Proponents argued that an internal auditor would provide crucial oversight and insight into the school district’s financial practices, potentially leading to more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. The role was seen as integral to maintaining transparency and preventing fraud within the district. One board member cited Orange County’s internal auditing department as a model for the potential structure and benefits of such a position.

In contrast, other members questioned the cost-effectiveness of hiring an internal auditor. Concerns were raised regarding the scope of the internal auditor’s duties and the overlap with functions currently performed by third-party auditors. The board discussed the different responsibilities between an internal accounts auditor, who manages funds collected at the school level, and a broader internal auditor role. The need for oversight and accountability was acknowledged, but the specifics of the job description and its focus remained points of contention.

The debate on this issue was so significant that it was decided to add the topic to a future agenda for continued discussion and potential action.

In conjunction with the internal auditor discourse, the board engaged in a review of the district’s tentative budget for the upcoming year. Dr. Lea presented on the budget, pointing out the continuous process culminating in September when final calculations from the Department of Education are received. Technical difficulties during the presentation did not hinder the explanation of the millage rates and the need to budget for a conservative 96% of tax revenue, accounting for possible non-payment.

The board dissected the budget, including the general fund, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects. Emphasis was placed on the importance of budget adoption to prevent a reduction in funding. With a detailed breakdown of revenue sources and expenditures, the board addressed the proposed tax increase notice, the impact on staffing and services if funds fell short, and the importance of adhering to accounting standards and requirements.

Concerns were raised regarding an increase in instructional and curricular development expenditures between the unaudited and tentative budgets. The board sought clarification on this point, particularly regarding new adoptions and contracted services. Similarly, increases in school administration costs prompted requests for a detailed breakdown to understand the reasons behind the changes.

Another salient issue was safety and security in schools. The board discussed the installation of a new security system and the introduction of badge access to exterior doors in line with House Bill 1473. The importance of ongoing security projects was underscored, especially considering the sheriff’s office’s new role in managing school security. The allocation of funds, particularly the one-mill levy, was scrutinized for its use and the potential consequences if not passed. The board aimed to ensure sufficient funds for safety measures and staff needs.

Additionally, the meeting covered the review of the district’s debt, including the current loans and the strategy for future bonding. The capital funds’ expenditure was mainly directed toward school construction and remodeling, with a large fund balance owed to incomplete projects. The board also considered the funding allocated to charter schools and the distribution of state funds.

The federal funds, including EST, ESSER, and AR funds, were allocated to literacy, reading tutoring, and summer learning camps, with discussions ensuring compliance with regulatory fund balance requirements and auditing of expenditures. The importance of detailed information pertaining to millage rates was brought forth, with a commitment to provide further details in subsequent meetings.