Charles turned toward her.
“Do we have evidence of financial misconduct?”
“We have evidence of discrepancies requiring review.”
“That was not my question.”
“No, we do not yet have a final finding of financial misconduct.”
“Then perhaps we should avoid treating the matter as though we do.”
“That is exactly what I am proposing. We should not assume misconduct. We should also not approve a transaction before the necessary checks are complete.”
Richard cleared his throat.
“The acquisition team has worked for months to reach this stage. The seller expects a decision, and the market is moving. If we delay unnecessarily, we risk losing a valuable opportunity.”
Monica turned toward him.
“What is the cost of delaying the decision by two weeks?”
Richard hesitated.
“The seller may reconsider the terms.”
“Has the seller given us a deadline?”
“They have indicated that they would prefer a decision this week.”
“Have they threatened to withdraw?”
“Not explicitly.”
“Then we have a preference, not a deadline.”
Charles leaned forward.
“Monica, you are allowing a separate compliance issue to interfere with a major business decision.”
“The compliance issue is not separate from the acquisition if the same administrative controls were used to modify records relevant to the review.”
“Have you established that?”
“Not yet. That is why the independent team is examining the records.”
Charles shook his head.
“We cannot run a company by suspending every transaction whenever an employee raises a concern.”
“No one is proposing that. We are proposing a documented threshold. When the relevant records are incomplete, we pause approval until the gaps are resolved.”
“And who decides when the gaps are resolved?”
“The independent review team reports its findings. The board makes the decision.”
Charles looked toward Thomas.
“Is this how we intend to manage the company now? By transferring operational decisions to investigators?”
Thomas remained composed.
“No. We intend to ensure that operational decisions are based on reliable information.”
Richard opened his folder.
“I have prepared a summary of the acquisition review. The remaining items are routine, and the financial model has already been examined by our internal team.”
Monica looked at the first page.
“Who prepared the financial model?”
“Our finance department.”
“Who reviewed the subcontractor expenses?”
“Strategic procurement.”
“Who approved the final due-diligence checklist?”
“Corporate operations.”
Monica looked up.
“So the same two departments whose administrative records are under review prepared, reviewed, and approved the materials we are being asked to accept.”
Richard's expression tightened.
“They are the departments responsible for those functions.”
“Yes. And that is why an independent review is necessary.”
Martin finally spoke.
“Monica, with respect, we should distinguish between the travel issue and the acquisition. The manifest discrepancy has no demonstrated connection to Meridian Air Services.”
“Agreed.”
“Then why are we discussing it here?”
“Because the board is responsible for oversight, and the investigation has identified administrative changes affecting several systems. We need to establish whether the acquisition records are reliable before approving the transaction.”
Martin looked at Thomas.
“This is becoming disproportionate.”
Thomas folded his hands.
“Then the evidence should resolve the concern quickly.”
Richard gave a restrained sigh.
“Thomas, I want to be clear. I have spent twelve years building corporate operations into an efficient department. We manage thousands of records, coordinate multiple divisions, and support executives across several time zones. If we treat every technical discrepancy as evidence of a systemic problem, we will paralyze the organization.”
Monica nodded.
“You are right that technical discrepancies occur. You are right that we should not assume they indicate misconduct. But an efficient system must also be auditable. If we cannot establish who changed a record, why it was changed, and who approved the change, then we have a control weakness regardless of whether misconduct occurred.”
Charles tapped his pen against the table.
“Let's not turn this into a lecture on internal controls.”
“Then let's make it practical,” Monica replied.
She placed three documents on the table.
“The first is the original approved passenger manifest. The second is the version distributed to the crew. The third is the access-control record showing that my executive profile was modified within minutes of the manifest change.”
She did not display the documents on the screen.
She handed them to the board secretary, who distributed copies to the directors.
“These records establish that the approved and distributed versions differ. They also establish that an administrative change occurred shortly afterward. They do not establish who initiated the changes or why.”
Charles examined the papers.
“Could this have been an automated process?”
“Yes.”
“Could a legitimate scheduling adjustment have caused the difference?”
“Yes.”
“Could the access modification have been unrelated?”
“Yes.”
“Then what are we investigating?”
“The reason the approved manifest was replaced, the authorization for the replacement, and the use of administrative permissions across other systems.”
Charles looked up.
“Your evidence does not establish that anyone tried to prevent you from boarding.”
“No. It establishes that the crew received a document that omitted an authorized passenger's name. The investigation will determine why.”
Richard leaned forward.
“Rebecca Collins has already acknowledged that she failed to verify the authorization. Doesn't that explain the incident?”
“It explains part of it. It does not explain who sent her the revised manifest, why the manifest differed from the approved version, or why the access-control record was modified.”
Martin's expression remained neutral.
“I sent the manifest because I believed it was the current version.”
Monica turned toward him.
“Who provided it to you?”
“I don't recall.”
“Did you verify it through the central operations system?”
“I believed the document had already been approved.”
“Did you ask anyone to remove my name?”
“No.”
“Did you know that the revised copy omitted my authorization?”
“No.”
His answers came quickly.
Monica wrote something in her notebook.
“I appreciate your answers. The investigation will test them against the records.”
Martin's jaw tightened.
“Are you suggesting that I'm lying?”
“I'm saying that we have conflicting records and unanswered questions. The appropriate response is to preserve the evidence and establish what happened.”
Charles shook his head.
“This is exactly what I am concerned about. We are turning an ordinary operational error into a public spectacle.”
“Nothing about the investigation has been made public,” Monica replied.
“People in the company are already talking.”
“Then we should provide accurate information rather than suppress the investigation.”
Richard sat back.