Sunday, June 04, 2006
Lack of Internal Financial Controls Plagues Huntley School District 158
“I just want you to know that people could easily be stealing money from the district,” was the way Huntley School District outside auditor Tim Cole put it Tuesday night.
He was talking about the 2004-2005 school year.
Friday, McHenry County Blog reported that $524,000 was unaccounted for in this school year through the end of March.
Accounting practices have not been changed since the audit year.
“When you are using duplicate check numbers, you can deal a blank check from the bottom of the deck,” Cole added.
Thursday night, Chief Financial Office Stan Hall told the Board’s Finance Committee:
He was talking about the 2004-2005 school year.
Friday, McHenry County Blog reported that $524,000 was unaccounted for in this school year through the end of March.
Accounting practices have not been changed since the audit year.
“When you are using duplicate check numbers, you can deal a blank check from the bottom of the deck,” Cole added.
Thursday night, Chief Financial Office Stan Hall told the Board’s Finance Committee:
There is no need for the Board to take any action.The outside auditor, however, recommended that the Board take action.
Comments:
<< Home
So what should a school board do? Listen to an outside auditor and do something -- or listen to the chief financial officer and do nothing? Its always easier to do nothing, especially when it's the people's money.
Based on my understanding of the circumstances in D158 according to various sources -
I recommend that the board immediately fire the district's latest CFO. (Of course, I'd also recommend that the board majority "fire" itself too.)
The District 158 "Humpty Dumpty" books seem to be too big a challenge for this CFO who is supposedly a former state auditor if my my memory of a news article is accurate.
He and his person couldn't handle the audit/reconstruction and current tasks. The outside audit folks were called in. The June 2005 books are only now sort of "balanced" - far outside the time set by the state.
The current books - nah - they haven't exactly been balanced on a monthly basis either.
The budget? Oh, please - don't get me started.
And say - what about the fact the board authorized about 30 grand to pay the audit outfit - but the CFO didn't exactly tell the board that he was letting them continue and accordingly continue to bill above and beyond the board directive?
So now the audit bill is what? Three times what the board expected?
There's more - but it's not needed here to build a case for the fact that his talents would probably suit another employer........
I recommend that the board immediately fire the district's latest CFO. (Of course, I'd also recommend that the board majority "fire" itself too.)
The District 158 "Humpty Dumpty" books seem to be too big a challenge for this CFO who is supposedly a former state auditor if my my memory of a news article is accurate.
He and his person couldn't handle the audit/reconstruction and current tasks. The outside audit folks were called in. The June 2005 books are only now sort of "balanced" - far outside the time set by the state.
The current books - nah - they haven't exactly been balanced on a monthly basis either.
The budget? Oh, please - don't get me started.
And say - what about the fact the board authorized about 30 grand to pay the audit outfit - but the CFO didn't exactly tell the board that he was letting them continue and accordingly continue to bill above and beyond the board directive?
So now the audit bill is what? Three times what the board expected?
There's more - but it's not needed here to build a case for the fact that his talents would probably suit another employer........
? Unusual but simple observation about certain board members and administrators and directors in D158 -
I really don't think some of them think of "money" as being real.
They toss around numbers far above what many people could ever hope to earn in a lifetime - yet, they're just numbers on a page, numbers in a column/spreadsheet.
Once in awhile there's a squinty concerned look from the board majority and some lip service - but eventually the dance for the reporters disappears.
Scenario: A director makes arrangements for equipment to be made available to the the district - without confirming anything in writing. Without confirming the cost or labor if there is a charge. Then, when it's all installed and the bill starts bouncing off the sky - the board majority is supposedly surprised o find out about it.
("supposedly" because the last two years have had top many "oopses" to be believable as accidents or errors to my way of thinking.)
Anyway,from what I understand - re the equipment deal - not a fax, not a letter, not an email, etc. -nothing in writing.
And instead of the board majority raking him over the coals and asking if he is out of his mind committing the district to the expense - people just look a tiny bit stern and then there's tension breaking laughter and all is forgiven, forgotten except to try and get the supplier to take part of the hit.
In what private business would such a commitment
(in the hundreds of thousands range I believe)
end with the seasoned employee still standing on district soil when the next work day rolled around?
Or maybe someone would think that, by now, there shouldn't be a single question/misunderstanding/billing confusion with regard to winter snow removal for district property.
It's not like the district was built last week. It's not like the board president and another board member are new on the scene - they've been around for over 10 years.
It's not like a contract for this service is going to have something exotic in it after the bid process is taken care of.
Yet, there was an issue, or two or three. Confusion over what an "event" means with regard to billings and hours committed.
In a district that is now in the $50 plus millions, you'd have the right to assume that by now some of the folks running the show would be getting a lot more right instead of wrong.
Aw, heck, maybe the auditor is just "pickin' on 'em"?
NOT!
I really don't think some of them think of "money" as being real.
They toss around numbers far above what many people could ever hope to earn in a lifetime - yet, they're just numbers on a page, numbers in a column/spreadsheet.
Once in awhile there's a squinty concerned look from the board majority and some lip service - but eventually the dance for the reporters disappears.
Scenario: A director makes arrangements for equipment to be made available to the the district - without confirming anything in writing. Without confirming the cost or labor if there is a charge. Then, when it's all installed and the bill starts bouncing off the sky - the board majority is supposedly surprised o find out about it.
("supposedly" because the last two years have had top many "oopses" to be believable as accidents or errors to my way of thinking.)
Anyway,from what I understand - re the equipment deal - not a fax, not a letter, not an email, etc. -nothing in writing.
And instead of the board majority raking him over the coals and asking if he is out of his mind committing the district to the expense - people just look a tiny bit stern and then there's tension breaking laughter and all is forgiven, forgotten except to try and get the supplier to take part of the hit.
In what private business would such a commitment
(in the hundreds of thousands range I believe)
end with the seasoned employee still standing on district soil when the next work day rolled around?
Or maybe someone would think that, by now, there shouldn't be a single question/misunderstanding/billing confusion with regard to winter snow removal for district property.
It's not like the district was built last week. It's not like the board president and another board member are new on the scene - they've been around for over 10 years.
It's not like a contract for this service is going to have something exotic in it after the bid process is taken care of.
Yet, there was an issue, or two or three. Confusion over what an "event" means with regard to billings and hours committed.
In a district that is now in the $50 plus millions, you'd have the right to assume that by now some of the folks running the show would be getting a lot more right instead of wrong.
Aw, heck, maybe the auditor is just "pickin' on 'em"?
NOT!
LOL. Truth is stranger than fiction. No one would ever believe any of this, except for the fact that it's true.
Post a Comment
<< Home
