The finance subcommittee agreed to advance a narrowed statement of work to seek quotes for a management review focused on Office of Student Services (OSS) financial practices, procurement processes and internal controls.

The subcommittee framed the request as a management review—separate from a standard financial-statement audit—and prioritized questions about any delays or interruptions in special-education services, whether OSS charges were allocated appropriately, and whether internal controls around purchase orders, contracts and invoice approval contributed to service interruptions.

Why it matters: Subcommittee members said the review is intended to identify systemic process issues that could risk service delivery to students with special needs and to recommend process fixes. The review would be paid by the Brookline Public Schools budget and coordinated with the town audit committee; staff said they would request a quote from auditors for a focused scope.

Scope and concerns: Draft questions for the review include whether delays or interruptions (or nonpayment) affected third-party special-education service providers or district hires supporting special education, and whether charges allocated to OSS in FY24–FY25 should instead be assigned to other units. The draft asks auditors to identify internal controls, procedural gaps and recommendations to optimize funding and communication between central finance and OSS.

Audit logistics: Staff told the subcommittee the firm Powers & Sullivan (municipal auditor) had provided a broader quote earlier; the subcommittee asked staff to seek a revised quote for the narrowed scope rather than accept a large, open-ended engagement. An initial Powers & Sullivan proposal for a wider scope was reported in the $50k–$59k range; subcommittee members asked staff to narrow the work to manage time and cost.

Subcommittee discussion: Members asked auditors to use measurable evidence when testing communication and process questions. Lee, an advisory/audit participant, said Powers & Sullivan does not typically do management audits and suggested convening the audit committee; other members argued the proposed management review is necessary to understand risk and to restore public and staff confidence in OSS processes.

Outcome: After discussion and some wordsmithing of the draft SOW language (including substituting “delay or interruption or nonpayment of special-education services” for earlier wording), the subcommittee agreed by straw poll to advance the statement of work to the audit committee and request revised quotes from prospective auditors. Staff indicated they expect a relatively quick turnaround on a quote but did not present a final price at the meeting.

Next steps: Staff will circulate the edited statement of work to the audit committee chair and to the town finance liaison for quotes and will return with cost estimates and a recommendation for auditor selection. The subcommittee asked staff to ensure the review team includes experience with schools and school finance so recommendations are actionable.