Without finger pointing, no action will happen and the same "business as usual" will go on for another 6.5 years.

Originally Posted by jeffgreen

Without finger pointing, no action will happen and the same "business as usual" will go on for another 6.5 years.

Well our definition of finger pointing is different then but I assume we mean the same thing: action! So in that respect I agree.

Finger pointing to me = laying blame. That's not productive, thats just easy.

Solutions entail finding the route causes of problems and fixing them. Like I wrote on the other board, anybody can give an opinion or point a finger. It's your right as a human being. But that alone won't help anything. It's the first step on a waaaay longer journey.

Just a short update, I talked to Andrew Caterine today and he is sticking by saying that his report published in the Sil and on the MSU website. I hope I don't misquote him but among the other things he said was a general idea/notion that this isn't that big a priority and this issue is being blown out of propotion. In other words he reckons this is just "Tax" that the MSU failed to pay. He also reckons that other issues like Increasing MUSC occupancy costs and restructuring of the dental plan are more important issues for the MSU. He is confident that the appeal to the government will work and the MSU will handle this issue properly. In response to my query as to why this wasn't revealed even though the PST notice came out November 19th 2009, he told me that for some time the office wasn't sure what was going on and it took them some time to figure out and that this is an "internal issue" and it should be dealt internally. Also it wouldn't help the students to start saying during SRA meetings "Oh we'll fire this or that person" even though that is something people in this thread seem to want. Same with informing the SRA he reckoned that alot of these internal issues happen all the time and that for example it wouldn't make sense for him to stand up at an SRA meeting and say "Hey we forgot to pay our candy supplier, we owe them interest!" and so on for other PST's they have missed in the past(Including one for 1280).

He also mentioned that the auditors Deloitte will be coming later today and he will have a better idea of what actually happened.

As Mr Finkle said, hopefully we will get a more concrete answer at this Sunday's meeting AFTER the auditors report to the MSU.

Jeff, I said it's not Caterine's fault that PST wasn't paid out.

That's it.

As far as the lack of disclosure which is borderline deceitful... heads need to roll, and it needs to not fall on the auditors.

Originally Posted by sniderj

Where can I find an overview of the MSU's hierarchy and authority structure? I've never fully understood how it works.

Those almanacs that they hand out (the ones everyone rips the ads out of) has a diagram.

What is the basis for the MSU's appeal? It seems to me like it's pretty clear they haven't paid money, and now owe interest.

Jack... are you really questioning logic of the MSU? Come on!

Originally Posted by deadpool

Jack... are you really questioning logic of the MSU? Come on!

haha. Not so much the logic of the MSU... But whether or not they have any legitimate grounds for appeal. I can't imagine they do.

They are appealing the interest rate. The money they took and invested was at 4% and the interest the MSU paid was 8%. They are trying to argue that the interest rate is too high and if they can lower that they lower the amount of interest owed

Originally Posted by sniderj

What is the basis for the MSU's appeal? It seems to me like it's pretty clear they haven't paid money, and now owe interest.

From what I've heard the idea is that they are disputing the timeliness with the collection of the PST from their plan (recognizing it all as revenue, rather than a payable) to the failed PST payments and the effective interest rate applied to that time-line - basically they are disputing the pro-ration of the tax payable and the times associated with it (which would ultimately change the interest penalty).

Originally Posted by james2255

From what I've heard the idea is that they are disputing the timeliness with the collection of the PST from their plan (recognizing it all as revenue, rather than a payable) to the failed PST payments and the effective interest rate applied to that time-line - basically they are disputing the pro-ration of the tax payable and the times associated with it (which would ultimately change the interest penalty).

Interesting. Well it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out what the real timing of the revenue receipts was. In theory, their accounting system should have a record of this. (Although theory has thus far not proved to be reality with regard to this system)

Originally Posted by Boccaccio

They are appealing the interest rate. The money they took and invested was at 4% and the interest the MSU paid was 8%. They are trying to argue that the interest rate is too high and if they can lower that they lower the amount of interest owed

Unfortunately, the government has prescribed interest rates based on the relevant period. You would be hard pressed to argue with them and say "because I couldn't invest at this rate, I shouldn't be charged this rate".