Jimmy The Hand wrote:But the auditors can only work on the information they are given. It's the Finance Directors' responsibilty to make sure that the relevent information is given to the auditors and given in such a way that we can glean from the report the information we want.
I really don't see that changing the auditors for one year would make any difference, they would also be working with the information given.
there are two matters at hand, and they are linked - because they both bear on the decision that members will be asked to make in 2010 on charity status. I'm not saying that the two are one and the same, but simply that they both have to be sorted by April 2010
1. The auditors should be changed, because keeping the same auditors for decades is poor practice.
2. The accounts have to be sufficiently detailed for the members to understand where we are making a profit and where we are not, and the financial implications of the change to charitable status.
I intend to vote against resolution 4. I happen to think that the Management Committee and, by extension, the Auditors should have seen to it that the accounts were clear.
I intend to put the point to the AGM that resolution 3 should have something more substantial about it, and that there will be hell to pay next year if the accounts aren't in tip-top shape.
I realise that the two resolutions are interlinked - but, as I've said, I think a vote against accepting the accounts would be a bit of a blunt instrument. I've no doubt that the numbers are correct. I just think they don't mean very much.