Suffolk board stays forensic‑audit award, creates committee to re‑review 15 proposals after procurement paperwork error

Vice Chair Heather Howell and Chair Shar McGee presided over a contested discussion on Jan. 15 after staff disclosed a missing procurement document in the forensic‑audit selection process. The board had voted in December to award a forensic audit contract to Cherry Bekaert in response to community requests for a deeper review of district finances; tonight members said a mandatory rubric was not included in the file used to justify that award.

Board Member Dawn Riddick moved to suspend the district's effort to contract for a forensic audit while the procurement irregularity is resolved. Riddick said the board should "suspend our quest" and argued the $175,000 could be better used for student services if no irregularities were found. The motion failed on a roll call vote (No: Dr. Brittingham, Board Member Slinglove, Vice Chair Howell, Chair McGee; Yes: Fields, Jenkins, Riddick). (Vote details recorded in transcript.)

Following that defeat, Vice Chair McGee moved to appoint a special committee to re‑review all 15 proposals, apply the agreed rubric, and report first and second choices to the full board. The board approved that motion (with two members voting No and one abstention). Chair McGee said the award to Cherry Bekaert is stayed while the review committee completes its work; he appointed Vice Chair Howell and Board Member Slinglove to serve on the panel.

The discussion included direct accusations and defenses. Riddick said some board members had "no reason" to pursue the forensic audit and called the process politically motivated; he also abstained from a later procurement vote and requested his abstention be recorded. Board Member Fields and others said recent audits have been clean for several years and suggested the $175,000 could be redirected to student programs or to strengthen internal controls. Dr. Judith Brooks Buck, speaking during public comment, criticized board actions generally and questioned both the need for a forensic audit and board conduct on procurement and compensation.

According to the chair's statement read to the board, staff will reconvene a committee to review all 15 proposals using the rubric and provide recommendations with the goal of a February vote on an award. The board's appointment of a two‑member review committee and the stay on the Cherry Bekaert award were the meeting's immediate procedural outcomes.

What happens next: the special committee will review proposals and submit its top two choices using the agreed rubric; the board expects to consider a final award at its February meeting.