Initial Response to Audit

On behalf of Kathleen Smith, 6/9/2017

We have had time to analyze the purported facts in the A&M audit and it is riddled
with inaccuracies. While those need to be dissected, it will never change the over-
arching question of whywhy is this new Board of Trustees dead set on destroying the
University?
The Universitys Board of Trustees knew every step of what the Foundation was doing.
A Trustee was the Chair of the Foundation.
Three other trustees served on the Foundation Board.
The Board Mr. Grissom now chairs committed in 2012 to do whatever it took to keep
President Ramsey until at least 2020, and Dr. Ramseys main wish was for enhanced
retirement for himself and benefits for his management team. Transcribed meeting
comments and Powerpoint slides were never disclosed by A&M. Those transcriptions
have Trustees acknowledging their understanding of every detail of the transactions that
Mr. Grissom, new to his role as Trustee and apparently unaware of what went before
him, now calls disturbing.
A&M didnt mention or even review existing videotapes of every Board meeting, but it
assumed what wasnt said at those meetings based on interviews with only some
participants.
Of course, A&M didnt have to worry about fairness because it limited its report with this
language:
A&M did not perform an audit, examination, or review in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards The Information does not
purport to contain all necessary information that may be required to
evaluate any entity or transaction, regardless of how pertinent or material
such information may be. A&M makes no representation or warranty as
to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the Information
The audit never once mentions what the University and the Foundation received from
the hard work of Jim Ramsey and his team, nor does it mention:
the literally MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN NEW MONEY
that Kathleen Smith brought into the Foundation from grants she wrote, received
and administered during a time when state appropriations to the University had
decreased by had decreased $339M and were continuing to decline.
the 60-80 hour weeks Kathleen Smith worked for the University and Foundation
for an annual salary that from all sources that never exceeded $250,000.
 That Kathleen Smiths deferred compensation award of $1,093,062 covers
forty-six years of service.
Because A&M saw fit to include questions by Kathleen Smith to the Foundation
attorneys about what was or was not covered by open records, she is now labelled a
concealer when there is not one piece of evidence that any legitimate request for
records was ever obscured with a false response.
A&M chooses its words carefully, but it does not conclude (even after the $1.7M price
tag on its audit) that anyone was over-compensated. Its complaints are about the
budget amount, or alleged lack of adequate understanding by the Foundation Board.
Indeed, how could anyone ever conclude over-compensation? When it wasnt even her
job to do so, Kathleen Smith raised more than fifty times every penny she was ever
paid? Accounting irregularities in a complex operation with constant attorney
supervision (and where is that daily involvement of Foundation attorneys from the law
firm of Stites & Harbison even mentioned?), perhaps, but wrong-doing, not even a whiff.
The result is that sensationalists now defame these Board members and hard-working
employees by using language like shell companies and extra salary and
overpayments on salaries, land or assets when no such findings were made by this
audit.