Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Auditor Rotation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
External auditor reports clean audit; firm outlines eight‑year rotation limit and on‑site preference
Summary
Stone McGee and Company delivered an unmodified audit opinion and clean compliance findings. The auditor warned the board the firm must rotate after eight consecutive years and urged future bidders to commit to on-site procedures rather than remote scanning.
Mike Stone, of Stone McGee and Company, presented the firm’s audit report to the Silver Consolidated Schools board during the March 31 meeting and said the firm issued an unmodified opinion on both the financial statements and federal compliance tests. "If you've got an unmodified opinion on your financial statements, which is as high as you can get," Stone said.
Stone also told the board there were no comments on the audit report. "There were no comments on the audit report. So, that's, you can thank that lady right there. That's it," he said, pointing to staff who prepared documentation.
Stone advised the board on auditor rotation rules and procurement expectations. He stated the state auditor’s rule limits the same audit firm to eight consecutive years, after which the firm must step down for two years. He described the logistical differences between on-site audits and proposals that rely on remote scanning: on-site auditors select vouchers independently from vaults, while remote approaches often require the district to scan and upload many documents for testing. Stone said he believes on-site auditing produces a more reliable review of records and urged the board to specify on-site work in future RFPs.
Nut graf: The district received the highest-level audit opinions on its fiscal year statements and federal-compliance tests, while the auditor also flagged procurement and rotation timing as a practical issue the board will face when soliciting future audit proposals.
Board discussion focused on next steps for procurement. Stone said this year was the firm’s eighth consecutive year and that the “eight‑year” rule prevents renewal; he advised the district it should expect competitive proposals and to explicitly require on-site audit procedures when issuing RFPs.
Ending: Stone reminded the board the audit is an action item and must be accepted or not accepted by the board. The transcript records Stone’s presentation and his advice about auditor rotation and on‑site procedures, but it does not record a separate roll-call vote explicitly adopting the audit report apart from the regular-meeting consent agenda later in the evening that the board approved.
