Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audits Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auditors: No recording errors found on half‑cent sales tax; governance and documentation gaps flagged
Summary
External auditors found no exceptions in revenue recording for Marion County’s half‑cent sales tax but issued four observations — including missing board policy on oversight‑committee membership, governance questions for future spending categories, undocumented procedures and a charter gap — and proposed a FY27 internal audit plan.
RSM auditors told the Marion County School Board on June 18 that their review of the district’s half‑cent sales tax found no exceptions related to how revenues were recorded or how expenditures were supported, but identified four observations and one process‑improvement opportunity.
"No exceptions in our detailed testing as they related to how the revenues were recorded and supported," auditor Jack Hughes said, adding that auditors classified two observations as high risk, one as moderate and one as low risk.
Key recommendations included: updating board policy to match the referendum language on oversight‑committee membership; formalizing governance and allowability review procedures for expenditures that fall outside the capital plan (such as technology or safety projects); documenting standard operating procedures for project prioritization, financial controls and reporting; and clarifying how the 12th member of the oversight committee is appointed.
Auditors emphasized that several of the findings are forward‑looking. "If expenditure is identified as a priority outside of that capital plan, develop a plan around that specific to the half‑cent expenditure going forward," Hughes said, describing the recommendation as a governance and process improvement.
RSM also presented a proposed internal audit plan for fiscal year 2027. The plan includes follow‑up work on six prior reports (including the half‑cent review) and four operational audits, notably a review of the maintenance work‑order process and an audit of facilities construction change orders. The maintenance audit will examine initiation, triage, prioritization, vendor management and performance monitoring; the change‑order audit will sample documentation, board approval thresholds and budget reflection to assess cost‑overrun and timeline risks.
Board members responded with routine clarifying questions and asked staff and auditors to add the identified policy item to the board’s upcoming policy review this summer. No formal motions or votes were taken during the work session on these audit recommendations.
Next steps: auditors said management is already working with legal on policy language and that the FY28 audit plan will return to the board next year. The board also asked staff to provide any requested supporting materials to make follow‑up work more efficient.
