Anthony wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 2:20 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't "misleading"
Maybe it isn't, but Ant stated pretty confidently that she knows it is misleading.
In this case, if the expense was from restricted funds, then I think she's right that it was misleading, though less misleading than 2006, when this expense was filed under "Other". I'd certainly ask Mona or whoever it is that produced the financial statements why it's filed under unrestricted funds. Maybe she or whoever can explain it, then Ant wouldn't have to go saying that the financial statements she voted to approve are misleading. Unless there are other parts she also knows to be misleading..
"Misleading" because of the application of hindsight is not on apar with wilfully misleading . Ec