Focus on the future.

Two Power Point presentations — one by an auditor from Moss Adams and the second by South Whidbey School District administrators — on the district’s finances led school board members and administrators to the same place: It’s time to move forward.

But some residents at the meeting, holding their own highlighted copies of the audit report by the worldwide accounting firm Moss Adams, raised concerns about when and how the district plans to implement the report’s recommendations, whether financial reports will be accurate and who will be held accountable for previous concerns.

During the South Whidbey Board of Education workshop Monday night, Tom Krippaehne, an auditor with Moss Adams, gave an overview of his firm’s final report of the district’s performance audit, which began in September 2003.

Krippaehne told the audience of about 60 people, most of whom were district personnel, that “the scope of the focus tonight is to look forward … I am not going to dwell on the findings of the audit, but look at the recommendations.”

Krippaehne said the question is, “How do we unite in dealing with the situation?”

Following his presentation, district officials responded point-by-point, indicating many of the recommendations are already in place.

The district’s business manager, Ben Thomas, also provided several reports, including one that outlines Moss Adams’ recommendations and the status of the district’s response.

The Moss Adams performance audit reported on four specific areas: the fund balance; budget review; oversight, reporting systems and fiscal environment; and internal controls.

Holding a handful of the district’s reports, board member Greg Gilles said, “There has been a lot of activity by the central office to address these issues.”

Board President Helen Price Johnson said she views the Moss Adams audit as a first step in a continuous process of improving the district’s finances.

“We need to address the issues in a systematic way … by using the tool (audit report) to move forward in our educational community,” Johnson said.

The board plans to address financial issues in future board meetings and workshops.

“We are in an improvement mode, and will highlight specific areas to show progress being made at future meetings,” said Superintendent Martin Laster.

Craig Williams of Clinton said he appreciates the work of Moss Adams, but he wondered aloud how the board will hold the superintendent responsible and how “I as a taxpayer can hold the board responsible.”

Krippaehne said the public has the opportunity to change school board members by voting.

“I would not recommend that the public visit the central office every day, and it would also be a concern if the board micro-managed the staff,” Krippaehne said.

Some of Moss Adams’ recommendations include strengthening financial management and day-to-day accounting practices as well as reconciling general fund balance on a monthly basis.

The report also suggests that school principals become involved earlier in the budget process, and that the central office offer more financial reports, review the district’s financial policies, hire a part-time auditor and provide financial management training for board members and administrators.

Thomas, as the district’s business manager, said he began addressing most of these areas as early as last fall.

“Two areas still in process include addressing payroll procedures and taking a look at our purchase order process,” he said.

Former board president Ray Gabelein said he is concerned because the report did not answer questions about what happened between May and August of 2003. “These questions need to be answered; otherwise there will be a cloud over the administration while these go unanswered,” he said.

Gabelein said he was concerned about the district spending money for training people who work in the central office.

“It will come off the backs of students and teachers. The No. 1 purpose here is to educate children,” he said.

Price Johnson, who succeeded Gabelein as president, said, “We hoped to have all the answers, but we feel the best use of the public dollar is to move forward.”

The audit’s focus on problems concerned Freeland resident Kord Runge-Roosen.

“It is problem-focused report, not necessarily an accurate assessment of how people are doing their job. How many of these issues date back five or six years?” he asked.

Krippaehne said his report goes back one year, to 2002-03.

Curt Gordon, Langley, expressed concern about the future accuracy of financial reporting, and said it shouldn’t have come to this.

“The staff provides the numbers. How can we be assured they are accurate?” he asked.

It was a question of semantics for Jim Simpson when he questioned Krippaehne as to why the South Whidbey audit report referred to “findings” and Seattle’s audit report — also conducted by Moss Adams — called them “observations.”

“Unlike Seattle schools, who are in the red, South Whidbey is in the black. I think of ‘findings’ as a legal term,” Simpson said.

Krippaehne said the word “findings” in a performance audit has no legal connotations.

Following the public comment period, board members spoke.

“I’ve said many times that the board is ultimately responsible. I’ve mentioned we’ve had problems … We need all the answers or there is no guarantee it won’t happen again,” said Jim Adsley.

He recommended that the board sit down with the administration and building principals to deal with these issues. “We haven’t had that meeting yet,” he said.

Putting a positive spin on the evening, board member Rich Parker said, “What is important is that we look at this report as a constructive, forward-looking document. We need to address this in a proactive way.”

Copies of the Moss Adams report, the district’s response and current financial reports are available from the district office.

Moss Adams report and the district’s response are both on the Internet on South Whidbey School District’s Web site, www.sw.wednet.edu.