No, Mr. Civil Lawyer, I'n assuming it because I can read:
"Ray Nash and lawyers representing Bishop Ford and its president declined requests for interviews from the Daily News. Bishop Ford is being counseled by Rubenstein Public Relations - the firm that advised Alex Rodriguez during last year's steroid scandal - and in a statement issued through RPR, Bishop Ford officials acknowledge that they had discovered during a 2008 audit that Ray Nash had "loaned" his son $52,551.60 in 2007.
"The loan was not authorized by the school and would not have been permitted by the school," the statement says. "Upon discovery of the loan, Mr. Nash was directed by the Board of Trustees to repay the loan immediately. Thereafter, in early April 2008, the loan was immediately repaid."
In an e-mail to the Daily News, Peter Nash acknowledged his father gave him school money to stave off foreclosure of his Cooperstown home. "I was loaned about $50,000 from the Bishop Ford Development account, through my father, to make a payment related to the mortgage on my Cooperstown home," he wrote."
Ray Nash took school funds and spent them for personal use. He did it secretly and did not pay it back until an audit turned it up. Even if there existed a contemporaneous loan document between Ray and his son (which you know full well there was not) it's still improper. It wasn't Ray's money to spend, much like it's not a secretary's money to spend when she buys herself jewelry with her boss's Platinum card.
As I said, I'm not sure what's the bigger miracle: Nash not being fired or not being indicted.
Last edited by calvindog; 06-13-2010 at 09:36 AM.
|
06-13-2010, 09:35 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode