Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Internal Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
External auditors present top‑10 risks; board selects procurement and instructional materials audits to start
Summary
RSM presented a proposed top‑10 internal‑audit risk list to the Lake County School Board. After discussion the board indicated it will begin with competitive procurement and an instructional‑materials review; RSM will return a scope, price and schedule for the selected audits.
Consultants from RSM presented a proposed “top‑10” list of high‑risk audit areas and described the firm’s risk‑assessment approach. Weiss Campbell (manager) and Ava Doraisamy (manager) said the list was compiled from 18 stakeholder interviews, review of board materials and professional standards (COSO and internal‑audit guidance).
“The first step is identifying and measuring risk,” Weiss Campbell told the board. RSM explained it evaluates inherent risk, likelihood and prior audit exposure to prioritize areas for audit planning. The firm’s top‑10 candidates (in alphabetical order) included competitive procurement, contract compliance, cybersecurity maturity, facilities construction, facilities maintenance, fleet maintenance, HR onboarding and offboarding, instructional materials, and student discipline.
Board members probed RSM on overlap with prior work and on areas already under review by other vendors. RSM clarified the proposed list marked inherently high‑risk functions that merit an audit even if controls exist; the auditors said some topics (for example, facilities maintenance) were elevated by the district’s recent adoption of a new work‑order system and by ongoing construction work.
After discussion about immediate priorities and recent internal changes, board members reached a practical consensus to start with two focus areas: competitive procurement (the solicitation and vendor‑selection process, especially for purchases over $50,000) and an instructional‑materials review emphasizing procurement, inventory and cost controls. RSM said it will prepare a detailed scope of work, including proposed sample sizes and timelines, and return cost and schedule estimates; RSM estimated a typical audit draft can be produced in approximately six to ten weeks, subject to staff availability.
Board members and staff emphasized narrow objectives for the instructional‑materials review: several members asked RSM to focus on purchasing and inventory/use patterns and to avoid stepping into textbook‑adoption judgments about curricular suitability. RSM agreed it would not opine on curricular appropriateness and would concentrate on procurement, inventory controls and utilization reporting.
RSM also flagged student discipline and cybersecurity as important topics that the board might schedule in subsequent audit cycles. The board agreed to proceed with RSM drafting scopes and cost estimates for the two selected topics and to revisit funding and sequencing later in the budget process.
RSM will provide proposed statements of work and price estimates; the board did not adopt a final contract or vote to authorize scope execution at the workshop.
