Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier
The Delegation approves the County budget... but does not set salaries/etc; that is the County Commission, an elected body.
The GAC hires for Gunstock and approves their budget... the Delegation only has the authority to appoint the GAC members on a specified format.
Gunstock is independently audited every year and has been for many years. Ness stopped this year's annual audit... when he became chair. The full time employees/management hasn't really expressed opposition to the audit.
The political contributions were approved by the GAC... which approves the budget for Gunstock.
|
Okay, I think we are getting somewhere. Thank you for the helpful information. I have a few more questions.
The Delegation approves the budget, I get that. I work better with analogies. In my firm, the firm's directors set salaries and bonuses for the firm's staff (assistants, paralegals, HR, IT, Accounting, etc.). As a member of the Management Committee, we reviewed the directors' recommendations and made changes that we saw fit to make. So I guess I'm asking does the Delegation have the ability to change a budgetary item or to make suggestions to expenses, including salaries? If so, it appears to me that the Delegation has some level of control of these issues. If not, then that's fine too, I guess.
I read today in the LDS that Gunstock is subject to an annual audit that is authorized by the GAC and conducted by a third party. In reading between the lines, it appears that the new leaders of the Delegation wanted to conduct its own audit with it's own third party auditors. Again, using an analogy, let's say Gunstock was a private entity, and was the subject of a sale to a Buyer. If Gunstock denied the buyer's request for an independent third party audit, but instead insisted that the Buyer rely on Gunstock's own third party audit, wouldn't that raise red flags? I go back to a statement that I made earlier, if I ran a business (which I do), I would welcome any and all audits to establish trust and transparency. The last thing I would do is rely on "we've always done it this way and you should be happy with it" mentality. And to my earlier points, wouldn't have the GAC and the full time management been better off taking this approach rather than being insulted?
And finally, you did not answer my question about the political contribution. I read, like you, that the GAC approved (and has always approved) this type of political contribution. I get it. That doesn't make it right. Gunstock cannot have it both ways -- being treated as a private entity and as a public concern -- it is a public concern and the appearance of impropriety of dolling out political contributions far outweighs its benefits.