ten instances where cheques had been
made payable to either “R.A. Lussier,”
“R, Lussier,” or “Rhonda Lussier” for
which there was insufficient documen-
tation available to support the pay-
ment, and/or where the transaction
was either not recorded or was improp-
erly recorded in the cheque register.
These ten cheques were for a total
amount of $6409.74 as indicated
below.” Though eight of the transac-
tions were not recorded at all, there
were two cases, the audit goes on to
say, where the two cheques were
improperly recorded; one for an
amount of $600, which had been
recorded as $50.00, and one for
$885.32, which ‘was recorded as
$225, and was referred in the cheque
register as being payable to Michael J.
Fox.

The former cheque was dated
December 22, 1997, the latter was
dated January 5, 1998, exactly two
weeks before Lussier resigned from
her post. In a letter to the representa-
tive committee, dated January 16,
1998, Lussier, writing as Rhonda de
Boer, states, “due to a recent devel-
opment of illness, I am not able to
uphold such duties as an executive.”

Lussier concludes the letter with the
unintentionally prophetic statement,
“it’s been a life experience.”

The audit wasn’t as specific with
some of the other practices of the
DCSS, but it did conclude that there
were some other problems with how
things were done in the DCSS office.
“During our review,” writes Robert
MacKay, author of the audit, “we
noted various other transactions which
indicated a breakdown of internal con-
trols.” Both Jaimie McEvoy and Darryl
Flasch received what MacKay called
‘irregular honoraria.”

“Although cheque requisitions were

yn file for most honoraria we observed

several examples where this was not the

case,” writes MacKay. “We also
observed instances where cheque requi-
sitions were not supported by a time
sheet,” such as the instances with
Flasch and McEvoy.

In the case of McEvoy, he was over-
paid $1200 with a cheque dated
January 9, 1998. The cheque was
apparently for honoraria during the
period of October 19, 1997, to
January 9, 1998, though he had
allegedly already received this money
during the fall. The $1200 overpay-
ment represents a little over a third of
the honoraria that McEvoy receives for
one term as president. The cheque was

 

during the fall, McEvoy was paid
eleven times in a period during which
he should have only been paid nine

times.

The amount of the $1200 has since

been paid back by McEvoy, after “the
overpayment...was brought to Mr.
Jaimie McEvoy’s attention,” states
MacKay. As for Flasch’s overpayment,
the audit states that though there were
only nine honoraria payments in the
autumn of 1997, he, like McEvoy, was
paid eleven times. This led MacKay to
conclude that “it is our recommenda-
tion that in the case of payments to
DCSS executives, it should be standard

policy that the payee not act as a sign-
ing authority.”

The procedure behind signing
cheques seems to have made it easier
for Lussier to get the money. From the
ten cheques that Lussier allegedly used
to take money, five were cosigned by
Flasch, three were cosigned by Coley
Mansfield, one by Amanda Wheeler
and one by Christa Peters. According
to Keenan, that is what the fraud
charges address; obtaining money by
means of deceit. In other words,
Lussier got the various representatives
to sign cheques by lying to them about
the purposes of the cheques. But as for
Lussier, Constable Keenan says the for-
mer treasurer faces a long stretch of
time in the courts making her case,
possibly up to one year. Keenan also
emphasized the fact that taking the
money was not a victimless crime.

“There’s more than one victim
here, besides the DCSS and the stu-
dents of Douglas College,” she said.
Keenan also mentioned the presence
of “one person specifically who was
harmed,” though she would not say
who. “There were greater repercus-
sions here,’ for Lussier to have con-
sidered, said Keenan. As for the audit
itself, MacKay says there is a lot of
work to do in the offices in the stu-
dent society to bring up its standards.
The audit concludes, “We would point
out that although internal financial
controls are important to any organiza-
tion, if they are not adhered to [as
seems apparent in the case of the
DCSS] they cannot be effective.
Accordingly, before proceeding any fur-
ther with our investigation or our
review of internal controls, we recom-
mend that the executives of the
consider the need for this addition
work.”