Little Miami board approves independent financial review amid public objections over vendor vetting

The Little Miami Local School District Board of Education voted Jan. 28 to hire an independent reviewer to examine district finances, despite public concerns about vendor vetting and the use of out-of-state consultants.

A board member who submitted the proposal presented a $9,500 engagement from BCG Advisors as an independent financial review intended to identify opportunities to reallocate resources and improve transparency. “The goal with doing an independent financial review is to reaffirm our commitment to placing students first and optimizing resource allocation and building trust with our community,” the proponent said when presenting the proposal.

Members of the public and several speakers urged the board to solicit multiple bids and run a competitive RFP, questioning whether the district had done adequate due diligence. “If the board is serious about change and transparency and fiscal responsibility, your community needs you to show with your actions,” Courtney McKeon, who identified herself as a district parent, told the board during public comment.

Julie Perelman, another resident, criticized the board’s recent decisions to change legal counsel and the proposed use of external consultants, saying the consulting firm Briscoe Consulting Group lacks demonstrated Ohio school-finance experience and has received negative reports in other districts. She urged the board to explain its selection criteria and provide references.

At the meeting, one board member objected to considering a contract with an out-of-state consultant without clear evidence of insurance, credentials, or past performance. The objecting member said they would not support the firm in question.

After discussion, the board called the question and approved the independent financial review by roll call. The recorded vote in the meeting minutes was three in favor and two opposed. The board proponent said members are welcome to submit alternate proposals and that the firm was chosen after personal review and prior exposure to the presenter’s work.

The board’s action does not obligate the district to additional work beyond the approved review; the proponent said the review is intended to inform budgeting decisions and improve public trust.

What’s next: The board approved the contract; any implementation or follow-up reporting would be handled according to the district’s purchasing and reporting processes and public records.