We've been deceived and Castell got paid, based on a LIE !!!! There's just no other way to put it. The final audit is in and the bottom line is still the same! Check out the
Tallahassee Democrat story on the final audit.
Auditors point to 10 areas of concern
>>>When FAMU first submitted its 2004-05 financial statements last fall, $26.1 million "was the amount originally reported" for net increase in assets, said auditor Ted Sauerbeck. The figure heard last fall by the public, including FAMU trustees and the joint legislative auditing committee, was an unaudited $8 million surplus at FAMU, reported by KPMG consultants and repeated by Bryant.<<<
ReplyDeleteThe "surplus" shrunk even more than we thought. From $26.1M to $8M to $5M to $0.
It's clear that Bryant and her staff can not make heads or tails of the financial information that THEY compiled and submitted.
Well I wonder what TCW's supporters will come up with next. Not only did she lie, she WASTED over 50k printing up that 300 days into the light. RN said it best, long on pictures, short on facts....
ReplyDeleteRe:
ReplyDeleteWe've been deceived and Castell got paid, based on a LIE!!!! There's just no other way to put it.
RN ...
Before you start trying to twist this thing to make people think just that, since you're so good at posting documents out of the School's offices before the signatures on them are even dry, I think you need to:
(1) Find & post these 10 findings that were discovered from this audit;
(2) Find and post the first set of numbers both she & KPMG were presented.
Right now, all this has proven is that the first set of numbers she received were wrong ... And apparently, they were also wrong to KPMG as well.
So I ask all you "Sherlocks" out here ...
If any of YOU received a set of favorable numbers from the folks who are employed up there, and ALSO after the consultants also saw these numbers, why would you not feel confident enough in them to present them?
Would YOU like to be caled a liar in that situation ... Or just the receiver of initial incorrect information?
I think before you all start going all over the place believing "I Told You So!" regarding some intentional Enron-type fraud, we ALL need to read the complete Report with the findings ... Because the mere mention of a number of recurring deficiencies - in both the technology, AND in the procedures & people we have employed (or not employed) up there - suggests that there are STILL problems that are much deeper than the fact that she presented wrong numbers initially.
The more pertinent problem should be ... "Why are our numbers THAT far off - at any given time of the year - in the First Place?
"RN ... Time to be a bit more fair & objective - and responsible - in your journalism.
You're always so quick to post things up in the past ... So don't stop now - just to further bend reader's lines of thought in the direction you and a lot of others had hoped this would go.
Anyone who wants to read the whole report can do so at http://www.state.fl.us/audgen/pages/pdf_files/2007-007.pdf. It's 60 pages, so expect a long download. I don't know if it shows fraud, but I bet anyone with a pulse would agree it doesn't show a well-managed, competently run operation. Remember, these are the people Castell & Co. put in place (at great monetary and human expense) with the claim that they knew how to run things.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the findings, a SMALL SAMPLING from ONE of them:
As a result of the financial reporting deficiencies noted above regarding the University’s new financial management system, and internal control deficiencies that we collectively consider to be material weaknesses as discussed in this report and our report No. 2006-187 (on the results of our recent information technology audit), we expanded our audit procedures. Our expanded procedures disclosed numerous errors in the University’s financial statements, for which we proposed audit adjustments that were accepted by the University, some of which are discussed in finding Nos. 4, 5, and 6. However, there were several accounts for which we were unable to expand our audit procedures to satisfy ourselves that amounts reported on the financial statements were
materially correct, as follows:
* The University reported a deficit cash balance of $3,132,341 at June 30, 2005, which is presented as a temporary cash overdraft on the statement of net assets (see note 4 to the financial statements). As discussed in finding No. 3, periodic bank account reconciliations were not performed for the University’s operating bank account during the fiscal year. Although this account was reportedly reconciled by the University subsequent to fiscal year end, documentation supporting reconciling items was not adequate to demonstrate that a complete and proper bank account reconciliation had been accomplished. As such,
we could not satisfy ourselves as to the amount reported as a deficit cash balance at June 30, 2005, which represents 2 percent of total reported noncapital assets and 11 percent of total reported restricted and unrestricted net assets.
* As discussed in finding No. 4, we noted several deficiencies regarding the University’s determination of the $21,671,909 of contracts and grants receivable included in the $33,930,437 of accounts receivable reported on the financial statements at fiscal year end. As such, we could not satisfy ourselves as to the amount reported for contracts and grants receivable, which represents 16 percent of total reported
noncapital assets and 73 percent of total reported restricted and unrestricted net assets.
* As discussed in finding No. 5, the $10,545,833 of student fee accounts receivable included in the
$33,930,437 of accounts receivable reported on the financial statements at fiscal year end did not agree with subsidiary records (student financial system module), and our test of student fee accounts receivable balances recorded in the subsidiary records disclosed several incorrect balances. As such, we could not
satisfy ourselves as to the amount reported for student fee accounts receivable (net of an allowance for doubtful accounts), which represents 8 percent of total reported noncapital assets and 36 percent of total reported restricted and unrestricted net assets.
* As discussed in finding No. 6, the amount reported as depreciable capital assets did not agree to subsidiary property records, partly because the subsidiary records were not updated for certain depreciable capital asset additions for the last three fiscal years. Although the University accepted audit adjustments to correct misstatements of capital assets and related depreciation disclosed by our tests, we could not determine the extent to which the total amounts reported as capital assets on the financial statements may have been additionally misstated as a result of recording errors such as those disclosed by our test of expense transactions as subsequently discussed. As such, we could not satisfy ourselves as to the $342,994,218 amount reported for capital assets (net of depreciation), which represents 93 percent of total reported net assets.
* The University reported $94,780,583 of operating expenses (excluding compensation and employee benefits, and depreciation) for the 2004-05 fiscal year, including $66,232,459, $13,539,896, and $15,008,228 for services and supplies, utilities, and scholarships and fellowships, respectively. Our test of
100 expense transactions disclosed that 49 transactions were recorded incorrectly. Of the 49 incorrectly
recorded transactions, 20 were either recorded to the wrong operating expense category on the statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in net assets or recorded as an operating expense (services and supplies, utilities, or scholarships and fellowships) instead of being capitalized and reported as capital assets on the statement of net assets. The 20 transactions resulted in a net $157,746 overstatement of
operating expenses (affecting three operating expense categories) and net understatement of capital assets. Audit adjustments totaling $122,291 were accepted by the University to correct a portion of the
misstatements (see discussion in finding No. 6). We could not determine the extent to which the total amounts reported as operating expense categories on the financial statements were misstated as a result of errors such as those disclosed by our tests.
* As discussed in finding No. 2, our test of journal entries disclosed 16 entries, which collectively resulted in a net $5,170,465 increase in net assets, for which there was inadequate supporting documentation.
These entries collectively resulted in a net $9,430,231 increase for three operating revenue categories ($3,288,968 for student tuition and fees; $2,195,003 for sales and services of auxiliary enterprises; and $3,946,260 for other operating revenues), for which the University reported a total of $67,579,909 on the financial statements. The net collective $9,430,231 increase represents 7 percent of total reported
operating revenues and 32 percent of total reported restricted and unrestricted net assets. These entries also collectively resulted in a net $3,111,512 increase for three operating expense categories (services and supplies, utilities, and scholarships and fellowships), for which the University reported a total of $94,780,583 on the financial statements. The net collective $3,111,512 increase represents 1 percent of total reported operating expenses and 10 percent of total reported restricted and unrestricted net assets. We could not determine the extent to which the unsupported entries disclosed by our test may have been in error and, as such, the extent to which they may have resulted in misstatements of operating revenue or expense categories on the financial statements.
Count the number of times the auditors essentially threw in the towel and said they "...could not determine..." !!! Consider the statement, "... we could not satisfy ourselves as to the amount reported for contracts and grants receivable, which represents 16 percent of total reported
noncapital assets and 73 percent of total reported restricted and unrestricted net assets."
If you cannot confirm 73% of the total unrestricted net assets, what does the number you report really mean?
NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
And for this the Trustees fell all over themselves in praising Dr. Bryant!?!
I doubt Castell is that stupid to purposefully put up false numbers, knowing full well that they were going to be auditted later.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Castell did put the people in place who turned around and screwed up the accounting, therefore she is still at fault. When the team keeps fucking up, people point fingers at the coach first.
She had full support of the BOT, a whole lot of public support, and she still screwed it up. I'm counting down the seconds to August 2007.
From the audit:
ReplyDelete"..we could not satisfy ourselves as to the $342,994,218 amount reported for capital assets (net of depreciation), which represents 93 percent of total reported net assets."
NINETY-THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL REPORTED NET ASSETS!
It just doesn't end:
ReplyDelete"For the reasons discussed above, and as further discussed in finding Nos. 2 through 6, we could not satisfy ourselves as to amounts reported on the financial statements for the following accounts: a $3,132,341 deficit cash
balance (reported as a temporary cash overdraft); $21,671,909 of contracts and grants receivable and $10,545,833
of student fee accounts receivable, both of which are included in $33,930,437 of reported accounts receivable;
$342,994,218 of capital assets; $67,579,909 of operating revenues; and $94,780,583 of operating expenses."
does that mean she will give the bonus money back and also retract her raise.
ReplyDeleteRN ... Time to be a bit more fair & objective - and responsible - in your journalism.
ReplyDeleteYou're always so quick to post things up in the past ... So don't stop now - just to further bend reader's lines of thought in the direction you and a lot of others had hoped this would go.
7/29/2006 6:50 AM
Now is someone feelin a lil' twitchy or what
7/29/2006 6:50 AM,
ReplyDeleteMan "f" those first set of numbers KPMG presented to Dr. Bryant. I think anyone with common sense would have waited for the Auditor General to confirm those numbers. Instead, she just went on her way proclaiming through her cost cutting there was a $8 million surplus. NOT!!!
After reviewing the audit report, are you satisified? It's shows gross incompetence by everyone on the hill. What makes it worse is that FAMU knew MONTHS ago that surplus figure wasn't right but Dr. Bryant kept that information from the BOT. Dr. Bryant is a LIAR. Period. Next topic please?
Anonymous said... 7/29/2006 6:50 AM
ReplyDeleteFV, Kenneth Lay is dead. Can you imagine the number of people who believed in him? Can you imagine all of the lies he told at the quarterly stockholders meetings when he professed Enron was doing great, knowing full GD well he and his boys had smudged the numbers, mislead the stockholders, and mismanaged Enron financially into the ground?
All the while, these honest people (Ken Lay and his boys) were getting rich, getting fat arse bonuses and raises on fictious profits and fudged up financial statements.
Dr. Castell Vaughn Bryant is totally and completely responsible for our current state of affairs. She capriciously hired every last one of the MF's that are managing our finances with the BOT blessings.
Everyone, we hear FV's argument everyday on the TDO MB. It goes something like this "It ain't Castell fault the books are messed up. It's the people." For the last time, CastHELL is the problem and we need to get rid of her and every last one of the dummies she has wasted good taxpayers money on.
But keep cheering her on, maybe she'll hire you to do the audit at 4 million dollars this year, because the 2005 financial statements are due any day now. Bro slow up on the mushroom brew, its got you hallucinating like a MF.
Can someone explain the 140 million dollar operating loss the 103 operating loss and the 83 million operating loss...I thought the operating loss was only 10 million for this year...please explain.
ReplyDeleteSure wish you would post my quotes EXACTLY like I have them - And stop giving folks some half-baked similarity ... Because it continues to prove my point that some FAMUans just can't "read" ...
ReplyDelete"The Problem AIN'T Entirely With Peoplesoft ... But With The PEOPLE!"
Is that NOT what I've been teling you for the longest?
Just look at all our operational audits over the years - And you will see practically the SAME audit criticisms EVERY YEAR ... So these aren't all people that were hired SINCE she arrived.
As I also post on the Board ... And you also can't seem to quite comprehend ...
Whether it's people SHE has hired, or they have been there before ... It is time to remove EVERYONE up there who is responsible for our books continuing to be the annual laughingstock of the State of Florida!
Now - Please explain to all of us what part of any of THIS I have posted do you have a problem with ... Unless you are one of the folks I am advocating getting rid of!
To help us read, please post the audit criticisms you are referring to over the years.
ReplyDeleteSimply go to the AG's Main Page for the various Universities, and you can take your pick at any of them posted ... And feel free to browse through all of them if you like.
ReplyDeleteYou'll also find that we aren't the only ones throughout this State with criticisms over the years ... But some of ours just continuously seem to be recurring.
Man if you hire incompetent people and sign a LARGE contract with KPMG and they still can't get their stuff right then whose fault is it? Dr. Bryant hired the staff. She hired KPMG. She hired the top administrators. She has to be held accountable for her actions.
ReplyDeleteSimply post these criticism so that we can compare what RN is reporting from this audit. If you can post just say so.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.state.fl.us/audgen/pages/subjects/university.htm
ReplyDeleteFrom this link, you can access both the Summary and Detailed Reports for ALL the 4-year colleges in the State ...
Just go to the your School's Summary Reports if you don't want to browse through all the detailed ones, and see if you don't notice similarities from one year to the next.
has FAMU ever had this jacked up of an audit in the Humphries days?
ReplyDeleteRoosevelt Wilson said "Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that some of what Bryant claims raises questions regarding integrity or competence - or both.
ReplyDeleteRoosevelt Wilson said "As for the $8-million surplus Ali did not have much information to give, and she directed the Capital Outlook to university-hired KPMG financial consultant Paul Stepusin to get the details on how or if the $8-million surplus is associated with the $10.4 -income loss and the $2.7-million net increase. But Stepusin has not retuned the Outlook’s calls to his cell phone and his office."
ReplyDeleteCan someone PLEASE explain why the controller (Grace Ali) can't explain FAMU's financial statements? Damn, what the hell is going on up there?
BRYANT IS THE 1ST BIG DUMMY AND LET'S TALK ABOUT AUSTIN THE SECOND DUMMY WHO THE WHITE PEOPLE SUCH AS (FSU) CHANCELOR OF THE UNIVERSITIES) AND TCC HAVE KICKED HER TO THE CURVE SHE HAD TO COME TO FAMU AND BE A LAUGHING JOKE AMONG HER OWN PEOPLE. SHE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE FACULTY. BECAUSE THEY SEE HER AS A WHITE WANT-A-BE AND SHE HAS NO I REPEAT NO ROOTS AT FAMU. SHE HAS NO EXCELLENCE WITH CARING ATTITUDE JUST GIVE ME THE MONIES ALONG WITH MY PARTNER BRYANT AND WE WILL MESS UP THIS SCHOOL FOR THE GOVERNOR WHO'S ON HIS WAY OUT AND WANT TO TAKE THE SCHOOL WITH HIM. NOW EVERYBODY THAT THESE TWO CLOWNS HAVE HIRED HAVE BEEN MORE SMALL DUMMIES AND THAT WHY THE FINANCIAL STATMENT ARE IN A MESS. THE BUDDY SYSTEM IS REALLY SHOWING THERE HANDS NOW. IT TIME FOR ALL OF THEM TO GO!go!GO! THE SCHOL CAN'T TAKE ANY MORE!
ReplyDeleteCan someone PLEASE explain why the controller (Grace Ali) can't explain FAMU's financial statements? Damn, what the hell is going on up there?
ReplyDelete7/29/2006 3:04 PM
Hell she couldn't do it at Florida Memorial or University of Miami, how 'd hell you expect her to figure ours out.
Heck ... EVERY college has an "operating loss" ... It's only AFTER NON-operating revenues are factored in where most schools show any initial "surpluses or deficits". THEN once capital approprations are added in do you show your true net increase / loss in assets.
ReplyDeleteReally now! Then why did UCF, UNF, UF and FSU show a gain?
I went through some of the findings of the other Florida schools. Guess what: ONLY Univ of Florida had something wrong: with the new system reporting and collecting money from contracts and grants. That was one of two findings. Compare that with FAMU's 10 findings. (UF passed their 2005 audit just fine.)
ReplyDeleteYou know what that means: FAMU IS THE ONLY FLORIDA SCHOOL FUCKING UP THESE AUDITS! THIS STUFF IS NOT COMMON AMONGST FLORIDA SCHOOLS, IT ONLY HAPPENS AT FAM, AND ONLY UNDER YOUR GIRL.
Also on your AG website, you can see the audit when Gainous was fully in charge, FAMU only had about $11 Million in dispute. Compare that the SEVERAL HUNDRED FUCKING MILLION OUR FAVORITE DELTA PUT UP THERE.
Again, FAMU is a unique. We are the only SUS school screwing up all over the place. This includes universities that are twice, thrice, and four times our size.
to be fair, it looks like every school had a number of findings on "operational audits", but FAMU had the most findings there.
Capital appropriations were added in at the tune of $13 million dollars.
ReplyDeleteIt's state appropriations that drives our revenues and that was applied as well. We still ended up with a $10 million deficit.
You can say anything you want to about Humphries and Gainous, but they never had access to a KPMG. When Gainous submitted the audit report late, Castell (which was on the BOT at that time) reprimanded him. Then in September of 2004, Challis made the motion to dismiss him immediately. Gainous' performance without a KPMG far exceeded this awful time in the history of FAMU. The NAA has gone on record asking for the dismissal of Challis Lowe. I am anxiously awaiting the headlines "Bryant has been F I R E D!!! She has made a mockery of the University. Castell has got to go before August, 2007. She is an embarrassment!!!
ReplyDeleteCVB & her cronies & buddies are not to be trusted with other's people's money. She paid university professors lots of money for jobs which could have been done by folk already on her staff. I know Ms. Houston and Ms. (just-got-tenure-since-Castell's been-there) Hobbs. And I know that H&H, as one bloger said, are both crooks. H&B are friends and JH is a wannabe wannabe. Maybe the two of them should be investigated. Wheres there's smoke there is crookery and thievery. The only honest person over there is probably the janitor who cleans up the offices when they are gone.
ReplyDeleteI thought Castell said the numbers were not final and they were submitting the corrections and the new numbers will show a surplus. These numbers did not change. Why did she delay responding to the audit for so long if the outcome was already decided? This is crazy.
ReplyDeleteNewsflash...
ReplyDeleteWhen the books closed on June 30th, that means that nothing else can be added or subtracted. What you have is what you have. Period.
Hey, Newsflash....
ReplyDeleteThe auditors made adjustments six times after June 30th:
"Our expanded procedures disclosed numerous errors in the University’s financial statements, for which we proposed audit adjustments that were accepted by the University, some of
which are discussed in finding Nos. 4, 5, and 6." (page 2)
"Although the University accepted audit adjustments to correct misstatements of capital assets and related depreciation disclosed by our tests, we could not determine the extent to which the total amounts reported as capital assets on the financial statements may have been additionally misstated as a result of recording errors such as those disclosed by our test of expense transactions as subsequently discussed. As such, we could not satisfy ourselves as to the $342,994,218 amount reported for capital assets (net of depreciation), which represents 93 percent of
total reported net assets." (pages 2-3)
"Audit adjustments totaling $122,291 were accepted by the University to correct a portion of the
misstatements (see discussion in finding No. 6)."(Page 3)
"Subsequently, the University accepted audit adjustments to correct these misstatements." (Page 7)
"Subsequently, the University accepted audit adjustments to correct the $436,096 understatement of the
allowance for doubtful accounts." (Page 8)
"Subsequently, the University accepted audit adjustments to correct the misstatements of capital assets and related
depreciation disclosed by our tests." (Page 10)
You can keep trying to defend Dr. B, but just remember, it's hard to defend the indefensible. She's the one who fired or ran off everybody in such a misguided rush that she lost most all the people who had been doing their jobs well, as well as the few who deserved to be shown the door.
Well ...
ReplyDeleteIt's apparent that not enough people have been shown the door up there.
Some of those she showed the door to probably needed to go long time BEFORE she even arrived, and those that are STILL up there constantly doing things wrong - whether they were brought in before or during her tenure - also need to be gone.
There is NO excuse in this day and age for our records to not be reconciled by the end of EVERY month - which would all but ensure that at the end of the year your records don't need amending in amounts of this magnitude. With numbers THIS off - I find it hard to try to defend anyone up there as doing their jobs well.
It is simply time for FAMU to strongly consider outsourcing certain departments up there, and those up there found doing their jobs well enough will likely be retainied.
It's worked for the bookstore and food services, and it'll do wonders for Accounting, Financial Aid, HR ... and even lawn care - If even they are found to be acting up too!
Castell should be shown the door based on the audit findings and the fact that she failed to corporate with the state audit staff. In addition, she failed to present honest and open information to the (sleeping) BOT. She has not met her performance standards. The reason the BOT cannot fire CASTELL is known to the public. Challis & CO are all frauds and Castell is holding that over their heads.
ReplyDeleteThere is NO excuse in this day and age for our records to not be reconciled by the end of EVERY month - which would all but ensure that at the end of the year your records don't need amending in amounts of this magnitude. With numbers THIS off - I find it hard to try to defend anyone up there as doing their jobs well.
ReplyDeleteIt is simply time for FAMU to strongly consider outsourcing certain departments up there, and those up there found doing their jobs well enough will likely be retainied.
No, it simply time for the BOT to hire a permanent president that has experience in hiring professional finance folks. Outsourcing is what got us into this situation in the first place. Do as the auditor general has instructed and hire competent people with experience not friendship to get this mess cleaned up.
Time for A/C...not air conditioning...After Castell!
ReplyDeleteRe:
ReplyDeleteDo as the auditor general has instructed and hire competent people with experience not friendship to get this mess cleaned up.
Agreed ...
And if that had been the case ... Most of the people that she fired wouldn't have even been up there working in the FIRST place!!
Or the ones Castell has hired.
ReplyDelete