Condition The School Board did not verify that vendors were not suspended, debarred or otherwise excluded from federal programs before conducting business with them. Criteria Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to verify that vendors are not suspended, debarred or otherwise excluded from doing business with the federal government prior to awarding contracts or making purchases. Cause The School Board lacked internal controls and formal policies and procedures to ensure vendor verification was performed before engaging in business transactions. Effect Failure to verify vendors’ eligibility could result in noncompliance with federal regulations and potential risk to federal funding. Context A sample of fifteen vendors were selected for audit testing. The test found that three of the vendors tested had not been verified by the School Board prior to the School Board doing business with them. Our sample was a non-statistical sample. Recommendation The School Board should implement and enforce policies and procedures to ensure that all vendors are verified for eligibility before engaging in business transactions. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action The Lafayette Parish School Board has a defined process in place to ensure debarment verifications are being performed. As new vendors are setup, a debarment verification is performed when federal funds are to be associated with a vendor. In addition, many vendors are utilized year after year, which is after an initial debarment verification is performed. In this case, debarment verifications for three vendors could not be found, and despite key personnel turnover, staff will ensure that debarment verifications are being performed and stored digitally.
Condition The School Board was unable to provide sufficient documentation for certain grant-funded asset disposals. Four of the assets tested during the audit were missing, and no supporting disposal documentation could be provided. Criteria Federal regulations require that asset dispositions be reported to the grantor when the fair market value at the time of disposal is $5,000 or more, to determine if a portion of the value or proceeds must be reimbursed to the grantor. Additionally, asset disposals must comply with state law and be properly reflected in the property records. Cause The School Board’s internal control policies and procedures were not operating effectively to ensure that all assets were properly safeguarded and/or disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements. Effect Failure to properly document and account for asset disposals increases the risk of misuse or misappropriation of assets and noncompliance with federal and state regulations. Context A sample of eight disposals were selected for audit from a population of eight disposals. The test found that four of the disposals tested did not have supporting documentation. Our sample was a non-statistical sample. Recommendation The School Board should strengthen and enforce policies and procedures to ensure that all grant-funded and other assets are properly accounted for and disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action During the recent audit, several assets were randomly selected for review by the auditors. Four of the assets selected were supposed to have been removed from the capital asset listing, but were not removed because the required documentation was not remitted to the Accounting Department. Going forward, accounting staff will visit all schools to conduct a capital asset audit to ensure the capital asset listing is accurate and to provide additional training to school based staff.
Condition The School Board was unable to provide sufficient documentation for certain grant-funded asset disposals. Four of the assets tested during the audit were missing, and no supporting disposal documentation could be provided. Criteria Federal regulations require that asset dispositions be reported to the grantor when the fair market value at the time of disposal is $5,000 or more, to determine if a portion of the value or proceeds must be reimbursed to the grantor. Additionally, asset disposals must comply with state law and be properly reflected in the property records. Cause The School Board’s internal control policies and procedures were not operating effectively to ensure that all assets were properly safeguarded and/or disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements. Effect Failure to properly document and account for asset disposals increases the risk of misuse or misappropriation of assets and noncompliance with federal and state regulations. Context A non-statistical sample of two disposals from a population of two was tested. Both disposals lacked supporting documentation for the disposal process. Recommendation The School Board should strengthen and enforce policies and procedures to ensure that all grant-funded and other assets are properly accounted for and disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action During the recent audit, several assets were randomly selected for review by the auditors. Four of the assets selected were supposed to have been removed from the capital asset listing, but were not removed because the required documentation was not remitted to the Accounting Department. Going forward, accounting staff will visit all schools to conduct a capital asset audit to ensure the capital asset listing is accurate and to provide additional training to school based staff.
Condition During our audit of the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, we encountered circumstances that imposed pervasive limitations on the scope of our audit. Specifically: • We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures. • Accounting records and supporting documentation necessary to perform audit procedures were incomplete, unavailable, or unreliable. • Management representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations. • These conditions, combined with the risk that management could override internal controls, further limited our ability to obtain evidence that financial reporting was complete and accurate. In addition, these same conditions prevented us from performing required audit procedures over the School Board’s federal programs, including testing of internal control over compliance and compliance with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of federal awards. As a result, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Criteria Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.303 and §200.514) requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal programs and to provide auditors with access to records and personnel necessary to perform a Single Audit. Uniform Guidance §200.516 requires auditors to report material weaknesses and noncompliance when identified. Cause The conditions described above resulted from inadequate recordkeeping and documentation practices, deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, and management actions and behaviors that restricted the auditor’s ability to obtain reliable audit evidence and representations. These conditions directly impaired the auditor’s ability to perform planned audit procedures and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence. These conditions affected both financial reporting and compliance with federal program requirements. Effect Because of these pervasive limitations and the risk of management override, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. The potential effects on the financial statements are both material and pervasive, and therefore we issued a disclaimer of opinion on the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025. For the same reasons, we were also unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each of the School Board’s major federal programs and on internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we disclaimed an opinion on compliance for each major federal program under the Single Audit. Context Questioned costs could not be determined due to the disclaimer of opinion. Recommendation We recommend that the School Board take immediate action to strengthen its internal control environment. Specifically, management should: • Ensure that all accounting records and supporting documentation are complete, accurate, and readily available. • Enforce oversight of financial reporting and internal control procedures. • Promote transparency, accountability, and cooperation with auditors to facilitate future audits. • Implement measures to mitigate the risk of management override, including additional supervisory review, approval requirements, and segregation of duties. • Ensure compliance documentation for federal programs is complete, accurate, and available for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action A. OBJECTION On December 29, 2025, following LPSB’s submission of its Response to the Draft Findings of Kolder, Slaven, and Company, LLC (“KS&C”) relating to its 2024-2025 Annual Audit, LPSB received two additional findings characterized as Disclaimers of Opinion. The issuance of these post-response Disclaimers of Opinion regarding the findings highlights KS&C’s apparent lack of objectivity and its failure to adhere to generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting the 24-25 audit. A Disclaimer of Opinion “is expressed when the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive.”1 According to LLA, “a local auditee that provides for an audit report with a disclaimer of opinion” is regarded as being in noncompliance with its reporting requirements to LLA under the audit law (Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513). LLA further expects the CPA to include in such a report a finding that provides a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion.2 The two supplemental responses provided are, however, substantially lacking the “full explanation” mandated by the Legislative Auditors for the serious allegations being presented by KS&C. As with its other findings, these recent findings fail to cite any specific conditions present during the audit period that would have precluded KS&C from forming a conclusion. Therefore, as with the original findings, LPSB, on January 6, 2026, again requested that KS&C provide supporting evidence for its claim that it was unable to obtain “evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures.” KS&C responded by stating that these new findings were based on Finding 16 - Invoices Paid Without Sufficient Supporting Detail (IC & C), Finding 26 - Management Override of Established Internal Controls (IC), Finding 31 - Unsupported Experience-Based Pay Increases (IC), and other undisclosed matters. Notably, none of these specific findings are instances where KS&C was prevented from forming a conclusion. To the contrary, the original findings identified by KS&C reflect otherwise. For instance, in Finding 16, KS&C notes it “tested 539 and identified 213 in which invoices were paid without sufficient documentation.” Despite KS&C’s assertions, LPSB has at no point failed to provide information to KS&C upon request (see Corrective Action sections below). In fact, KS&C issued 33 Findings, each purportedly substantiated by documentation. As stated in LPSB’s Response, a request was made by LPSB for KS&C to produce the referenced specific supporting documentation. However, KS&C declined to provide the documentation. Auditing standards stipulate: “Auditors should document supervisory review, before the report release date, of the evidence that supports the findings and conclusions contained in the audit report.”3 They further require: “Auditors should document any departures from the GAGAS requirements and the effect on the audit and on the auditors’ conclusions when the audit is not in compliance with applicable GAGAS requirements because of law, regulation, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, or other issues affecting the audit.”4 Despite LPSB, in its Response and communications prior thereto pointing out erroneous references to the law and facts, KS&C refused to modify its findings. Instead, it introduced these two ambiguous Disclaimers of Opinion, alleging that LPSB failed to provide necessary information for KS&C to reach a conclusion. However, a cursory review of its original findings clearly reflect that KS&C did reach conclusions, which they assert were based upon conditions found during their investigation. Which is it? Are KS&C’s findings supported or not? KS&C’s ex post Disclaimers of Opinion not only misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation and full disclosure of information, but they are also predicated upon the unfounded assertion that LPSB’s “representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations.” After 33 years of engagement with LPSB audits, KS&C has now made the unwarranted claim that LPSB’s representations are unreliable, without pointing to a specific instance of unreliability. Ironically, it is the auditor’s own representations that are demonstrated to be unreliable, as evidenced by the submission of these two vague and contradictory Disclaimers of Opinion. “[A] CPA cannot enter into the engagement with a pre-conceived notion that the local auditee is doing everything wrong. Going into an engagement with [this] attitude impairs the independence of the CPA firm.” The two findings, submitted after LPSB responded to its original findings, do not meet the standards set forth in the Louisiana Governmental Audit Guide. They contradict the original findings, misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation throughout the audit, insert slanderous statements as to the reliability of LPSB’s representations, and fail to provide a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion. KS&C should remove these findings from its report. 1 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 2 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 3 GAO-24, Sections 6.31 (emphasis added) 4 GAO-24, Sections 6.32 B. CORRECTIVE ACTION Prior to the financial audit, Lafayette Parish School Board (LPSB) staff prepared reports and documentation for at least 185 requests that were made by the external auditors. These requests consisted of, but were not limited to, all General Ledger data and information on all Major and Non Major Funds (i.e. General Fund, Construction Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Special Revenue funds), worksheets, personnel records, copies of checks, copies of invoices, grant reimbursement requests, expenditure detail reports, capital asset data and reports, accounts payable data and reports, the type of computer equipment used (including the software and operating systems), construction related documents, copies of contracts, insurance invoices, schedules of judgments and agreements, check registers, calendars, securities pledged, accounts payable details, financial statements, schedule of construction contracts, retirement reports, listing of new hires, purchase orders, check requests, financial reconciliations, sales tax reports and documents, other insurance related documents, insurance policies, monitoring reports, AFR report, arbitrage documentation, copies of deposits receipts, copies of budgets, outstanding checks, revenue reports, expenditure reports, and balance sheet reports. Under the Department of Education agreed upon procedures audit, LPSB staff provided Class size data, PEP data and a user guide. Under the Statewide Agreed Upon procedure, LPSB staff provided proof of required trainings such as ethics, bond insurance policies, list of all bank accounts, a listing of employees, officials employed during the year, and a list of deposit and collection sites. Other requests from our external auditors may come via email throughout the audit process and responses are provided likewise. All of the items listed above, and other items that were not listed above, are routinely provided each year. For several decades this has been the standard and nothing has changed in terms of provided supporting documentation within this particular audit. Internal controls have been in place for many decades. The external auditors have been reviewing, studying and auditing our internal controls for three decades. Over the years, LPSB internal controls have been adjusted, strengthened or heighten to prevent operational deficiencies, fraud and/or non-compliance of which the auditors have contributed to its advancement. Substantially, there has been no change to internal controls as they are in place for a reason. Systematically, internal controls are planted and executed in various areas and departments for various functions and/or lawful requirements. The biggest threats to any organization are misappropriation or improper disbursement of funds. Neither have occurred, because internal controls such as the utilization of electronic requisitions and check request processes were in place to ensure goods and services were precured properly and vendor payments were substantiated. LPSB stands by its management representations that have been provided to the auditors. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In addition to supporting documentation, the external auditors had complete access to our financial software to ascertain the completeness and accuracy of our financial records. Auditor’s Response The School Board’s response to this finding contains statements and characterizations that are inconsistent with the audit evidence obtained and the procedures performed. The auditor stands by the condition, criteria, cause, and effect as presented in the finding, which are based on documentation, observations, interviews, and other information available during the audit. Management’s response has not resulted in any change to the finding or the auditor’s conclusions.
Condition The School Board did not submit its reporting package to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the required timeframe. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.512, auditees are required to submit the reporting package to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse the earlier of 30 calendar days after receipt of the auditor’s reports or nine months after the end of the audit period. Cause The reporting package was not submitted within the required timeframe due to delays in completion of the audit, which were impacted by the timing and availability of financial information and supporting documentation, including delays in receipt of necessary information and supporting documentation required to complete audit procedures. Effect The School Board was not in compliance with federal reporting requirements and submission of the reporting package was delayed beyond the required deadline. Recommendation Management should strengthen its financial reporting and year-end closing processes to ensure that all necessary information is prepared and available in a timely manner to facilitate completion of the audit within required reporting deadlines. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action Management will continue to submit documentation, data and other information in a timely manner. Obtaining the additional legal information requested by our external auditors through the confirmation process was delayed due to certain attorneys not being present in the office due to vacationing and/or handling other court cases. Although these things are not within the control of the Lafayette Parish School Board, management will be proactive in coordinating efforts between both parties; auditors and attorneys.
Condition During our audit of the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025, we encountered circumstances that imposed pervasive limitations on the scope of our audit. Specifically: • We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures. • Accounting records and supporting documentation necessary to perform audit procedures were incomplete, unavailable, or unreliable. • Management representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations. • These conditions, combined with the risk that management could override internal controls, further limited our ability to obtain evidence that financial reporting was complete and accurate. In addition, these same conditions prevented us from performing required audit procedures over the School Board’s federal programs, including testing of internal control over compliance and compliance with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of federal awards. As a result, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Criteria Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.303 and §200.514) requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal programs and to provide auditors with access to records and personnel necessary to perform a Single Audit. Uniform Guidance §200.516 requires auditors to report material weaknesses and noncompliance when identified. Cause The conditions described above resulted from inadequate recordkeeping and documentation practices, deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, and management actions and behaviors that restricted the auditor’s ability to obtain reliable audit evidence and representations. These conditions directly impaired the auditor’s ability to perform planned audit procedures and obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence. These conditions affected both financial reporting and compliance with federal program requirements. Effect Because of these pervasive limitations and the risk of management override, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. The potential effects on the financial statements are both material and pervasive, and therefore we issued a disclaimer of opinion on the School Board’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2025. For the same reasons, we were also unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support an opinion on compliance for each of the School Board’s major federal programs and on internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we disclaimed an opinion on compliance for each major federal program under the Single Audit. Context Questioned costs could not be determined due to the disclaimer of opinion. Recommendation We recommend that the School Board take immediate action to strengthen its internal control environment. Specifically, management should: • Ensure that all accounting records and supporting documentation are complete, accurate, and readily available. • Enforce oversight of financial reporting and internal control procedures. • Promote transparency, accountability, and cooperation with auditors to facilitate future audits. • Implement measures to mitigate the risk of management override, including additional supervisory review, approval requirements, and segregation of duties. • Ensure compliance documentation for federal programs is complete, accurate, and available for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action A. OBJECTION On December 29, 2025, following LPSB’s submission of its Response to the Draft Findings of Kolder, Slaven, and Company, LLC (“KS&C”) relating to its 2024-2025 Annual Audit, LPSB received two additional findings characterized as Disclaimers of Opinion. The issuance of these post-response Disclaimers of Opinion regarding the findings highlights KS&C’s apparent lack of objectivity and its failure to adhere to generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting the 24-25 audit. A Disclaimer of Opinion “is expressed when the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive.”1 According to LLA, “a local auditee that provides for an audit report with a disclaimer of opinion” is regarded as being in noncompliance with its reporting requirements to LLA under the audit law (Louisiana Revised Statute 24:513). LLA further expects the CPA to include in such a report a finding that provides a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion.2 The two supplemental responses provided are, however, substantially lacking the “full explanation” mandated by the Legislative Auditors for the serious allegations being presented by KS&C. As with its other findings, these recent findings fail to cite any specific conditions present during the audit period that would have precluded KS&C from forming a conclusion. Therefore, as with the original findings, LPSB, on January 6, 2026, again requested that KS&C provide supporting evidence for its claim that it was unable to obtain “evidence regarding significant financial statement balances, transactions, and disclosures.” KS&C responded by stating that these new findings were based on Finding 16 - Invoices Paid Without Sufficient Supporting Detail (IC & C), Finding 26 - Management Override of Established Internal Controls (IC), Finding 31 - Unsupported Experience-Based Pay Increases (IC), and other undisclosed matters. Notably, none of these specific findings are instances where KS&C was prevented from forming a conclusion. To the contrary, the original findings identified by KS&C reflect otherwise. For instance, in Finding 16, KS&C notes it “tested 539 and identified 213 in which invoices were paid without sufficient documentation.” Despite KS&C’s assertions, LPSB has at no point failed to provide information to KS&C upon request (see Corrective Action sections below). In fact, KS&C issued 33 Findings, each purportedly substantiated by documentation. As stated in LPSB’s Response, a request was made by LPSB for KS&C to produce the referenced specific supporting documentation. However, KS&C declined to provide the documentation. Auditing standards stipulate: “Auditors should document supervisory review, before the report release date, of the evidence that supports the findings and conclusions contained in the audit report.”3 They further require: “Auditors should document any departures from the GAGAS requirements and the effect on the audit and on the auditors’ conclusions when the audit is not in compliance with applicable GAGAS requirements because of law, regulation, scope limitations, restrictions on access to records, or other issues affecting the audit.”4 Despite LPSB, in its Response and communications prior thereto pointing out erroneous references to the law and facts, KS&C refused to modify its findings. Instead, it introduced these two ambiguous Disclaimers of Opinion, alleging that LPSB failed to provide necessary information for KS&C to reach a conclusion. However, a cursory review of its original findings clearly reflect that KS&C did reach conclusions, which they assert were based upon conditions found during their investigation. Which is it? Are KS&C’s findings supported or not? KS&C’s ex post Disclaimers of Opinion not only misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation and full disclosure of information, but they are also predicated upon the unfounded assertion that LPSB’s “representations, including written representations required under auditing standards, could not be relied upon due to concerns regarding the reliability of management representations.” After 33 years of engagement with LPSB audits, KS&C has now made the unwarranted claim that LPSB’s representations are unreliable, without pointing to a specific instance of unreliability. Ironically, it is the auditor’s own representations that are demonstrated to be unreliable, as evidenced by the submission of these two vague and contradictory Disclaimers of Opinion. “[A] CPA cannot enter into the engagement with a pre-conceived notion that the local auditee is doing everything wrong. Going into an engagement with [this] attitude impairs the independence of the CPA firm.” The two findings, submitted after LPSB responded to its original findings, do not meet the standards set forth in the Louisiana Governmental Audit Guide. They contradict the original findings, misrepresent LPSB’s cooperation throughout the audit, insert slanderous statements as to the reliability of LPSB’s representations, and fail to provide a full explanation for the disclaimer of opinion. KS&C should remove these findings from its report. 1 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 2 LGAG 400-1160, Types of Auditor’s Opinions 3 GAO-24, Sections 6.31 (emphasis added) 4 GAO-24, Sections 6.32 B. CORRECTIVE ACTION Prior to the financial audit, Lafayette Parish School Board (LPSB) staff prepared reports and documentation for at least 185 requests that were made by the external auditors. These requests consisted of, but were not limited to, all General Ledger data and information on all Major and Non Major Funds (i.e. General Fund, Construction Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Special Revenue funds), worksheets, personnel records, copies of checks, copies of invoices, grant reimbursement requests, expenditure detail reports, capital asset data and reports, accounts payable data and reports, the type of computer equipment used (including the software and operating systems), construction related documents, copies of contracts, insurance invoices, schedules of judgments and agreements, check registers, calendars, securities pledged, accounts payable details, financial statements, schedule of construction contracts, retirement reports, listing of new hires, purchase orders, check requests, financial reconciliations, sales tax reports and documents, other insurance related documents, insurance policies, monitoring reports, AFR report, arbitrage documentation, copies of deposits receipts, copies of budgets, outstanding checks, revenue reports, expenditure reports, and balance sheet reports. Under the Department of Education agreed upon procedures audit, LPSB staff provided Class size data, PEP data and a user guide. Under the Statewide Agreed Upon procedure, LPSB staff provided proof of required trainings such as ethics, bond insurance policies, list of all bank accounts, a listing of employees, officials employed during the year, and a list of deposit and collection sites. Other requests from our external auditors may come via email throughout the audit process and responses are provided likewise. All of the items listed above, and other items that were not listed above, are routinely provided each year. For several decades this has been the standard and nothing has changed in terms of provided supporting documentation within this particular audit. Internal controls have been in place for many decades. The external auditors have been reviewing, studying and auditing our internal controls for three decades. Over the years, LPSB internal controls have been adjusted, strengthened or heighten to prevent operational deficiencies, fraud and/or non-compliance of which the auditors have contributed to its advancement. Substantially, there has been no change to internal controls as they are in place for a reason. Systematically, internal controls are planted and executed in various areas and departments for various functions and/or lawful requirements. The biggest threats to any organization are misappropriation or improper disbursement of funds. Neither have occurred, because internal controls such as the utilization of electronic requisitions and check request processes were in place to ensure goods and services were precured properly and vendor payments were substantiated. LPSB stands by its management representations that have been provided to the auditors. We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. In addition to supporting documentation, the external auditors had complete access to our financial software to ascertain the completeness and accuracy of our financial records. Auditor’s Response The School Board’s response to this finding contains statements and characterizations that are inconsistent with the audit evidence obtained and the procedures performed. The auditor stands by the condition, criteria, cause, and effect as presented in the finding, which are based on documentation, observations, interviews, and other information available during the audit. Management’s response has not resulted in any change to the finding or the auditor’s conclusions.
Condition The School Board was unable to provide sufficient documentation for certain grant-funded asset disposals. Four of the assets tested during the audit were missing, and no supporting disposal documentation could be provided. Criteria Federal regulations require that asset dispositions be reported to the grantor when the fair market value at the time of disposal is $5,000 or more, to determine if a portion of the value or proceeds must be reimbursed to the grantor. Additionally, asset disposals must comply with state law and be properly reflected in the property records. Cause The School Board’s internal control policies and procedures were not operating effectively to ensure that all assets were properly safeguarded and/or disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements. Effect Failure to properly document and account for asset disposals increases the risk of misuse or misappropriation of assets and noncompliance with federal and state regulations. Context A non-statistical sample of two disposals from a population of two was tested. Both disposals lacked supporting documentation for the disposal process. Recommendation The School Board should strengthen and enforce policies and procedures to ensure that all grant-funded and other assets are properly accounted for and disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action During the recent audit, several assets were randomly selected for review by the auditors. Four of the assets selected were supposed to have been removed from the capital asset listing, but were not removed because the required documentation was not remitted to the Accounting Department. Going forward, accounting staff will visit all schools to conduct a capital asset audit to ensure the capital asset listing is accurate and to provide additional training to school based staff.