Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Timeline And Management Letter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee presses auditors on delayed FY25 timeline and management-letter chronology
Summary
At a March 9 Financial Audit Advisory Committee meeting, members reviewed engagement letters from Rosati Clark and earlier auditors, were told a condensed 'short form' for rating agencies is due in March with finals by late April/May, and asked auditors to clarify management-letter timing and likely material weaknesses.
The Financial Audit Advisory Committee met March 9 and focused on the town’s fiscal-year audit timeline after the committee engaged a new audit firm. Chair began the meeting by walking members through a roughly 100-page packet that included engagement letters from Rosati Clark and the prior firm and said the committee would track outstanding requests for information.
Rosati Clark began field work in late January, staff told the committee, and has remained in regular contact. Staff described a two-part deliverable: a short-form financial summary for rating agencies that should include the statement of net position and cash flows and a fuller set of final statements expected by late April or May. "They began in January — they were in house for two weeks — and have been in touch every week," a staff member said, describing the auditor’s current progress.
Committee members expressed concern that the audit could reveal material weaknesses. One committee member warned the group that auditors had signaled possible material weaknesses in prior communications; staff agreed to ask Rosati Clark whether their evaluation had advanced far enough to identify such findings and to seek specifics at the next meeting. "We've been given a heads up. There will be material weaknesses in this audit as well," a committee member said, and staff responded that corrective actions the town implemented in December would be considered in auditors’ evaluations.
Members also pressed for clarity about the management letter’s chronology. The committee reviewed a timeline in which auditors provided a draft management letter December 4; the town’s formal response was sent December 22 and returned December 23. The committee noted that final statements were dated November 19 despite later delivery and asked staff to explain why the documents had been postdated. Staff explained the auditor dated the full financial package November 19 and that the management letter, as part of that package, carried the same date despite later distribution.
Committee members requested additional documentation before the next meeting: (1) a list of corrected misstatements (audit adjustments) included in the financials; (2) confirmation whether any uncorrected misstatements remain; and (3) the materiality thresholds auditors applied. Staff said Scott (the auditor contact) will be asked to attend the committee’s follow-up meeting to answer these questions.
The committee directed staff to prepare a draft letter to the select board summarizing the committee’s concerns and recommendations on internal controls and communications. Staff proposed a follow-up meeting with auditors on April 1 from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.; members agreed to the tentative date and to circulate calendar availability.
Next procedural step: Scott, the auditor contact, is expected to attend the committee’s next meeting to respond to the committee’s specific questions about material weaknesses, uncorrected misstatements and applied materiality thresholds.
