Consultants outline forensic, audit and advisory options as Suffolk school board weighs next steps

Cherry Bekaert, an accounting and forensics firm, presented a set of financial oversight options to the Suffolk Public Schools board at a June 12 work session, laying out distinctions among advisory internal-control reviews, traditional audits, assurance engagements and forensic accounting investigations.

The presentation, led by Brandy Westbrook and John Collier of Cherry Bekaert, described advisory work as consultative efforts to identify internal-control gaps and recommend implementation support; audits as procedures aimed at expressing confidence in financial reports; assurance as an independent check on audits; and forensic accounting as a targeted, investigative engagement designed to identify and quantify suspected fraud or misuse of assets.

The board heard examples from Collier of past forensic engagements that examined payroll and accounts-payable processes at a large county tourism office and a sheriff's office fund, describing the more “laser-focused” techniques forensic accountants use when fraud is suspected. Cherry Bekaert emphasized that routine audits apply sampling and materiality thresholds and therefore may not detect smaller-scale misappropriation that a forensic review would pursue.

Why the discussion mattered: Board members said community concern about procurement cards, employee reimbursements and a handful of specific contract and capital projects had driven the request for information. Cherry Bekaert advised starting with “low-hanging fruit” — for example, purchase-card activity, vendor payments to individuals and large round-dollar payments in accounts payable — to target scarce resources efficiently.

Board reaction: Vice Chair McGee and other members said the firm could provide a fee estimate if the board narrowed the scope to defined areas (for example, purchase-card activity and accounts-payable transactions). Several board members who raised community complaints pressed for a forensic audit. Other board members warned that a full forensic engagement would be more costly than an internal-control review and argued for prioritizing advisory work that would strengthen controls going forward.

Public comment and board debate: Members of the public urged a forensic review; speakers said they had submitted FOIA requests and sought documents related to large purchases. Board members expressed a range of views: some called for immediate forensic work, others urged a phased approach focused on internal controls and process improvement first. Board member Tyrone Riddick (recorded remarks June 12) called a broad forensic probe “a waste of taxpayers’ resources” unless the board prioritized and funded it, while other board members called for doing due diligence to determine a cost and scope before ruling it out.

Outcome and next steps: The board did not vote to hire Cherry Bekaert during the work session. Cherry Bekaert offered to provide a fee quote and an estimated timeline once the board defines a scope and provides transaction counts and other workload parameters. Several board members suggested scheduling a finance-committee follow-up or an additional work session to set that scope and decide whether to pursue advisory internal-control work, targeted forensic procedures, or both.

What was not decided: No formal contract award, no authorization to proceed with a forensic audit, and no scope or funding allocation was approved during the meeting. Cherry Bekaert indicated they could scale engagements and recommended beginning with the most likely problem areas.