Audit finds accounting weaknesses; NJEA delivers critical review as board and administration discuss corrective actions

A third‑party audit and a union‑commissioned analysis dominated discussion at the Washington Township Board of Education on June 10, when union representatives and the district’s auditor raised concerns about fiscal controls and several board members requested a detailed follow‑up.

The audit and union presentations: Two speakers from the New Jersey Education Association delivered a review of district fiscal practices and the audit results. Lou Randazzo, NJEA field representative, described the audit as “very eye opening” and said it identified several troubling accounting lapses. Greg Yorty, associate director of research for NJEA, gave a line‑by‑line summary of figures he said were pulled from the auditor’s report and the district’s state filings.

Key findings described during public comment and by union presenters included: - The audit noted unrecorded state aid and receivables on the order of $6.5 million, according to union remarks quoting the Bowman & Company report. The auditors also found payroll and accrued‑salary items that were not properly recorded, and a lack of readily available general‑ledger detail in some funds (the performing arts enterprise fund was cited). - Union analysts argued these gaps showed a pattern of overspending and weak internal controls. They said the district’s operating budget rose substantially in recent years and that audit findings support closer scrutiny of the business office.

District response: Janine Wechter, who spoke at length about the audit, said the district moved financial systems during the year and that staff turnover left some ledger support incomplete at the time auditors requested backing records. She said auditors had the corrected figures and that the audited financial statements themselves are accurate; the audit’s findings, she said, in several cases reflected timing issues tied to the software migration and to state guidance on year‑end reporting. Wechter told the board that a corrective action plan is being drafted and that the auditor will return to committee for review; she said the plan will be reviewed and accepted by the board at a later public meeting.

Public‑session exchange: Board members asked whether there was any “hidden” or remaining surplus; the auditor reportedly told board members in executive session that there was not. Several board members and union representatives urged a head‑to‑head session in which the auditor and the union’s financial staff could review findings and assumptions together. The union offered to meet with the board and administration to explain its analysis and said it may file challenges to some personnel and policy decisions tied to the budget process.

What the audit said (as cited by union presenters): Union representatives read aloud specific audit excerpts that described missing or improperly recorded receivables and payroll items, and an auditor comment that, for some accounts, the business office could not provide subsidiary records because staff did not have access to the accounting system. The union presenters argued that lapses of that kind create a “significant likelihood” that material misstatements could remain undetected without corrective action.

Next steps: The district said it will complete the corrective action plan, present it to the board for review and post the final audit and plan to state reporting channels per normal procedure. Board members asked for a follow‑up committee discussion with the auditor and for the administration to supply clearer line‑by‑line explanations of variances that were identified in the audit.

Ending: The auditor’s findings and the union’s analysis raised questions about district financial oversight at a time of politically sensitive staffing decisions. Board members asked administration to pursue transparency and to schedule the auditor and union analysts for a joint briefing so that elected members can compare methodologies and numbers.