Auditor reports four repeat findings; board debates, then advances motion for forensic audit amid debate on scope and cost

The Clayton County Board of Education received its FY2024 audit presentation on Nov. 18, when external auditor Meredith Lipson of Moulton & Jenkins told the board the district received an unmodified (clean) opinion on most financial statements but a qualified opinion on the school nutrition fund tied to an unresolved FY2023 inventory reconciliation.

Lipson said the district’s government-wide net position was about $420 million at June 30, 2024, and that net pension and OPEB liabilities totaled roughly $819 million. She reported a decrease in net position of about $11 million for the year, driven largely by higher-than-anticipated salary spending. General fund expenditures for the year were about $352.9 million versus a budget near $318 million.

Why it matters: Lipson told trustees that, while most statements were clean, four findings remain on the audit report and some of them are repeats from prior years. Board members pressed administration on why repeat findings persisted; finance leadership attributed earlier repeats to turnover in the finance office and problems with financial software but said work is underway to correct the items and reduce repeat findings in future audits.

Board debate on forensic audit: Trustee Sabrina Hill moved that the board authorize an independent forensic audit covering fiscal years 2022–2025 to provide “a comprehensive assessment of all financial practices” and strengthen fiscal transparency. The motion was seconded and prompted sustained discussion. Lipson cautioned that a full forensic review covering all transactions for multiple years would be a deep dive that can cost “several $100,000” because it typically examines every transaction across funds.

Several trustees said a more targeted approach could be achieved by issuing a request for proposals (RFP) or commissioning agreed-upon procedures that specify particular areas to examine rather than auditing every transaction. Supporters of the motion said they sought clarity about current and ongoing fiscal controls, not to accuse staff of wrongdoing. Opponents asked for a narrower scope and clearer cost projections before committing to an open-ended forensic engagement. The transcript records the motion being called for a vote, but the public record in the meeting transcript does not include a clear final tally in the recorded segment.

Cash-flow and TAN update: Finance staff reported unanticipated early receipts — roughly $15 million from the tax commissioner and $13.8 million in grant reimbursements — and early QBE (state formula) distributions. Those inflows meant the district would not need the previously discussed tax anticipation note (TAN), and finance said the paperwork for the TAN was voided and no fees would be paid.

What happens next: Trustees asked finance to return with more precise cost estimates and a possible RFP or scope for any forensic or agreed-upon procedures engagement. The auditor and finance staff said they expect several audit recommendations to be addressed for FY2025 but could not guarantee there would be no repeat findings.

Ending note: The audit presentation concluded with a listing of management recommendations and audit adjustments; auditors emphasized that financial statements are management’s responsibility, while the audit team provides an independent opinion and recommendations.