Board committee debate over auditor selection, audit findings surfaces during Washington Township meetings

The Washington Township Board of Education’s business committee discussed recent responses to a request for proposals for auditing and engineering services and outlined a recommendation to change auditors for several core audit functions while retaining some services with incumbent firms.

Why it matters: Audit work underpins the district’s financial oversight and federal/state reporting. Committee members highlighted both a roughly 20% fee reduction on major audit tasks in one proposal and lingering concerns from board members and community speakers that prior audit findings had not been sufficiently addressed.

What the committee discussed: Janine Wechter, the district business administrator, told the committee the procurement process returned multiple proposals and that for the preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and audits of financial records and state reports one respondent’s fees were about 20% lower than another’s. She said other services, such as ongoing consulting and section‑125 plan maintenance, would stay with the incumbent firm.

Board members repeatedly asked about whether the recommendation was driven by pricing alone and whether the district had factored continuity, handoff costs and the earlier auditor’s performance. Committee minutes and public remarks noted that the district conscientiously followed its request‑for‑proposal process and that business‑committee members participated in proposal review.

Concerns raised publicly and in committee: A board member and several citizens said they were troubled that issues reported in a recent audit had not been addressed by the administration or the board. One speaker said the board had “been asking for months” for follow‑up on audit findings; another said parts of the audit had been discussed in executive session. The district attorney reiterated that auditor selection is a professional services decision and that the board retains broad discretion, but that the board policy calls for competitive procurement every three years.

Outcome at the meeting: The board later approved a batch of finance agenda items. Committee and board discussion showed strong interest in preserving audit quality, documenting the procurement review, and ensuring time for an exit interview or follow‑up with the departing auditor. Administrators said they would provide high‑level information on any outstanding legal or investigative steps when permitted to do so.

What wasn’t resolved: Public commenters and several board members asked for clearer, earlier notice about vendor lists included in RFPs and for better publication of supporting financial documents. The board signaled an intention to increase transparency about vendor selection and to post procurement materials in business‑committee packets for review.

Quotes from the meeting: “The price that they quoted us, that’s all we’ll get billed for,” Janine Wechter said when asked whether transition costs were included in the lower fee proposals. One community member urged the board to publish supporting worksheets and the district’s annual comprehensive financial report to aid public oversight.

Next steps: Administrators said they would provide committee members with procurement documentation and would seek to post more supporting financial materials online; they also said they would attempt to provide a high‑level briefing on any ongoing legal matters when permitted by counsel.