Paul Foster wrote:
>>No, I don't know this. In fact, I believe just the opposite is true.
This would be my view also.
>>I believe that Denver and the BOD want to show Solo as
>>"losing money" so they can increase the Solo II surcharge on each entry.
Creative bookkeeping is an art. Depending on how it is decided to arrange
the different club expenses "on the books", the numbers could look very
different indeed.
NOTE - this is not "illegal" or even "wrong". It is simply how those in
charge decide to arrange their expenses versus income.
SCCA does not isolate all Solo 2 expenses. In fact it appears that Solo I
and Pro Solo are grouped within. Insurance costs are spread across Racing
and Solo.
And this is just from the PUBLISHED summary spreadsheet of expenses. The
sub account figures are not published - are they available?
>>I believe that the SCCA's bookkeeping practices should be investigated by
>>a competent CPA who is also a Solo II participant.
This is the ONLY way that any accurate information will come to light. And
what makes you think that SCCA National, whose major portion of their
budget and interest is strongly tied to Racing, will want to change
anything? Solo 2 is only one small department within the overall picture.
Small potatoes.
I "vote" ;-) for books that reflect each areas own expenditures and
assets, losses and gains. Let each stand or fall on its own. If Solo 2
really does lose money, then things need to be done differently.
Therefore, if RACING loses money...............
Regards,
Scott Meyers
|