“But I also won't authorize a transaction while material questions remain unanswered.”
She nodded.
“Understood.”
The board began its review that afternoon.
Richard Halden was instructed to preserve all records and refrain from influencing employees' accounts of the cabin incident.
He was temporarily removed from direct involvement in the matter pending investigation.
Leonard Pike was asked to provide the outstanding financial schedules and correspondence concerning the passenger manifest changes.
He responded indignantly.
He claimed his office had nothing to do with the confrontation.
Then he suggested I had engineered the incident to gain leverage over the financing terms.
The accusation was absurd.
But it was revealing.
Pike wasn't merely defending the company's position.
He was trying to turn the investigation toward my motives before anyone examined the records.
Helen refused.
The board retained independent investigators and forensic accounting specialists.
It also established a secure process for employees to provide information without routing every concern through the executives whose conduct was under review.
That decision gave Nina Alvarez an opportunity she'd been waiting months to receive.
When her flight landed in New York, her attorney arranged a meeting with the independent board committee.
Nina entered carrying a small notebook and the frightened expression of somebody who understood that speaking might cost her the career she'd spent eight years building.
She sat opposite Helen Prescott.
For several seconds, nobody spoke.
Then Helen looked toward her.
“Ms. Alvarez, thank you for coming.”
Nina nodded.
“I'm not sure I should be here.”
Helen's expression softened.
“Why?”
Nina looked toward her hands.
“Because every time I've asked questions, somebody told me I was creating problems.”
For a moment, the board chair was silent.
Then she said quietly.
“Let's examine the records and determine whether the questions were justified.”
Nina took a breath.
Then opened her notebook.
The information she provided concerned several reporting cycles.
She showed how certain maintenance-related expenses were initially categorized.
How revised summaries changed their presentation.
And how explanations supplied to senior management omitted important context.
Some changes were legitimate accounting adjustments.
Others were not adequately supported by the underlying documentation.
The independent accountants examined each category.
They didn't assume every discrepancy represented intentional misconduct.
They identified missing support.
Conflicting descriptions.
And transactions requiring direct verification.