Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State auditors brief Burke County board on Senate Bill 68 findings, outline corrective steps
Summary
An auditor from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts told the Burke County Board about findings tied to a Senate Bill 68 high‑risk designation, identified documentation and internal-control weaknesses, and urged policy and corrective steps to remove the designation.
An auditor from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts told the Burke County Board of Education that repeated audit findings and control weaknesses underlie a risk designation under Senate Bill 68 and described next steps for corrective action.
The presenter explained Senate Bill 68’s purpose is to improve fiscal management and to identify districts at moderate or high fiscal risk based on persistent findings or budget deficits. The auditor said the Department will notify the board chair at the audit exit conference if a designation applies and will follow up during the audit-closure process and subsequent annual audits.
The auditor identified three findings from the 2024 audit cycle — labeled in the transcript as 2024‑001, 2024‑003 and 2024‑004 — that contributed to the designation. She described 2024‑001 as problems in the comprehensive literacy program where sampled expenditures lacked visible approvals or receipts; 2024‑003 as breakdowns in inventory controls for ESSER‑funded equipment; and the third as journal-entry approvals (including special‑education payroll entries) without documented director review.
“We often see these as documentation or internal‑control issues rather than evidence of missing transactions,” the presenter said, while urging the district to adopt formal policies clarifying who is responsible for inventory and for review of federal‑program transactions.
Board members asked procedural questions about how notifications are made and how long a designation can remain in place. The auditor said the designation is revisited annually through subsequent audits and that the department’s goal is to work with districts to remove high‑risk status once corrective measures and stronger controls are in place.
The presentation closed with an offer for follow‑up and contact information for the department’s deputy director; the board did not take a formal vote on the audit briefing itself but acknowledged the need to address the control and documentation weaknesses outlined.
What happens next: the district will receive formal audit notifications at the exit conference, follow the department’s closure process, and address recommended policy and control changes to seek removal of any high‑risk designation.
