David Kircher
Dear editor:
The following is a letter sent to the chair of the Rainy River District School Board on Nov. 21 questioning the board’s response to my presentation back on Nov. 4.
To date, this letter has not been acknowledged or responded to.
This, my second communication regarding your response to my presentation, will focus on your answer to my second question: “What procedures were in place from March, 2004 to October, 2007 for management to oversee and ensure that the policies for the administrators of school-generated funds were consistently applied?”
You asked me to peruse procedure #8.25–student funds. I failed to see anything in this document pertaining to “internal reviews of school funds were completed annually on a rotational basis and done in co-ordination with board external audit reviews of schools.”
The document, in fact, refers to financial statements to be prepared on a quarterly basis; that year-end financial statements (June 30) are to be prepared; that the books and records must be audited each year by an appointed audit committee; and that a copy of the audited financial statement is to be sent to the superintendent of business at the education centre.
I also noted that the last time procedure #8.25 was reviewed was on April 4, 2000. As I am sure the board is aware, the Ministry of Education required school-generated funds to be included in the financial statements commencing in the 2004-05 fiscal year of the board.
As a result of my perusal of #8.25, I have the following questions:
1. The auditor’s report for year ending Aug. 31, 2004 clearly states that the board’s management had not quantified the balances and activities of the school-generated funds for that year.
Again, the auditor’s report for year ending Aug. 31, 2005 clearly indicates that adequate documentation and controls were not in place throughout the year to allow the auditors to obtain satisfactory audit verification as to the completeness of these revenues.
My question is, given the new directive by the Ministry of Education, the auditor’s comments together with the appointment of a new CEO for the board on Sept. 1, 2005, would it not have been expected that all policies would have been reviewed either by committee or by the director of education’s administrative assistants to adequately prepare and inform the CEO of the current status of the organization he/she was taking charge of?
Would not a new CEO require that, as well?
2. Guideline 1.3 of this procedure indicates there must be two signing officers, with each cheque requiring both signatures. For convenience purposes, the guideline allows for three signing officers with any two of the three appointed being required to sign.
In particular, Fort Frances High School has a principal and several vice-principals.
It appears that it was regular practice at Fort Frances High School to have signature stamps made and preauthorized cheques. Why was that necessary in light of guideline 1.3?
3. Procedure #8.25 seems to me to be, at best, not clear in light of the ministry’s directive of 2004-05. What position would the “treasurer” have in relationship to the school fund accounts now?
I am asking these questions also in light of the fact that the board just adopted at least six new finance policies on Jan. 8, 2008.
I will look forward to your response.
Thank you,
David Kircher,
Fort Frances, Ont.
Broker of Record,
Tichbornes
Real Estate Ltd.
