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.”