Auditor flags finance and procurement findings; board disputes bid-law conclusions

Calder, the external auditor, told the Lafayette Parish School Board on the afternoon of the audit workshop that the district closed fiscal 2024 in good financial shape but had several audit findings that require management attention.

The auditor said parish-source revenues rose year over year, led by ad valorem taxes (about $92.6 million) and a modest increase in sales taxes, and that state sources totaled about $164 million. Total general-fund revenues were roughly $367 million and total general-fund expenditures came in near $323 million, leaving an excess of revenues over expenditures of about $43.9 million and an ending fund balance the auditor reported as $83.6 million. On those results, the auditor said the district met its board stabilization policy (75-day requirement).

"This year, 32,500,000, or 10% of your general fund expenditures are spent on charter schools," Calder said, noting the appropriation to charter schools has risen steadily from roughly $15.9 million in 2021 to $32.5 million in 2024 and that the increase affects the share of the general fund available for personnel and related benefits.

Calder summarized the self-insurance fund results, reporting charges for services increased to about $69.9 million, operating expenditures rose to about $78.8 million, and claim payments were the principal driver of a roughly $9 million operating loss. He said the district transferred $6.6 million from the general fund during FY2024 to support the self-insurance fund, leaving a reported ending balance of about $2.2 million (excluding OPEB adjustments).

The audit also listed findings the auditors said required corrective action: weaknesses in school activity fund controls (the auditors tested 11 schools and reported problems concentrated in a small number of sites), incomplete fixed-asset records, a special-revenue budget amendment that was not timely, instances where vendor suspension/debarment checks were not documented, and several procurement matters the auditors characterized as failures to aggregate similar projects and to use public bids when required.

Superintendent Robert Gautreaux disputed how one finding about school activity funds was worded and pressed the auditors for specificity. "I've asked mister Bridal and I've asked him to clarify the samples that you're referencing and making sure that something like this, which is gonna be a public document, does not put principals in this particular category," Gautreaux said, arguing the report's wording risked unfairly casting all principals as noncompliant when the auditors sampled a subset.

Board member Britt Mason raised the same point during the discussion: "When I met with you, you know, I did ask the same question ... the way it's worded now, it sounds like every single principal has, has not been compliant," she said, asking the auditors to note that they examined a sample rather than every school.

Procurement was the area of sharpest disagreement. The auditors told the board they identified several groups of contemporaneous, like-scope purchases (scoreboards, carpeting and other site projects) that, in their view, should have been aggregated and advertised as public works subject to Louisiana public-bid law. The auditors cited examples showing multiple identical quotes awarded within days or weeks to the same vendor and said that aggregation could have required a formal bid process.

District legal counsel and administration pushed back. "You have an obligation to follow the law, but let me just say that with regard to every contract that we have reviewed, we feel that the law has been followed," the board's counsel said, urging the board to rely on written legal opinions they had obtained for specific procurements. Counsel and staff said some projects were treated as professional service or maintenance contracts and that past practice and attorney advice informed their approach; the administration also said the district has realized material savings by using quotes and smaller procurements rather than architect-led public bids.

The auditors and the district also debated classification for a particular elevator project: the auditors said the elevator repairs exceeded the dollar threshold and should have been bid as a public work; district counsel argued the work was a professional service or repair and not necessarily subject to the bid requirement. Both sides agreed corrective-action language and next steps would be considered by management and legal counsel.

Other audit items noted by the auditors included vendor suspension/debarment documentation gaps and a duplicate finding related to fixed assets that the auditors said arises from reporting requirements. The auditors said they provided a corrective-action template prepared by management for responses to many findings.

The workshop concluded without any formal board action recorded; board members directed staff and legal counsel to continue reviewing the procurement findings and to address the school-activity and fixed-asset items in management responses. The board recessed to prepare for the 5:00 p.m. meeting.

(End)