe, what is our cash flow? I don't think I need 208 pages for that.

Did you notice this in the audit?

" While the CIB also budgets for certain capital improvement costs and debt service costs, such expenditures do not require City-County Council approval and may be amended by CIB Board approval." (p44 annual budget)

So in short, even though the CIB is required to publish a budget and that budget be approved by the City Council if they feel like adding some more costs there isn't any oversight or control by the City Council.

ebitda said...

The CIB dropped the INDEPENDENT Financial Audit prepared by a Professional Accounting firm at its last meeting, leaving only a brief financial review by the State Board of Accounts.

Seems pretty stupid when they have so many people questioning the accuracy of the CIB books , that they drop a professional accounting firm and give all the responsibility to the State Board of Accounts which has failed to read the Independent Financial Audit and Red Flag huge problems for over 17 years.

Bring Back The Professional Independent Financial Audit With State Board of Accounts Review!!!!!

Advance Indiana said...

Jon, That audit statement is dated May, 2009. It was never released to the public during the public debate over at the legislature. The auditors had no choice but to mention the $15 million since it had already been raised publicly by Pat Early months earlier.