INTRODUCTION
In order for school boards and their employees to protect, maximize
and monitor school resources with due diligence, it is essential that
all school operations and practices be reviewed and analyzed
independently and constantly. The most effective way to begin and
maintain such a process is to form a community-based Forensic Auditing
Committee (FAC). One of its primary tasks would be to ask critical
questions of the school board. The reason for asking the questions is to
determine quickly and easily whether board policies and school
practices are protecting and maximizing school resources effectively,
efficiently, and ethically and that they are free from the ravishes of
potential or actual corruption.
Fortunately, a trend toward the establishment of groups akin to
forensic auditing committees (FACs) seems to be gaining momentum. School
officials in Mesa, Arizona, have proposed creating a public
school audit committee that would “independently review the district’s
books.” Unlike audit committees formed by neighboring school districts,
“Mesa’s committee would be composed entirely of community volunteers
with expertise in accounting and education.” (Arizona Republic August 6,
2006) Also, the Arizona Tucson Unified School District’s governing
board is seeking people to join an audit committee to strengthen the
school district’s internal financial controls. (Arizona Daily Star,
August 3, 2007)
The reality is that some degree of corruption is likely to be found
in most school districts. However, it takes critical questioning and
diligent forensic review and analysis to determine whether corrupt acts
have taken place, are taking place, or could be committed with relative
ease. In this regard, it is vital to understand what is meant by the
term “corruption”:
“breach of trust, bribery, crime, crookedness, deceit, deception, dishonesty, exploitation, evil, extortion, fraud, graft, malfeasance, nepotism, payoff, profiteering, tainted, unethical, untrustworthy and unscrupulousness”
Typically, boards will be defensive and deny that corruption is a
malignant and institutionalized problem and will provide a reason that
should never be accepted:
school accounts are audited regularly so there is no reason to be concerned about or suspect any wrongdoing. Although it appears to be a very credible answer, it does not withstand verification because
routine school audits are not designed to uncover the three categories of corruption: cheating and deceit, waste and mismanagement, or even fraud and stealing.
If the audit were conducted with generally accepted auditing
standards (GAAS) — and therefore incorporated Standard #99
(Consideration of Fraud in Financial Statement Audits) — it still would
not identify waste and mismanagement issues or cheating and deceitful
practices.
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/policy-briefs/ending-corruption-and-waste-in-your-public-school/