Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Representatives from auditing firm Cherry Bekaert joined the School Board during the June 12 work session to provide additional details about what a possible forensic audit of Suffolk Public Schools funds would look like. This virtual meeting cost the Board $2,500.

“Our goal was to determine are we looking more at an advisory internal control review, or are we looking more at the forensic and counting investigation,” said Board Chair Heather Howell.  

This presentation comes after a 5-2 vote during the May 8 School Board meeting to invite Cherry Bekaert back, for a second time, to help the Board decide if they want to conduct a forensic audit of Suffolk Public School’s funds.

The topic of a forensic audit has been brought up for many years by some Suffolk citizens, but has been seriously considered by some Board members since the beginning of the year.

Some Board members are adamantly against moving forward with a forensic investigation, calling it a “witch hunt” and unnecessarily spending extra money.

Board member Tyron Riddick said his main concern is that the Board is “moving away from the main thing.” 

“I feel that if we focus on putting in controls and making sure that everything is in the best opportunity moving forward, and then we come back later on and do an audit from this point going forward, that will be fruitful,” he said. “But to participate in our version of the Salem Witch Trials is something that I will not support.”

Riddick said a forensic audit would be a “waste of taxpayers resources” and a “gross misuse of public dollars” to investigate what “at most, 25 people of 100,000 citizens” say they want.

Vice Chair Sean McGee has been advocating for a forensic investigation since he joined the Board in January, consistently stating this was one of the main topics during his campaign.

“What concerns me is I’ve never seen so much push back from an organization for opening up the books if there’s nothing there,” McGee said in response to Riddick’s comments. “Why are we scared to allow an audit to take place? What are we hiding? What’s the fear? If nothing is wrong, why are we scared?”

Riddick replied, saying no one has said they’re scared, rather, he is concerned about the amount of money it would cost to satisfy the “wishlist” of a small group of people. 

Board member Dawn Marie Brittingham Ed. D. and McGee stated the want for a forensic audit was expressed by many people while they were campaigning for a seat on the Board.  

According to Cherry Bekaert, an audit is “a process to analyze financial data for accuracy.” It’s conducted internally or by external auditors, ensures financial statements reflect the true financial position, and is commonly used for compliance, investment readiness, and fraud detection.

A forensic accounting investigation is used to “identify and quantify fraud, waste and/or misuse of a corporation or governmental entity’s assets.” It’s conducted by certified fraud examiners or similarly credentialed accounting professionals, consists of analyzing accounting and financial records including financial statements, accounts receivables and payables supporting documents, payroll records, bank records, and interviews of knowledgeable parties. It can result in findings that call for the return of misappropriated assets, termination of bad actors, and improvement in internal controls. 

The following areas for review were sent to Cherry Bekaert as a start for what the scope of work would be for a forensic audit: payroll and human resources integrity, fringe benefits and leave payouts, contractor classification and adjustments, grant fund compliance, procurement and vendor oversight, contract management and deliverables, fixed assets and equipment, departmental spending, purchase card and transactional oversight, fraud detection and conflict of interests, policy and internal controls compliance, and documentation, retention and audit trails.

“This is a long list of a lot of different areas that are all critical to accounting and finance and your organizational processes,” said John Collier, managing director of Cherry Bekaert’s forensic, dispute and advisory services. “But in order to really understand what’s going on, the best thing to do is to do what I call go for the low-hanging fruit. As opposed to trying to look at every single area of your accounting department, looking for those areas where fraud is more likely.”

Collier added that purchase cards are always low-hanging fruit because they are often taken advantage of. He said accounts payable are another way to quickly see if there is any fraud because they can be sorted through and any large, round dollar amounts, or any payments to individuals rather than companies, can be spotted quickly. 

He added that it’s helpful to ask those who are interested in forensic investigations what specifically stands out to them so that those areas can also be pinpointed.      

McGee asked if it’s possible to have clean test audits annually with fraud going undetected, to which Collier said that is “absolutely” possible.

“There may be fraud going on that auditors’ techniques, especially their sampling techniques, are not set up to catch,” Collier said. “And that’s not their fault … it’s just that with fraud it can occur in many different ways at many different levels that are either untested by audits all together, or that are not tested down to the level that the fraud is occurring.”      

 Any time a forensic audit is done, Collier said it often results in a written report outlining any findings, or lack thereof. It will also specify what the scope was and what specific areas were investigated. 

“If we find nothing, it’s the equivalent of going to the doctor and getting a clean bill of health,” said Ken Woodring, director of accounting advisory. “If we think [a forensic investigation] is trivial, we would be upfront with you guys. We’re not here to waste anybody’s time or resources.” 

Brandi Westbrook, senior manager of accounting advisory, said even if nothing is found, there are still some positives that can come from a forensic accounting investigation. 

“There is a lot of value to be gained in just automating or streamlining or understanding and evaluating internal controls and processes,” she said. “Not only from saving money in the future, but less employee turnover, more crosstraining and understanding of these processes, standardizing and documenting processes and automating some parts of those and modernizing some of the processes, as well as just increasing public trust that you’re being a good steward of tax dollars.”   

Board member Karen Jenkins asked if SPS’s 72 purchase cards are normal for a total employee count of around 2,300.

Woodring said it’s hard to tell if that’s normal or not. He said it varies on the organization’s structure and who should have purchasing authority. 

In terms of a timeline, Howell said it would have to be paid for by year end funds next spring or possibly be included in the 2026-2027 budget.

“At this point, I would like to see us move forward and do this forensic audit because at the end of the day, the data that will come from that is only going to make us stronger,” Brittingham said. “It’s only going to help us be a better organization, and our top priority is the kids. If we can’t say conclusively that every penny spent is in the best interest of our students, one, I want to know that, and two, I want to be able to figure out how to reallocate it so we can benefit the students to the best of our ability.”

Board member Valerie Fields expressed disapproval of moving forward with a forensic audit. 

Fields said this topic has put them “in the weeds” and “has nothing to do with [student achievement].” She proposed using any funding that would be directed toward an audit, to instead use it to come up with “innovative” ways to better track spending.