"Tristate,
I thought you were just a pot stirrer, but now I am convinced you are the most dangerous type of person, somebody who thinks they are smarter than everyone else. Here is the RMEF financial statement. You don't have to have a per employee line to show what Don Peay gets in salaries."
That doesn't show what each individual employee makes at all. I allready have a response from someone else on this thread stating they deserve to know the payroll background by name of each employee of SFW because he considers them Public employee.
"http://www.rmef.org/Portals/0/Documents/FINAL_2012%20Financials.pdf"
Thats funny as hell. There is absolutely NOTHING in these financials that would make anything clearer and answer any of the questions I have seen asked here about SFW finances.
"$16,000 for an organization that supposedly gets and gives millions is a can of tuna fish in $100 bag of groceries. If you are suggesting a CPA will sign his/her name to an audit and not have it reflect the actual state of finances then you have not seen the BS CPA's go through and the Fiduciary responsibility they have when they sign an financial statement."
Really why don't you google a company called Arhtur Andersen.
"I sit on the board of our local Nursing home with an annual budget of a little less thatn $2 million and we have an audited financial statement because we accept medicaid and medicare money. We pay $12,000 a year for an independent auditor to publish a qualified opinion. A not for profit organization should be required to have an audited financial statement available for review."
Why? What good will it do? They aren't a publicly traded company.
http://www.ducks.org/media/About DU/Annual Report/_documents/2009/Financials.pdf
"Here is DU's which make SFW look like an ant at the feet of an elephant, yet DU doesn't just take my money and taxpayer money and say, "Trust us", They have the balls to show the world where the money goes, how efficient they operate etc."
Oooooooh now we are finding out who has "balls". Is that a CPA term?
"So these are the books that SFW should publish as a not for profit organization that takes taxpayer funds, sells publicly provide tags and obviously lobbies lawmakers. The books is fairly generic term of what all the audits contain which is basically a financial review of the organization's activities in it's various accounts."
Accourding to you. Like I said earlier someone else on here thinks "the books" should include all the private information on the payroll. But thanks for being one of the two people who actually answer a question around here.
"SFW doesn't do this because either they think $16,000 is too much to pay, even though they have already gotten $600,000 in Utah taxpayer money to fight the wolf fight. Even though SFW and BGF tried to destroy the Simpson/Tester Amendment."
I am waiting for the "or assumption in this sentence. You said "either" so there must be an "or".
"So the term the books is common throughout the industry is what appears in those audited financial statements. It isn't breaking down salaries down to got paid what."
So the books are a watered down annual profit /loss statement that really doesn't telll anyone anything about the inner workings of a company and doesn't establish any trust from anyone except the masses that think this is how you tell whether a company is legit or not. Yeah this makes since.