Q. All right.
The judge had -- I'm sorry. I want to go back to the question then, what did you present to the board as being the rebate at the time that the budget, including that rebate, was approved at the end of the fiscal year?
A. Whatever it was determined in the two -- the revenue enhancement and the expenditure reduction, the sum of -- well, both of those were presented as a part of the budget amendment, and I would always point out to the board that the change -- well, each time a budget was changed, the beginning of the year budget, the most recent budget and the proposed budget were shown in columns so that we could discuss the changes that were occurring.
And in the narrative discussion of those, I would certainly -- and I can tell you 100 percent of the time made it a point to point out that which was being reduced from the management fee and signed up for in the lease and, of course, not such a chuckle now, but at the time the board members would -- you know, when the amount of the lease -- I mean, it was for a small office, and it was, you know, $400,000 or whatever the number was.
Q. It was pure nonsense to cook the books to avoid --
A. Well, you say that. That's not what I say.
Q. -- having a deficit, isn't it.
A. That is not what I say. I don't agree with that.
Q. I know, I know it's not what you're going to agree to, so let's agree that it was a laughable figure?
A. Well --
Q. The board chuckled at it knowing, you and the board, that it was laughable.
A. Well, it was a methodology that facilitated what we were attempting to figure out how to get private side support to the public institution, and while it's pretty absurd to have this large lease number; and, of course, in retrospect, given all of this, not much chuckling going on now, but -- but that was the methodology we used and everyone was aware of it.
I'd probably chuckle too if I was being tickled with money!