Advisory committee recommends against forensic audit; proposes public executive summary and hires focus

Committee discussion shifted to whether to pursue a forensic audit after staff presented reconciliations and audit preparation. Several members, including Claire and Michelle Morrison, said the phrase “forensic audit” implies criminal activity and that the evidence presented to date (cash reconciliations and third-party finance experts on the engagement) did not suggest missing funds.

Claire and others said district accounts have been reconciled and external experts have already reviewed records; the advisory view expressed repeatedly was that a forensic audit would not be a cost-effective use of resources. Gail and other finance personnel told the committee that staff and hired experts had already prepared schedules and reconciliations that made a forensic review less necessary.

Instead, committee members recommended preparing a concise, plain-language executive summary for the community that explains: what was found in the internal reconciliations and audit prep, what corrective controls and hiring steps have been taken, and what will happen next in the budget process. Several volunteers offered to form a small working team to draft that summary and related visuals, and the committee suggested presenting a summary to the full board and the public.

The group also prioritized channeling resources toward recruiting and hiring a permanent finance director/CFO to provide sustained controls and oversight. Committee members emphasized transparency and iterative public updates rather than a single, costly forensic engagement.

Next steps: staff to continue candidate outreach for a finance director; a small volunteer working group will draft the community executive summary and report back to the committee.