Jeff Ream Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, MarimbaManiac said: Genuinely positive news, and I'm very happy to see it. However, I feel like the organization still struggles with a lack of transparency and accountability that they never dealt with. This outcome, while objectively positive, seems like it happened in spite of the locked down messaging and murky operational procedures that led to this mess in the first place not being fixed. My concern is that without the foundational changes to address this, that they will continue to see issues in the member safety, staff accountability, theft, and financial stability spaces. I genuinely hope that's not the case, but it's something that a lot of people will be watching out for in the future as it's completely possible to successfully alleviate a symptom of dysfunction, without actually addressing the organizational issues that led to that symptom. so far the new CEO seems to have given more information in a few months that was received from the shut down announcement til his hire. sometimes no news might have to be considered good news. time will tell, but the lack of anything besides living and dying on bingo alone is concerning 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, MarimbaManiac said: Genuinely positive news, and I'm very happy to see it. However, I feel like the organization still struggles with a lack of transparency and accountability that they never dealt with. This outcome, while objectively positive, seems like it happened in spite of the locked down messaging and murky operational procedures that led to this mess in the first place not being fixed. My concern is that without the foundational changes to address this, that they will continue to see issues in the member safety, staff accountability, theft, and financial stability spaces. I genuinely hope that's not the case, but it's something that a lot of people will be watching out for in the future as it's completely possible to successfully alleviate a symptom of dysfunction, without actually addressing the organizational issues that led to that symptom. Indeed compliance was always a low bar they could clear wo resolving, or even acknowledging, those issues. No cookie from me for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarimbaManiac Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Just now, scheherazadesghost said: Indeed compliance was always a low bar they could clear wo resolving, or even acknowledging, those issues. No cookie from me for that. Exactly...an honest congratulations for getting over the finish line, but there is a big difference between dealing with the actual issues, and limping from one crisis to the next. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) 5 hours ago, MarimbaManiac said: Exactly...an honest congratulations for getting over the finish line, but there is a big difference between dealing with the actual issues, and limping from one crisis to the next. We've both expressed gratitude for the cleared bar, I imagine, because (the org's) not doing so would've continued to be an existential threat to the future of Vanguard. Literally everyone I've talked to expresses relief. Good thing someone discovered the delinquency and shoved it up on the list of priorities. ... whoever that was. Now keep going with the improvements, like getting that second PPP loan forgiven. Is that still possible? Edited January 17 by scheherazadesghost clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lesher Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 (edited) BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited January 18 by Richard Lesher 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarimbaManiac Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 So basically, their records are such a mess that they can't verify a lot of what they claimed, but they also can't find proof of it NOT being what they claimed either? Weaponized incompetence at its best. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 The full doc is 24 pages of CYA. Mostly above my head. I thoroughly understand this part though: Quote In performing an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards we: conclude whether, in our judgement, there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise considerable doubt about the Organization's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable amount of time. Other commentary about internal control override potentialities is also concerning. Again, these aren't technically legal conclusions or opinions, I don't think... but they're pretty #### strong hints... as strong as they can legally make them I'm guessing. Oh, and the firm has an office in Santa Cruz. I miss Santa Cruz. sigh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) Coupling this with previous info (please correct if wrong). SCV is an approved non-profit BUT the paperwork for the Bingo business is so FUBAR the state can’t figure out if it’s being run correctly. Hmmm, can CA shut down the Bingo if not resolved? edit: I screwed up and thought this was from the state. Now see it’s from the auditor. Big difference 🤦♂️ Edited January 18 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 Golly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scheherazadesghost Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 (edited) 31 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Coupling this with previous info (please correct if wrong). SCV is an approved non-profit BUT the paperwork for the Bingo business is so FUBAR the state can’t figure out if it’s being run correctly. Apparently the DOJ cleared the org with this document included, as it's listed among the docs in the online charity registry. Again, compliance was always a low bar. But the registry exists so the public, partners, and stakeholders can access such documents and draw their own conclusions. If (universal) you don't care, great, you do you. 31 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Hmmm, can CA shut down the Bingo if not resolved? The authority with jurisdiction over bingo would be the county, and county police I believe. Maybe municipal. Seems that DOJ has washed their hands of this so it likely wouldn't come from the state level. IDK VMAPA, maybe don't ignore, avoid, and retaliate against the over-qualified alumnus who caught and cleaned up bingo fraud in the past? Maybe I'm crazy. Edited January 18 by scheherazadesghost typo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts