Public commenter alleges major discrepancies in district audit, questions board oversight

Tim Reed, a registered public commenter at the April 16, 2025 Woodland Hills School District legislative meeting, told the board he found multiple errors in the district's audit materials and related financial reports and questioned whether the board followed district policy and state law when engaging the auditor.

"In addition to the wrong years budget being used, a $27,000,000 subsequent event was missed," Reed said, adding that "assigned and unassigned fund balances were wrong" and "the wrong tax rate was cited," and that there was "still a refund of prior year revenue discrepancy between bill lists, the annual finance report, and the audit report." Reed said four of the five problems were corrected but that the board had not discussed the issue publicly and that the updated audit report does not indicate it is a revision.

Reed also cited district policy and state law during his remarks. He said "Policy 6 19 says the board shall employ an independent certified public accountant to conduct an annual district audit," and that a school code provision requires a majority vote for the district to enter into contracts "where the amount involved exceeds $100." Reed said he could not find board documentation approving the accounting firm for the 2023-24 audit and that, based on the board records he reviewed, the approval did not occur in the normal way in recent years.

The district's public record of the audit files remain inconsistent, Reed said, and the older version of the audit remains publicly available in at least three locations with no clear indication of which version is final. He urged the board to address the recordkeeping and approval process.

The board did not take public action during the meeting to resolve Reed's concerns; the comment occurred during the public comment period. The transcript does show later in the meeting that a summary of audit findings was read to the board and that the presenter reported no material weaknesses and no significant deficiencies in internal control for the audit (summary read during new business). The transcript does not show any formal board discussion or vote specifically responding to Reed's request for documentation of auditor engagement during the April 16 meeting.

The public comment and the later audit-summary remarks together indicate the district circulated audit documents and offered a standard findings summary during the meeting, but Reed's remarks highlight outstanding questions about revision labeling, consistent public posting, and the board's documented approval of the auditor for 2023-24.