Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auditors report clean opinion for Corona Municipal Schools but flag material adjustments and repeated compliance findings
Summary
Audit manager Joe Ortiz told the board the district received an unmodified (clean) financial-statement opinion but auditors recorded a $4,504 restatement and a $97,000 accrual adjustment and classified the issues as material weaknesses; state audit-rule compliance findings include several overexpenditures and a $465,000 wind-farm deficit.
Auditors told the Corona Municipal Schools board that the district’s financial statements received an unmodified opinion but included material adjustments and compliance findings.
“My name is Joe Ortiz. I was the audit manager on your guys’ audit this year for fiscal year 24,” said Joe Ortiz (S3), who led the presentation. He told the board the audit team issues two types of reports: the standard auditor’s report on the financial statements and a supplemental Yellow Book report required by state audit rules covering internal controls, compliance and other matters.
Ortiz said the audit required restating $4,504 of revenues that should have been reported in the prior year and accruing about $97,000 of accounts payable that were recorded in the wrong period, adjustments the auditors treated as cutting-period/accounting errors rather than indications of fraud. “These aren’t indicative of fraud,” Ortiz said, calling them cutoff and basis-conversion issues that commonly arise when entities move from cash to accrual reporting.
The audit team also reported state-level compliance findings the district must disclose under the state auditor’s rules. Ortiz said several functions had expenditures exceeding legal budget authority (reportable under state compliance rules even when dollar amounts are immaterial by audit standards) and that a wind-farm project showed a budgeted deficit of approximately $465,000.
Board members asked about distribution of the audit and whether they had received drafts. Ortiz explained the process with the Office of the State Auditor: an exit conference, OSA review and a formal release letter; once OSA issues a release the audit becomes public. He offered to provide printed or electronic copies for the board and said the firm had typically coordinated the exit conference attendance to avoid quorum problems.
Ortiz also reviewed auditor procedures on independence and fraud-related inquiries: auditors send related-party and fraud inquiries to a sample of board members and management as part of their procedures, he said. He emphasized auditors provide reasonable — not absolute — assurance and that the audit included sampling rather than 100% testing of transactions.
The audit presentation concluded with an offer by the auditor to help coordinate a smooth transition to a successor auditor, since the firm had reached its statutory limit of years on the engagement.
What happens next: the board requested copies of the final audit once OSA’s release letter is issued and discussed follow-up steps for addressing the accounting cutoff issues and the repeated overexpenditure findings.
