The Northumberland County Board of Supervisors on April 25 approved a request from the school division to transfer $50,000 from the 6100 instruction line to the 6800 technology line to cover payroll and incoming technology invoices.

Dr. Leslie, a school-division representative, told the board, "We're requesting a transfer from the instruction category to the technology category in in order to cover payroll expenses, for 3 employees?" She said payroll runs revealed inadequate funds in the technology account after the county and school accounting records showed different fiscal-year placements for invoices submitted in July 2024.

The request followed an internal review that found about $885,000 in invoices submitted in July that the county carried into fiscal 2024-25 while the school division had accounted for them in 2023-24. Dr. Leslie said the mismatch, plus earlier overspending in the 2023-24 budget, left the technology line short when payroll was processed: "So, essentially, there was, $885,000 worth of invoices that were submitted in July, and they were held against the new budget." She later said $22,388.69 is the immediate payroll shortfall in the technology line and that the $50,000 request was intended to cover payroll and upcoming invoices.

Board members pressed for more detail on timing and oversight. Supervisor (unnamed speaker) called the sequence a "shell game" when discussing moving invoices between fiscal years. Mary from the treasurer's office confirmed she blocked checks that would have overdrawn accounts and was working to complete the transfer after the board approved the request.

Tina Withers of the school board office, who identified herself during public comment, said school office staff were "just as shocked" by the discrepancies when payroll and vendor reports were compared to county reports: "We are in the same building, but the communication'she did not share these type of finance, the reconciliations, and stuff like that." Tina Withers asked that the record reflect that some finance staff were unaware of the reconciliations that produced the $885,000 difference.

Several public commenters urged stronger oversight and accountability. Karen Pica, a resident, said the math did not add up and called the situation "a serious problem." Maurice Johnson, another commenter, said the pattern of accounting differences over multiple years left the appearance that misconduct might have occurred and urged a thorough investigation.

The board made and seconded a motion to approve the $50,000 transfer; the motion passed on a voice vote. The board directed county staff and school staff to continue reconciling accounts, and Dr. Leslie and the interim finance director said they would produce more detailed reports and additional transfer requests as needed before the next meeting so the board could review the full set of recommended adjustments.

Board members and school staff repeatedly emphasized they wanted to avoid employees missing pay and that multiple additional transfers could be required to keep payroll and operations solvent through the end of the fiscal year. Dr. Leslie said the division expected to return to the board with roughly five or six additional transfer requests after further reconciliation.

The board closed the item after brief additional procedural remarks and public comment.