Board rejects proposal for independent climate survey of internal audit after staff, auditors defend unit

The School Board of Broward County voted 1–8 to reject a boardmember proposal to order an independent climate survey of the district—s internal audit department. The motion, introduced by Board member Jeff Holness, followed months of dispute over anonymous complaints about the office and an open letter the district—s auditors submitted to the board defending their work.

Why it mattered: The item became one of the most contentious at the September 16 meeting. Proponents said the anonymous letter raised concerns sufficient to justify an independent review; opponents argued the auditors— signed letter — and the lack of specific, substantiated complaints — made the proposal unnecessary and potentially harmful to staff morale. The vote to reject the survey was 1 in favor, 8 opposed.

What board members and staff said: Holness said the anonymous complaints described staff morale, leadership, and turnover issues (the departures of certain audit staff were cited) and that transparency required a third‑party assessment. Legal counsel told the board it was within a board member—s prerogative to place such an item on the agenda. Chief Auditor David Rhodes and several internal auditors addressed the board: staff said they had not been consulted about the anonymous letter, that the views expressed did not reflect the entire department, and that about 20 audit employees signed a letter saying they did not share the concerns described in the anonymous complaint. Several public speakers — the internal audit staff chair, audit committee members and former audit volunteers — urged the board to reject the motion and supported the auditors— work.

Legal context and process: The district—s general counsel reported there was no legal barrier to a board member introducing the proposal. Holness and legal counsel referenced Florida statutes governing school board authority when defending the item—s place on the agenda. The board—s attorney advised that whether the board acted on an anonymous complaint was a policy decision, not a legal prohibition.

Vote and aftermath: On roll call the motion failed 1–8. Immediately after the vote, several board members urged clearer processes for vetting complaints and for communicating with staff; others pointed to the need for transparency. The chief auditor said his office would cooperate with any appropriate, authorized review and reaffirmed the auditors— commitment to independent reporting to the district.

Bottom line: The board declined to order an independent climate survey after audit staff publicly defended their office and urged the board to rely on existing evaluation and accountability procedures. Supporters of a survey said anonymous complaints still warranted review; opponents argued that anonymous claims and a signed counter‑statement from the audit team did not justify the expense or the negative effects on morale.