The Suffolk City School Board voted May 8 to pay $2,500 for a three-hour consultation with representatives of Cherry Bekaert to advise the board whether a forensic audit or an internal-controls engagement would address a 35-item list of questions members had submitted about district finances. The board approved the consultant fee for a virtual session; an in-person visit would add travel and accommodations not to exceed $1,500, for a $4,000 maximum.

The consultation is intended to tell the board which of two approaches — a deeper forensic-style audit or an internal-controls consultation — could actually address the specific items the board members presented to the district and to the external auditor. The firm’s staff would research questions before the session, meet with the board for about an hour, and then provide follow-up. Vice Chair Sean McGee moved to approve the engagement and the motion passed, with Fields and Jenkins voting no and Riddick, Slinglove, McGee and Chair Howell voting yes.

Board members said the decision to hire an outside consultant was driven by unresolved questions from a prior presentation by Laura Hayden, an auditor who told the board last month that the district’s standard financial statement audit uses sampling and does not examine every item on the board’s list. “The board has to come up with a specific scope of work,” Dr. Gordon, Suffolk Public Schools superintendent, told members, adding that the firm could help the board draft an appropriate scope so the board can decide whether to pursue a deeper audit or an internal-controls engagement.

Several members urged caution about cost and scope. Board member Riddick said he felt “taken aback” that the firm could not answer some questions at an earlier visit and said the $2,500 consultation “is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the things we’ve spent.” Board member Slingluff and Vice Chair McGee said they supported the consult as a step to get clarity before issuing a request for proposals that would be open to other auditing firms.

On the question of a public town hall to discuss audits and finances, the board did not set a date. Several members recommended delaying a town hall until the board has more information from Cherry Bekaert or other advisers and until staff can estimate potential costs and a realistic scope. Board member Riddick said he favored postponing a town hall to avoid setting a date that might later be moved if the scope and expected costs change.

The board’s next step is to host the consultant (virtually or in person) and to use the firm’s guidance to refine a scope of work or to decide whether to pursue a full forensic audit, an internal-controls review, an RFP to other firms, or a combination. If the board pursues work that will require funds to be encumbered before fiscal year end, staff said they would bring encumbrance recommendations back to the board for approval before asking the city to re‑appropriate dollars.