Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit finds material weaknesses in capital-asset tracking; board accepts audit with corrective plans
Summary
Auditors issued a qualified opinion on government‑wide capital assets and reported 10 findings — including capital-asset reporting, ERB contribution classification, cash-receipts controls, HR and payroll controls, and child-nutrition inventory — and the board accepted the audit and directed follow-up on corrective actions.
The Las Vegas City Schools Board of Education accepted the district’s annual audit after auditors presented a qualified opinion on government-wide capital assets and detailed 10 findings, several of which auditors said were self‑reported by district staff.
Scott Eliason, a partner with the audit engagement team, told the board the firm issued an "except for" or qualified opinion on government activities because the auditors could not obtain sufficient evidence related to capital assets. He said the district’s capital-asset listing lacked consistent historical cost, accumulated depreciation and net book value entries and that physical inventories had not been performed reliably.
The engagement team walked the board through 10 findings identified during testing. The most significant was a material weakness around capital asset management and reporting: the auditors found that the district had not conducted timely physical inventories and that reconciliations between records and physical assets showed large discrepancies. Auditors stated the district is working with an inventory firm (K12) to close the gap.
Other findings included a repeated ERB (educational retirement) internal-control weakness tied to misclassification of employees in prior years (resulting in prior-period contribution adjustments), deficiencies over cash receipts (inconsistent segregation of duties and many unsigned deposit slips in sampled transactions), HR and payroll control design issues (including unsecured check stock and a short payroll lag), document-retention and destruction controls, and weaknesses in child-nutrition inventory and claim procedures.
Auditors emphasized that management has proposed corrective-action plans; examples noted in the presentation included monthly expenditure reviews, implementation of daily edit checks for the child‑nutrition program, earlier contract issuance and electronic signature adoption for hires, and updated fuel-card procedures to limit unauthorized use.
After the audit presentation and board questions, a motion to accept the audit as presented passed. The board thanked the audit team and asked staff to continue implementing and reporting on corrective actions.
