I posted the following question to Neil in one of the other threads and didn't not receive a reply.
In Bob Glatz's letter to Garry Sherrod dated 19 July 2010 he indicated the ATA's financial report showed you were reimbursed $1437.00 for travel expenses while he felt the correct number was $7475.00.
How much were you actually reimbursed for travel expenses in 2009????
For those that feel I started this post to embarrass Neil rest assured my motivation is to get a better understanding of the issues detailed in Mr. Glatz's letter to Gary Sherrod.
I don't believe Neil did anything wrong regarding this issue but I don't know any other way to resolve the conflict between the figures.
I fully understand that the accounting method used by the ATA which showed that Neil was reimbursed $1437.00 for travel expenses may be acceptable, but may also be deceiving if indeed he received more than $1437.00 and the additional money was accounted for in some other manner.
Accounting methods aside the simple question a layman would ask is regarding this one issue is, how much money was Neil actually reimbursed for his travel expenses in 2009?
The answer to that question is not intended to resolve legitimate differences in accounting methods, but is intended to determine how transparent the EC has been regarding expenses.
Jerry Hauser
In Bob Glatz's letter to Garry Sherrod dated 19 July 2010 he indicated the ATA's financial report showed you were reimbursed $1437.00 for travel expenses while he felt the correct number was $7475.00.
How much were you actually reimbursed for travel expenses in 2009????
For those that feel I started this post to embarrass Neil rest assured my motivation is to get a better understanding of the issues detailed in Mr. Glatz's letter to Gary Sherrod.
I don't believe Neil did anything wrong regarding this issue but I don't know any other way to resolve the conflict between the figures.
I fully understand that the accounting method used by the ATA which showed that Neil was reimbursed $1437.00 for travel expenses may be acceptable, but may also be deceiving if indeed he received more than $1437.00 and the additional money was accounted for in some other manner.
Accounting methods aside the simple question a layman would ask is regarding this one issue is, how much money was Neil actually reimbursed for his travel expenses in 2009?
The answer to that question is not intended to resolve legitimate differences in accounting methods, but is intended to determine how transparent the EC has been regarding expenses.
Jerry Hauser