Mt. Pleasant school board receives good audit report
Mt. Pleasant Area School District received a good audit, according to Sarp & Co. representatives.
However, it wasn't without issue.
Jared Ewing, a partner with Sarp and Company, told the board this week financial records given to them in regard to the cafeteria fund were not initially complete.
“The closing process was not done correctly so we returned the submitted records, and when we got them back the second time, they were still incorrect and we had to ask for them a third time,” he said.
There were also some issues with the documentation regarding the district's construction fund.
Ewing said the bank reconciliations were not done timely and at the end of the year they did not match the bank documentation.
He said things got straightened out when business manager Brent Filak took over.
“He (Filak) has done a wonderful job in the time he's been there,” Ewing said.
The audit did have material weaknesses because of the auditor's need to have all the correct information ahead of time, but the district did get an unmodified opinion, which is the best status for an audit.
The auditors determined that in the end, the financial statements were presented fairly.
Director George Hare said all of the issues were due to ineffective bookkeeping.
Hare added that there was no negligence on the part of the administration or school board.
Filak said the district was able to do a pretty quick closing of the books once he was able to get involved.
“We are certainly not going to let that happen again moving forward,” he said.
Rachel Basinger is a contributing writer.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.